I start listening when someone introduces their bill saying..."This is going to cost some money, folks"

Instead, "premiums are going down, way more services, everyone will be covered, euphoria, euphoria, euphoria"

They can give mandatory coverage to my balls. Fuck that.

FUCK OFF TAHOE THIS BILL IS THE BEST THING THATS EVER HAPPENED TO THE COUNTRY AND IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT MANY PEOPLE AREN'T AS WEALTHY AND ENTITLED AS YOUR NoCAL ASS THEN YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH THE JACKHAMMER YOU USED TO BUST APART YOUR OLD FOUNDATION WITH. ALL OF YOUR FAGGOTY ASSED RIGHT WING BUTTPLUGS WHINE AND BITCH AND SCREAM ABOUT ALL THE MONEY THIS IS GOING TO COST, BUT SHUT YOUR YAPS WHEN THE COST OF BUSH'S LITTLE WARS ARE CALCULATED.

NO, FINISHING DADDY'S UNFINISHED BUSINESS DIDN'T COST US A FUCKING THING, DID IT????

WE NEED HEALTHCARE REFORM IN THIS COUNTRY. IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR FUCKING EVER, BUT ALL OF YOU GOD DAMN REPUBLICAN ASS PIRATES PRETEND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG. HOW ABOUT YOU LOSE YOUR JOB, OR GO INTO BUSINESS FOR YOURSELF, AND PAY THE FULL COST OF HEALTHCARE. ONLY THEN WILL YOU REALIZE THE SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY FUCKED TO ALL HELL AND REQUIRES GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. BUT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, MR. "I'M FUCKING BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD EXCEPT BUKDOW"?!!! I'M SURE YOUR 100,000 SHARES IN BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY STOCK IS DOING JUST FINE, ISN'T IT, MR. "I'M SO ELITE I'M CREAMING MY OWN UNDIES JUST THINKING ABOUT MYSELF"??!!!

FUCK YOU AND ALL OF YOUR FUCKING FUCKED UP SHIT!!!!!

Sincerely,

Hilary Rodham Clinton.

LOL...could you edit that and put it in red...please!

LOL...could you edit that and put it in red...please!
FUCK THAT SHIT. I'LL MAKE IT ALL LARGE AND BLUE, TO SUGGEST OBAMA'S MOTHERFUCKIN LANDSLIDE MANDATE ELECTION VICTORY

THIS SHITS GONNA BE SO HUGE, IT MIGHT NOT FIT ON YOUR NARROW-VISIONED SCREEN

Blue is nice, but pink to represent you comie pinko's would better. lol

LOOK AT THIS YOU REDNECK ASSHAT. LOOK AT HIS HAIR! IT REPRESENTS NEW ECONOMIC GROWTH.

http://www.moonbattery.com/chia-obama-animated.gif

LOL @ the dems for getting pissed on and now having to say they like it.

Well the polls aren't good for BO and his health care proposal, but BO does have support of all the deadbeats that want working peeps to pay for their health care. So it ain't all bad.

Taking care of a patient today, mid 40's, lost his job and healthcare, has renal disease.....couldn't afford his meds.....disease is now endstage...he'll die sooner rather than later.

Wish I could say this was an uncommon story, seen this daily for the last 9 years that I've worked here. This debate will never be about the patient......ever. It will always be about politics and that's just fucking disgusting.

Thanks for the perspective, jturbo.

Taking care of a patient today, mid 40's, lost his job and healthcare, has renal disease.....couldn't afford his meds.....disease is now endstage...he'll die sooner rather than later.

Wish I could say this was an uncommon story, seen this daily for the last 9 years that I've worked here. This debate will never be about the patient......ever. It will always be about politics and that's just fucking disgusting.

Most of the people turning out to yell in opposition to health care reform are in the same boat as that guy. People who have health coverage yet are still one job change, job loss or arbitrary insurance company decision away from facing medical bankruptcy or even death. I guess death panels are fine as long as they're corporate.

Failure to get a meaningful health care bill through will be a big "You Die!" to a lot of people.

I appreciate JT input too and it is a shame.

And here I go with discussing the politics of it. So I appologize in advance.

But from what I've read and heard, tort reform would be HUGE to this whole debate. It has run up costs incredibly. Add to that all the waste; which if the report I saw yesterday was true we could insure every man woman and child in this country if we could stop a good portion of the abuse.

Finally, I could be wrong but most of you believe BO when he makes his straw man argument..."There are people who want to do nothing" Or "There are no alternatives to my bill" The Repubs have continuous offered up bills and ammendmants to bills. So BO needs to quit the lying, quit the vitriol and come to the table in a bipartisan way.

The Republicans in DC, to their credit, will fight Obama on the Gov't run health care. They better cuz you see constiuents voicing their opinion (opposition) to our wasteful Gov't taking over a huge part of the economy.

They aren't against reform, they are against Gov't run health care...and props to them for that.

But from what I've read and heard, tort reform would be HUGE to this whole debate. It has run up costs incredibly.

Tort reform is a useful goal but deserves perspective. It's a very small percentage of total health care spending and even in an ideal world wouldn't be a game-changer. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0)


Several studies have found that various types of restrictions on malpractice liability can indeed reduce total awards and thereby lead to lower premiums for malpractice insurance. By themselves, however, such changes do not affect economic efficiency: they modify the distribution of gains and losses to individuals and groups but do not create benefits or costs for society as a whole. The evidence for indirect effects on efficiency--through changes in defensive medicine, the availability of medical care, or the extent of malpractice--is at best ambiguous.

There are areas of the country today, including michigan (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jzqoxtifx5rovv55qthirq55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-600-1483&query=on&highligh) where malpractice awards are already capped with little impact on cost. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande)

I think its Texas and Oregon(?) nah, can't be Oregon had good results with pilot programs.

Yeah, they did it in Texas and it didn't pass on money to the end user. I'm all for it if it works, but not just to protect bad docs. A cap is fine though to keep idiotic awards because some dude wears a brace into court.

Didn't pass on money, but it did stop premiums from going up, iirc.

I just read this.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/what_baucus_got_right.php


What Baucus Got Right

Liberal critics of the proposal Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) released this week see it as a dead end in the health care reform debate. But if President Obama actually signs legislation revamping the health care system, it's more likely that the Baucus plan eventually will be seen as the foundation.

The reason is that Baucus' draft bill offers the most fiscally sustainable framework yet devised for expanding coverage. It progresses much further than any other Congressional bill toward solving two fundamental and inter-related problems: creating a revenue stream that rises as fast as health care costs, and reshaping the incentives in the medical system in ways that should help "bend the curve" on those long-term cost increases. Without those two elements any coverage expansion will prove unaffordable, and thus unsustainable, over time. "Whatever its other pros and cons," said one senior Obama administration official integral to the health care debate, "the [Baucus] mark provides proof of concept that you can significantly expand coverage in a fiscally responsible way."

On many fronts, it's likely that the final bill will be tilted more toward Democratic priorities and preferences because Baucus crafted his plan partially to attract bipartisan backing and it now appears that if any bill passes, it will do so without support from many, and perhaps any, Republicans. Most glaringly, Baucus devotes too little money to help uninsured middle-class families buy the health insurance they would be required to obtain under the individual mandates included in all major bills. He also asks too little of larger employers who don't provide insurance for their workers.

But those inevitable adjustments should not obscure Baucus' achievement in creating what could be a fiscally durable framework for expanding coverage while simultaneously reforming the medical system. The bill represents by far the most serious effort to implement the innovative thinking from the community of health care reformers looking to move the medical system away from today's fee-for-service model toward a system that ties payments to providers to results for patients. It contains about a dozen major ideas-most of them implemented as national programs under Medicare, not merely as pilot projects-to nudge the medical system toward adopting the integrated models used by institutions such as the Cleveland and Mayo clinics and the Geisinger Health System to deliver high quality care at lower cost.

"You are not going to replicate Geisinger everywhere, but you can replicate their functions and that's what this bill is doing," says Kenneth Thorpe, chairman of the health policy department at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health. "They are building many of the same payment and incentive models that you see in these integrated practices that have been very effective."

Mark McClellan, director of the Brookings Institution's Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, and the former Medicare and Medicaid director under President Bush, was similarly impressed. While the Baucus proposal didn't move as boldly as McClellan would prefer on some fronts-like reforming medical liability laws-he said the plan substantially tracked the recommendations of a widely-praised bipartisan report that he recently released outlining strategies to slow long-term spending growth. "It does bend the [cost] curve in the long term," McClellan said. "They clearly are working hard to make fiscally responsible decisions about health care reform."

The senior administration official agreed, giving the plan an overall "a-minus" grade for structural long-term reform. "The big things are all there," said the official. "Maybe the reason it's only an "a-minus" is they are not always there full blown. But it is the legislative process, and along these dimensions, it is about as good as one is going to find in a real proposal."
The Baucus bill incorporates most of the major ideas that reformers have offered to encourage long-term cost-savings in the medical system. Two common themes link these ideas: shifting the reimbursement model away from volume to value, and encouraging physicians to work more closely in teams to manage the overall health of patients, particularly those with expensive chronic conditions. The bill would implement these ideas within Medicare, though advocates hope that if these practices prove effective, private insurers will adopt hem as well.

One set of proposals would reward Medicare providers who deliver care more efficiently and penalize those who don't. Starting in 2013, the bill imposes payment penalties on hospitals who readmit too many patients for preventable reasons after treatment. It imposes more modest penalties on hospitals whose patients acquire the most infections within the hospital itself. Another proposal addresses the concerns popularized by surgeon and New Yorker writer Atul Gawande on the vast divergence between spending on medical services in different communities: that provision would compare the amount all physicians spend on patients with similar conditions, and starting in 2015 cut Medicare reimbursements by five per cent for those who order up the most care. Hospitals would receive similar treatment. Today's law requires hospitals to record whether they meet a list of quality measures, like providing aspirin to heart patients. The Baucus bill, for the first time, would link their reimbursements to their actual performance on those measures.

It's possible to quibble about whether these ideas are implemented fast enough or provide persuasive enough incentives. But their direction universally draws praise from reformers. "I love the signal because it says we are not going to tolerate business as usual," says Len Nichols, director of the health policy program at the centrist New America Foundation. And each of the four ideas discussed above are implemented in the Baucus bill as national programs, not just pilot programs. The bill does use the pilot mechanism for another big reform: it authorizes a voluntary national test on bundling payments that would provide incentives for doctors, hospitals and nurses to coordinate care for a patient admitted to hospitals. The bill would encourage such providers to work together by allowing them to share in any savings they produce.

That pilot points toward a second thrust of the bill's reform agenda: encouraging more coordination among providers. It provides similar incentives (sharing in any savings) to nudge groups of providers to establish doctor-led "accountable care organizations" to more comprehensively manage patients' care under Medicare. More modestly, it funds a $500 million three-year test of "transitional care programs" designed to help hospital reduce readmission rates by providing more coordinated follow-up for patients after they leave the hospital.

Beyond all of these specific ideas, the bill creates two new institutions that could anchor the reform cause for years. Baucus would spend $1 billion a year to create an Innovation Center within the Health and Human Services Department that would fund a wide range of further experiments in coordinated care and payment reform.

The bill creates a second new institution that could be even more important: an independent Medicare Commission, as Obama has proposed. The commission would be required to offer proposals for cost-savings whenever Medicare spending rises too fast and Congress would be required to give their proposals fast-track consideration. The commission would likely become a vehicle to move into law the most promising payment and coordinated care reforms that emerge from the tests and pilot programs that the bill's other provisions set in motion. "If it develops into a respected independent body it could be one of the most significant parts of this legislation," said the senior administration officials. "I think that's the most auspicious path forward for promoting fundamental reform."

One final element in the bill could also put downward pressure on long-term costs: the tax on the most-expensive insurance plans. That proposal achieves, in somewhat diluted form, the goal many reformers hoped to advance by capping the tax exclusion for health insurance provided through employers: encouraging consumers to pick less-expensive plans.

The insurance tax also contributes to another major breakthrough in the Baucus bill. Earlier Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House Democrats' health care legislation noted that while it was largely paid for in the first decade, the longer-term trajectory was much more precarious. In a July 26 letter to Republican Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, CBO concluded that in its second decade the House bill's costs would rise substantially faster than its revenue and offsetting savings, which meant the bill "would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window."

But CBO reached precisely the opposite verdict about the Baucus bill. In its September 16 analysis of the proposal, CBO concluded that because Baucus' funding streams (like the provision taxing high-end health plans) are tied more directly to medical costs themselves, over the bill's second decade "the added revenues and cost savings are projected to grow more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansion." So much faster that CBO concluded the Baucus bill over its second decade would reduce the federal budget deficit by as much as one half percentage point of GDP-a huge savings. "That's very important, and it is a significant departure from the previous bills," says McClellan.

In other words, CBO concluded that the Baucus bill could move close to universal coverage (reaching 94 per cent of eligible Americans) with a funding stream that not only met the cost of expanding coverage, but also reduced the deficit. And even that conclusion doesn't include meaningful savings from the payment and care coordination reforms the bill embraces because CBO typically doesn't assume much impact from such dynamic proposals. Yet experts like Thorpe believes those systemic reforms would offer large savings over time.

It's true that responding to the most trenchant criticism of the Baucus bill-the inadequacy of its subsidies for uninsured middle-class families compelled to purchase it under the individual mandate-would increase its cost and reduce its fiscal benefit. CBO estimates Baucus would dedicate $463 billion over the next decade to subsidies for uninsured families that would face the mandate; by comparison, the House legislation would dedicate $773 billion toward that purpose over ten years. The final Congressional product, if there is one, almost certainly will spend more on subsidies than Baucus proposed, perhaps by raising more from employers who don't insure their workers. (Baucus asks those employers to chip in just $27 billion over the next decade, compared to $163 billion in the House bill.) Another option might be to revive Obama's proposal of limiting itemized tax breaks for the most affluent: even freezing those deductions at a 35 per cent tax rate when the top rate returns to 39 per cent could raise $100 billion over a decade, the administration has calculated. With such potential offsets-and the potential savings from the other systemic reforms that Baucus has set in motion-it becomes possible to envision a compromise that would provide more help than Baucus offers for uninsured middle-class families without destabilizing the bill's hard-won long-term fiscal balance.

Democrats paid a high price in lost political momentum for the three months this summer Baucus spent negotiating with Republicans. Those long discussions ultimately may not produce any Republican support. But the release of the Baucus bill makes clear that even if no Republican signs on, that time wasn't completely wasted. Despite all the vitriolic complaints from the left -- Howard Dean is becoming living proof that health care reform should offer a universal entitlement to Valium -- Baucus has advanced the historic Democratic cause of providing health security to all Americans by demonstrating that it can be compatible with fiscal responsibility and long-term cost control. Baucus, to say the least, hasn't solved the entire puzzle. Yet if his party is smart enough to recognize it, Baucus' innovative ideas on financing and structural reform could move Democrats substantially closer to a final plan that will not only reach President Obama's desk this year-but achieve lasting acceptance from the American public.
j/k tl;dr also nb;dr

The CBO is already out with their review of it? Snowe just asked for a formal review the day he unveiled it. When was that? Monday or tuesday?

It appears that the CBO comments are on his latest bill, but just making sure.

Didn't pass on money, but it did stop premiums from going up, iirc.


That's what I meant by "end user", but we may be looking at different data.

The CBO is already out with their review of it? Snowe just asked for a formal review the day he unveiled it. When was that? Monday or tuesday?

It appears that the CBO comments are on his latest bill, but just making sure.
The CBO review:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10572/09-16-Proposal_SFC_Chairman.pdf

Report on it
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/09/cbo_leads_baucus_reviews_with.html

It's going to take a while for people to make their way through the details of the Baucus health bill. We've only scratched the surface ourselves. But the most important review--the price tag calculated by the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10572/09-16-Proposal_SFC_Chairman.pdf)--is already in.

Yesterday afternoon the CBO bean counters tallied up the numbers in the Baucus proposal and worked a little arithmetical magic to put the cost at $774 billion over 10 years, 9.6 percent less than the Montana senator's own estimate of $856 billion (http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb091609a.pdf).
Who's right? "CBO is the official scorekeeper for Congress, so what it says pretty much goes," NPR's health-policy guru Julie Rovner notes. Still, the Finance Committee fired off a memo late yesterday, saying both numbers are right, with an explanation of the differences here (http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb091609b.pdf).
Oh, one other thing, the CBO says the Baucus bill would reduce the federal deficit by $49 billion over 10 years, supporting his claim that the plan wouldn't add a dime to the nation's debts. Of course, the proposal is a long way from becoming a law, and the estimates, as the CBO notes, are "subject to substantial uncertainty."
Still, Baucus made good on his goal of bringing in a bill that would cost a lot less than other proposals, though that wasn't enough to garner any support from Republicans at its debut.
A cheaper bill would make the individual insurance mandate for many Americans more costly, though. Remember, Baucus would make people buy coverage, or pay a penalty, if they don't get insurance through their jobs or from the government. Subsidies would be available for some. For whom and in what amounts have a lot to do with how much health overhaul would cost.
As Kaiser Health News' Jordan Rau writes (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/17/Affordability.aspx), House Democrats would subsidize insurance purchases for individuals making up to $43,320 a year and families of four bringing in as much as $88,200 a year. But Baucus's bill would cap subsidy eligibility at $32,490 for individuals and $66,150 for a family of four.

The Baucus plan will not have Republican support (not that BO needs it) because it has the co-op that peeps say will turn into good ol Gov't run health care. Not sure about though.

The message of course being that republicans aren't serious about governing.

A: I still don't get where you come up with gov run health care. They are just going to provide an option for people who want it.

B: Health insurance is stupid anyway. They are just middle-men taking an unnecessary cut off the top. There are better ways the money could make its way to the doctors.

What is your solution Tahoe? All you do is bitch about 'govt run health care' even though that's not even accurate. Do you really want things to just stay the same?

B: Health insurance is stupid anyway. They are just middle-men taking an unnecessary cut off the top. There are better ways the money could make its way to the doctors.


The alternative, fee-for-service, where people paid directly the same as they do for lawyers or any other professional service used to be the norm. That worked pretty well, back in the day when sulfur and iodine were state of the art pharmaceuticals and the most complex instrument at the hospital was a stethoscope.

Even if every penny of waste, fraud and abuse were wrung out of the system, major medical events would still cost as much as a house or a car--which by coincidence also happen to be things we carry insurance on in case the unexpected happens.

A: I still don't get where you come up with gov run health care. They are just going to provide an option for people who want it.

If you don't get it, I can't help you. And the 2nd sentence...keep drinking that kool-aid.

B: Health insurance is stupid anyway. They are just middle-men taking an unnecessary cut off the top. There are better ways the money could make its way to the doctors.

Help!

What is your solution Tahoe? All you do is bitch about 'govt run health care' even though that's not even accurate.

Bitch? I'm voicing my opposition to Gov't run Health Care. Sorry to offend your messiah by not agreeing with him. You should take your 2nd leader's advice (Nanci)and lower your tone.


Do you really want things to just stay the same?

As opposed to the annointed one's plan? Yes. And I'm not in the minority there. If you can pull yourself away from MSNBC, you might know that.

Don't paint everyone with the same brush or anything.

To #25: Obviously I realize insurance is great for when the major medical issue comes up. I was just saying it could be a much better system than it is. I know 2 people who were uninsured and had medical issues come up. Both filed for bankruptcy. That is why I have insurance, but that's not to say that they don't skim unneeded billions off the top.

To #26: Messiah and Nanci? Get a grip man. It's shit like that that makes it so hard to respect the political poop that comes out of your mouth. Next time try providing a real counterargument or at least, as Fool said, not painting everyone with the same broad brush. I didn't vote for Obama, and there are Repubs that I do like.

I think it's rediculous that having insurance for my perfectly healthy kid before he was 1 year old cost me half my paycheck after my company paid half of the insurance. It's shit like that that makes me say there are better ways for the system to operate than it does. I've known a lot of couples where one spouse literally works to pay the insurance for a kid or two. Shit is just stupid.

To #25: Obviously I realize insurance is great for when the major medical issue comes up. I was just saying it could be a much better system than it is. I know 2 people who were uninsured and had medical issues come up. Both filed for bankruptcy. That is why I have insurance, but that's not to say that they don't skim unneeded billions off the top.

To #26: Messiah and Nanci? Get a grip man. It's shit like that that makes it so hard to respect the political poop that comes out of your mouth. Next time try providing a real counterargument or at least, as Fool said, not painting everyone with the same broad brush. I didn't vote for Obama, and there are Repubs that I do like.

I think it's rediculous that having insurance for my perfectly healthy kid before he was 1 year old cost me half my paycheck after my company paid half of the insurance. It's shit like that that makes me say there are better ways for the system to operate than it does. I've known a lot of couples where one spouse literally works to pay the insurance for a kid or two. Shit is just stupid.

So you'll be here to back me up when peeps say I just spout Rush stuff, right? You'll tell those posters...

"It's shit like that that makes it so hard to respect the political poop that comes out of your mouth or not painting everyone with the same broad brush"

B: Health insurance is stupid anyway. They are just middle-men taking an unnecessary cut off the top. There are better ways the money could make its way to the doctors.


In Spain, which is a good system, not the best out there, but one where the public health system doesn't get the credit it deserves for the good things it does, many doctors still make their money in the private sector. They work for the health care system and get paid for that but they also have their private patients for the big money.

THIS COUNTRY IS LIKE NO OTHER IN THE WORLD, SO THUS CANNOT BE COMPARED TO ANY OTHER IN THE WORLD. YES, CANADA, SWEDEN, SPAIN ALL HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, BUT THEIR SOCIOECONOMIC CLIMATES, CULTURE, AND WORKFORCES ARE SO DIFFERENT FROM THE U.S. THAT A FAIR COMPARISON CANNOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED.

ALSO, TAHOE IS A DOUCHE.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090925/OPINION03/909250320/1322/Stop-the-lies-about-health-care-reform&template=fullarticle

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20090925_6347.php

3Jj6pqajvB8

^ That clip might have been when the Repubs were trying to ammend the bill to give voters 72 hours to read it or make heads or tails out of it. You know, Mr T, transparency instead of slamming another piece of shit bill down the voters throats.

Beaumont just fired 450 people.

^ That clip might have been when the Repubs were trying to ammend the bill to give voters 72 hours to read it or make heads or tails out of it. You know, Mr T, transparency instead of slamming another piece of shit bill down the voters throats.
^ Having a bill, with features that most people support, introduced and approved by majority vote in Congress, whose members were elected by voters, and signed into law by a President, who was also elected by a majority of voters, is exactly the same thing as having something slammed down our throats. That's how things are in Tahoeland.

^ That clip might have been when the Repubs were trying to ammend the bill to give voters 72 hours to read it or make heads or tails out of it. You know, Mr T, transparency instead of slamming another piece of shit bill down the voters throats.
That was about a failed amendment proposed by Kyl (R-Arizona) to make maternity care not a mandatory part of coverage.

Stabenow correctly illustrated the falsehood of the argument, that maternity care is as much about guys as girls. Gotta love it when pro-life Republicans try to stick it to the unborn...

^ Having a bill, with features that most people support, introduced and approved by majority vote in Congress, whose members were elected by voters, and signed into law by a President, who was also elected by a majority of voters, is exactly the same thing as having something slammed down our throats. That's how things are in Tahoeland.

RED LIGHT, CRISIS CRISIS, DON'T READ THE BILL VOTE YES OR YOU ARE A RACIST. VOTE YES, DONT READ JUST VOTE YES!

That was about a failed amendment proposed by Kyl (R-Arizona) to make maternity care not a mandatory part of coverage.

Stabenow correctly illustrated the falsehood of the argument, that maternity care is as much about guys as girls. Gotta love it when pro-life Republicans try to stick it to the unborn...

Oh, cuz it looked like the setting where the Repubs wanted the voting public to be able to read the bill for just 72 hours (You know, transparency) and the Dems were fighting it. Cuz they know the bill sucks.

To be fair, the same senate committee did pass a bill that required them to post the full bill, in "conceptual" plain language instead of legal language (useful from a SCOTUS and "time to read it" perspective), and required a CBO cost estimate (so the bill would have to stay stable on most important points long enough for the CBO to weigh in). Whatever. It's all bullshit until we see what goes down in reconciliation.

The "bills should wait for X amount of time" issue isn't specific to healthcare. The legislative process by which bills are done is arcane and prone to much unwarranted meddling. There are all kinds of solutions from the IT space to deal with complex document management. I'd love to see governments at all level start using tools that work rather than being tools that don't work.

Problem is that the devil is in the details.

The biggest devil tends to be unexpected pork barrel costs.

I'd love a reasonably-unbiased cost analysis of every bill prior to voting, because not only would that specify some amount of time where someone _could_ read it, but that some amount of reading by someone was actually done and critical thinking of some sort performed.

This isn't particular to healthcare at all.

So the way to make it look like it doesn't cost much over 10 years, Obama collects money for 5 years without giving out benis. So collect 10 years of taxes and only give out benis for 5. LMAO

How much of that is up-front costs?

Here's info on the latest CBO estimates on the costs of the public option bills going through the House. These turn out to be relatively cheaper and more comprehensive than the non-public option bills porkulating in the Senate.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/house_health_bill_trimmed_by_3.html?hpid=topnews

Damn it Mxy! Will you stop being rational, cogent and citing sources!

How much of that is up-front costs?

Here's info on the latest CBO estimates on the costs of the public option bills going through the House. These turn out to be relatively cheaper and more comprehensive than the non-public option bills porkulating in the Senate.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/house_health_bill_trimmed_by_3.html?hpid=topnews

Its such a mismush of shit that the CBO themselves say they can't be sure of the cost.

But anyone who thinks we're going to have a Gov't run health care system and it WON'T ADD TO THE BUDGET is friggin cra....votes for Obama and is a sheep.

Damn it Mxy! Will you stop being rational, cogent and citing sources!

Citing sources? Just stop watching Obama's State run media and you'll get your sources.

http://i5.ebayimg.com/05/i/001/19/5e/e8d5_12.JPG

Psst, Tahoe...are the black helicopters still following you?

You radical lefties need to get with mainstream America. Polls are now 39 for 52 against. Some are even worse but I through them out cuz I'm like that.

See Mxy, now this is what I'm talking about. Broad sweeping generalizations unsubstantiated by actual facts and throwing out shaky statistics without actually citing sources. You could learn a thing or two from Tahoe.

There was a germ of a specific piece of information -- some poll, 39 for and 52 against, maybe involves healthcare. My Google-fu leads me to some Quinnipiac poll from early August regarding Obama's handling of health care (as distinct from a poll that asks what people actually WANT), and things have gotten somewhat better since Obama came back from vacation.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357

Yeah, I could go for broad sweeping crap that came out of my ass, but I'm not in politics.

As I said, just quit watching State run media you'll be better off, DTE.

I'd bet a dollar that MSNBC and CNN says peeps are for BO's health care. I seriously wouldn't doubt it one bit.

As I said, just quit watching State run media you'll be better off, DTE.

What is that PBS? I admit that we've watched some Brit detective show or movie once in a blue moon but that's really all I've watched.

I don't watch the news on TV (unless you count the Daily Show). I read newspapers online.

BTW where did you pick up that state run media crap? I mean you know it's not true, right? Right?

So what are the polls showing currently for BO's health care plan?

You're asking the wrong guy to be honest. I don't give a damn about the polls or the politics of the thing. I just think it's vital to have it and that it's ridiculous that the US not only doesn't have it, but fights it tooth and nail.

I lived for 15 years in a country that had it. I was a worker and then a business owner and employer and I can tell you that, while not perfect, it's not as expensive as here and it always worked fine with me. I had doctor visits (once I was so sick they had the doctor come to my place), minor surgery twice, x-rays and MRI's done. It wasn't the fastest but it wasn't a bread line in the USSR by any stretch of the imagination. I had friends with asthma, one with a cogentive heart defect (huge one too, he died at 38 when doctors couldn't believe he saw his tenth birthday) and had two friends with cancer. All their treatments and needs were taken care of without them worrying about insanely huge bills coming in the mail.

I believe that the health of its citizens is something good government should be able to care of and definitely falls under the sphere of "what a government should do." The rest for me is pure babble and nonsense.

Well thats fine that YOU feel it falls under the sphere of "what a gov't should do". Its not in the constitution, afaict, I'm sure mxy can come up with some spin (ndi) on how it should.

But for us smaller gov't folks, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL GOV'Ts services it should be providing.

You libs just feel the Gov't should do EVERTHING. Its crazy, imo.

Its just another socialist attempt at income redistribution, imo.

And you know what? I'm not in the minority.

Well thats fine that YOU feel it falls under the sphere of "what a gov't should do". Its not in the constitution, afaict, I'm sure mxy can come up with some spin (ndi) on how it should.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I know that's really just the preamble but still; I honestly believe that it was the spirit of the constitution.

Well thats fine that YOU feel it falls under the sphere of "what a gov't should do". Its not in the constitution, afaict, I'm sure mxy can come up with some spin (ndi) on how it should.

But for us smaller gov't folks, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL GOV'Ts services it should be providing.

You libs just feel the Gov't should do EVERTHING. Its crazy, imo.

Its just another socialist attempt at income redistribution, imo.

And you know what? I'm not in the minority.

I'm not convinced that you're in the majority, but if you're willing to cite actual sources that prove your point, I'll concede that one.

I don't agree with you on the philosophy of big versus small government (personally, I find the whole "small government" philosophy riddled with flaws and hypocritical) but that's just our views on government.

I'm lost with the whole socialist argument, though. Since I've been mostly trying to only bring my experiences in Spain here I would add another thing: you would never be able to get away with calling public health care socialist there. Even when they had a fascist dictator in power there was public health care. The doctor's of the time acted with impunity and could be total bastards sometimes, but there was public health care. And during those days Socialists were either jailed (later years) or shot.

"promote the general welfare" means the Gov't should tax peeps to pay for other peeps health care? Sorry man, not buying it one bit.

As far as sources, there was one bogus poll that had this tied. Other than that, unless you've been listening strictly to state run media, you'd know that almost every poll disaproves of BO's health care situation.

But, no, I'm not going to post any links, so believe what you may.

"promote the general welfare" means the Gov't should tax peeps to pay for other peeps health care? Sorry man, not buying it one bit.

That's the fallacy of the whole small government principle. Should we be taxed to pay for police if we've never needed one? Should we be taxed for providing education if we don't have children ourselves or ours are now grown? Should we be taxed for providing highways that we ourselves may never drive on?

Should we be taxed to provice DirecTV Sunday ticket to everyone?

So we provide roofs over peeps heads, food, afdc, education programs that are free, etc and now taxpayers need to provide health care too?

I just wonder what you libs are going to do when you run out of other peeps money to spend.

Should we be taxed to provice DirecTV Sunday ticket to everyone?

Now that's one we'd probably be able to find common ground on. But there are remote towns in Spain that provide free WiFi and you could convince on that one.

So we provide roofs over peeps heads, food, afdc, education programs that are free, etc and now taxpayers need to provide health care too?

I just wonder what you libs are going to do when you run out of other peeps money to spend.

I think that's a good core debate at least. But where I can't agree with you is the whole "other peeps" argument. Liberals pay just as much money as conservatives in taxes. It's not other peeps money if your money's involved as well.

The Gov't spends other peeps money and the libs want some more of 'other peeps' money to buy health care for peeps who don't have it...and illegal aliens.

It's the wording I don't agree with. I want the money everyone pays to provide health care for everyone, those who have paid taxes and those who don't have to (or can't or whatever else may be the case). I pay taxes and want that money to go to government health care for me (I pay taxes) or even for my sister (who has epilepsy and is learning disabled and currently unemployed).

Good luck to your sis. I had a co-worker/bud who had epilepsy and he had to quit working cuz of the line of work. It was just too dangerous according to Inurance.

But providing health care is not in the constitution and shouldn't be done by that bureaucratic, wasteful, thieving, corrupt Gov't of ours.

Ok man, gotta go meet my bud down at the local watering hole. Please feel free to join us. :)

October is benefit enrollment month at UofM. My medical insurance cost jumped 42%. It will increase next year as well (they've already mapped it).

Mine has gone up 20-25% every year for the past 6-7 years. This year it's going up 25% and the lowest deductible plan I can get is now $2,500 per family member (used to be $1,000).

Your family doesn't deserve to be cared for. Mine on the other hand ...
This post is dedicated to MoRex.

I know y'all like to think conservatives don't want health care reform. I guess it makes you feel good to say that??? But anyway, if you think Gov't run health care is going to be cheaper, I have some Lions Super Bowl tickets to sell you.

I know y'all like to think conservatives don't want health care reform. I guess it makes you feel good to say that??? But anyway, if you think Gov't run health care is going to be cheaper, I have some Lions Super Bowl tickets to sell you.

It's just as easy for me to blindly say that it will be cheaper as it is for you to say that it won't be.

Just watch the news a lil bit and I think you'll see that it's going to cost a ton of money. But whatever...

We need our gov't to run more of our lives. We need our gov't to run more things cuz they always do it so efficiently.

I don't hate my government, and I actually do think that, as a collective unit, they really want to help.

I suppose that is where we disagree.

You did for the last 8 years.

No, I didn't.

I disliked the man at the top, but there's a bit more to the government than that.

Could'a fooled me.

I mean, every day it was posts from y'all about this and that and a "Right TAhoe" at the end.

Find me something, anything, where I said I dislike our government.

And when you can't, you can take that post back.

I'll take it back right now. If that makes you feel better.

Our Gov't can't run shit. Our gov't spends billions and billions of wasted money. As soon as elected officials get up there (no matter how much they want to change things) they get caught up in the spending and they generally 'join the spending club'

If you like that, you are 'intelectually dishonest'

Appreciate the take back.

Gotta log off now, we can pick this up manana.

^ Any time.

Just remember my posts are nothing, NOTHING like what I had to endure with my main man Dubya in office. Y'all really hurt my feelings. :emo kid:

Appreciate the take back.

Gotta log off now, we can pick this up manana.

Also, I mean no disrepect but I don't think anyone has told me that since...1st grade.

They had 1st grade back then?

Could'a fooled me.

I mean, every day it was posts from y'all about this and that and a "Right TAhoe" at the end.

That happened mainly because you designated yourself as internet secret service bodyguard for the president. If someone took a shot at the administration (or fox news or anything remotely related to a conservative or GOP talking point) you chose to step in front of the bullet.

The last eight years really weren't about you.

We should let big business or wall street run the health care system, they never ruin the world or waste TRILLIONS of dollars.

But anyway, if you think Gov't run health care is going to be cheaper, I have some Lions Super Bowl tickets to sell you.

That's based on the statistics (and I apologize for not having any in this post) that show that households in most countries that have universal health care are paying much less, often half as much, as households in the US. Again, this is only personal experience and really should have this backed up by numbers, but it sure does seem that way to me after moving back.

I'll take it back right now. If that makes you feel better.

Our Gov't can't run shit. Our gov't spends billions and billions of wasted money. As soon as elected officials get up there (no matter how much they want to change things) they get caught up in the spending and they generally 'join the spending club'

If you like that, you are 'intelectually dishonest'
The masses are always going to be dumber than select individuals, whether they're in government or a mega-corporation or whatever. That's going to lead to proportionately more waste and inefficiency. It's a lazy argument to say that big government can't run shit. Most people don't have a clue of what their government spends and whether it's the "right" or "wrong" amount for a given activity. Hell, most Americans are wasteful inefficient spenders individually with massive entitlement complexes, and ought to fix their own fucking house before they bitch about the evil inefficacy of big government.

So, why ever go big if big is bad? The key reasons to organize along such big lines are economies of scale. Some worthwhile things don't make sense to do at all unless you do 'em really big and|or do 'em ubiquitously. Sure, bigness comes with a higher % of stupidity and waste than stuff done on a smaller scale, but the overall costs are lower. There's no lack of stupid governments across the world -- our government is far from special in that regard. But those fucked up governments spend roughly half of what we do on healthcare to get generally the same quality of care and outcomes.

The masses are always going to be dumber than select individuals, whether they're in government or a mega-corporation or whatever. That's going to lead to proportionately more waste and inefficiency. It's a lazy argument to say that big government can't run shit. Most people don't have a clue of what their government spends and whether it's the "right" or "wrong" amount for a given activity. Hell, most Americans are wasteful inefficient spenders individually with massive entitlement complexes, and ought to fix their own fucking house before they bitch about the evil inefficacy of big government.

So, why ever go big if big is bad? The key reasons to organize along such big lines are economies of scale. Some worthwhile things don't make sense to do at all unless you do 'em really big and|or do 'em ubiquitously. Sure, bigness comes with a higher % of stupidity and waste than stuff done on a smaller scale, but the overall costs are lower. There's no lack of stupid governments across the world -- our government is far from special in that regard. But those fucked up governments spend roughly half of what we do on healthcare to get generally the same quality of care and outcomes.

I have AM radio on when I'm working and I could not believe the stories of rip off artists on medicare. Some peeps were saying how they even called the gov't arm that was supposed to be watching the waste and nothing was done.

So you can call my argument lazy, if you must, I'll go ahead and call it accurate.

That happened mainly because you designated yourself as internet secret service bodyguard for the president. If someone took a shot at the administration (or fox news or anything remotely related to a conservative or GOP talking point) you chose to step in front of the bullet.

The last eight years really weren't about you.

Sorry man, the posts were the posts and the posts had my name attached to them.

So y'all are going to have to ban me, ignore me or keep reading, cuz I'm not stopping the petty lil shit that y'all posted about when the other side was in power.

Some feel I'm ripping BO's supporters right now, so there is no difference.

But like I said, I'll keep the Obama children out of my posts. Y'all didn't, but I'll take the high road.

We should let big business or wall street run the health care system, they never ruin the world or waste TRILLIONS of dollars.

Private industry always does better than gov't. Is it perfect? Hell no.

Honestly, with all due respect, I can't ever understand how people can really believe that bullshit, moronic idea. Big business is only about one thing, big business. Everything is about making the buck, passing the buck and not doing jack shit if it's going to cost any money. Everything is outsourced and usually not only is the left hand not talking to the right hand, they fucking make you have to call the other god damned hand to get information they should already know. You get charge backs, double charges and unilateral decisions on financial policy that directly affects your life (because you are the fucking customer after all) without ever actually being consulted on this. Hell, you're lucky if they even send you a damned notice about it.

But hey, what the hell, let's pop open another Bud and put our hand on our heart and wave a fucking flag while we watch real American society ride a flaming roller coaster going down Steep Crash Mountain into bullshit hell.

I have AM radio on when I'm working and I could not believe the stories of rip off artists on medicare. Some peeps were saying how they even called the gov't arm that was supposed to be watching the waste and nothing was done.

So you can call my argument lazy, if you must, I'll go ahead and call it accurate.
And amazingly, amidst all that massive fraud, Medicare coverage turns out to provide less-expensive coverage than through insurance because someone isn't taking a big whack off the top to fill the airwaves with ads for the latest pill, or just raising rates arbitrarily if their fraud prevention group had a bad year in your geography. That doesn't mean we shouldn't combat fraud, but a certain amount is inevitable, the cost of doing business. Multiply by big dollars and big institutions and you're always going to have stories that some gasbag will pull out to say how fucked up things are, playing on folks who can't see the forest from the trees.

There's some obvious problems with Medicare, and it doesn't help that the Medicare old folks are even less able to spot fraud than the average health care consumer (whose abilities in this area are dimmed by being slammed by dozens of different providers for a simple ER visit these days). A whole lot of the problems stem from the way compensation happens, often rewarding "more procedures" instead of "good process". Sanity checking is tricky.

My first experience with health insurance involved fraud, come to think of it...

I started receiving bills for a broken leg I never had. It turns out the hospital had some unpaid bills by someone with my first/last name for a broken leg. When I showed up there with a broken pinky, they assumed "broken leg" dude was me, billed my insurance, then billed me for the remainder. The easy part was getting this fixed at the hospital. I was prepared to say "x-ray my leg, you'll see it's never been broken, you have the wrong person" but it didn't have to go that far. (Fortunately, I still lived right by the hospital.) The person with my name turned out to be shorter, older, and heavier than me, with a different middle initial.

The hard part was getting the fucking insurance squared away. I tried to get a written confirmation that the insurance company no longer had the claim on my record, but was referred to either this black hole known as the fraud department, or the billing hospital. A few months after that, I changed employers/insurance and never heard from my old insurer again. Honestly, I didn't care about them, but had a fear that someone might have bad medlcal info about me and do something stupid on the operating table.

Honestly, with all due respect, I can't ever understand how people can really believe that bullshit, moronic idea. Big business is only about one thing, big business. Everything is about making the buck, passing the buck and not doing jack shit if it's going to cost any money. Everything is outsourced and usually not only is the left hand not talking to the right hand, they fucking make you have to call the other god damned hand to get information they should already know. You get charge backs, double charges and unilateral decisions on financial policy that directly affects your life (because you are the fucking customer after all) without ever actually being consulted on this. Hell, you're lucky if they even send you a damned notice about it.

But hey, what the hell, let's pop open another Bud and put our hand on our heart and wave a fucking flag while we watch real American society ride a flaming roller coaster going down Steep Crash Mountain into bullshit hell.

What a bunch of stereotypical bullshit.

Really? Because I'm just some college kid that's never had to work or do anything for a living? Are you sure Tahoe?

Just in the past year I've had to fight with a repair company, a bank, a credit card company, an insurance company, a health insurance company and a collection agency. Now I'm not perfect but none of that was actually my fault, most of it came from their own bullshit and none of it ever got solved with just one phone call. Weeks of calling and calling and fighting and writing letters and sending faxes to get something that was rightfully mine or take away something they should never have even done in the first place.

But yes, all stereotypical bullshit.

And amazingly, amidst all that massive fraud, Medicare coverage turns out to provide less-expensive coverage than through insurance because someone isn't taking a big whack off the top to fill the airwaves with ads for the latest pill, or just raising rates arbitrarily if their fraud prevention group had a bad year in your geography. That doesn't mean we shouldn't combat fraud, but a certain amount is inevitable, the cost of doing business. Multiply by big dollars and big institutions and you're always going to have stories that some gasbag will pull out to say how fucked up things are, playing on folks who can't see the forest from the trees.

There's some obvious problems with Medicare, and it doesn't help that the Medicare old folks are even less able to spot fraud than the average health care consumer (whose abilities in this area are dimmed by being slammed by dozens of different providers for a simple ER visit these days). A whole lot of the problems stem from the way compensation happens, often rewarding "more procedures" instead of "good process". Sanity checking is tricky.

My first experience with health insurance involved fraud, come to think of it...

I started receiving bills for a broken leg I never had. It turns out the hospital had some unpaid bills by someone with my first/last name for a broken leg. When I showed up there with a broken pinky, they assumed "broken leg" dude was me, billed my insurance, then billed me for the remainder. The easy part was getting this fixed at the hospital. I was prepared to say "x-ray my leg, you'll see it's never been broken, you have the wrong person" but it didn't have to go that far. (Fortunately, I still lived right by the hospital.) The person with my name turned out to be shorter, older, and heavier than me, with a different middle initial.

The hard part was getting the fucking insurance squared away. I tried to get a written confirmation that the insurance company no longer had the claim on my record, but was referred to either this black hole known as the fraud department, or the billing hospital. A few months after that, I changed employers/insurance and never heard from my old insurer again. Honestly, I didn't care about them, but had a fear that someone might have bad medlcal info about me and do something stupid on the operating table.

bcuz you say its still cheaper it seems you are willing to look past corruption in another Gov't program. I can't.

No, it was all your 'hand on your heart, pop a bud, wave the flag stereotypical bullshit.

Oh. Well. Yeah. Oh. Ooops. Sorry.

Honestly though I don't think it's too stereotypical (well the Bud part was) but I really do think there's a lot of people who really do wave a flag and just use that to actually not listen to things.

It's nothing personal, some peeps just don't want the morons in DC to take over 1/6th of our economy. They WILL fuck it up.

Wait till they won't get the revenue they THINK they will on this payroll scale tax. The rich will divide their companies, or a multitude of other ways to get around the tax, and woking peeps will foot the bill.

Obama and Pelosi are idiots.

bcuz you say its still cheaper it seems you are willing to look past corruption in another Gov't program. I can't.
There's corruption in all sorts of non-government programs. People will use to to say "government is bad" or "big business is bad" or whatever, ignoring a lot of other good things about scale advantages in the process. Forests, not trees...

The idea is to spend enough on fraud control such that spending more doesn't get you more bang for your buck. The problem is that there's an awful lot of indirect costs to fraud control. It's somewhat easy to count "claims not paid due to fraud". It's much harder to count:

- higher claims to account for payee-side compliance costs
- fraud not even attempted -- the "security guard" effect
- lost business from doctors not accepting PITA insurers
etc.

Even with private insurers, fraud is 10% or so and growing -- a lot. It's not like they do fraud prevention dramatically more efficiently than the Medicare system. The question I don't have a good answer to: Is 10+% the actual cost of doing business, or insurers simply deciding the easiest approach is to pass the costs along to the customer? How much fraud is enabled by the mess that is piecemeal medical billing?

Mxy pwns the last couple pages.

Mxy pwns.

Mxy pwns the last couple pages.

This is the other thing that happened over the last few years. Someone would post some opinion and all you libs would just pile on with "Mxy Owns" or " This or that poster owns" to try to help make y'alls "OPINION" correct.

Sorry man, doesn't work. But keep trying.

My post was not a reflection of who's opinion I thought was correct, it was about who was bringing valid discussion with substance to the conversation.

^ more peeps opinion supporting other peeps opinion who have the same opinion. Doesn't make it correct.

Numbers don't mean shit.

The Henry Ford of Heart Surgery (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125875892887958111.html#mod=todays_us_nonsub_pag e_one)

A picture here is worth a thousand words.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AS610_SHETTY_NS_20091120184028.gif

And coming soon an hour's plane ride from florida:


Then there are the Cayman Islands, where he plans to build and run a 2,000-bed general hospital an hour's plane ride from Miami. Procedures, both elective and necessary, will be priced at least 50% lower than what they cost in the U.S., says Dr. Shetty, who hopes to draw Americans who are uninsured or need surgery their plans don't cover.

By next year, six million Americans are expected to travel to other countries in search of affordable medical care, up from the 750,000 who did so in 2007, according to a report by Deloitte LLP. A handful of U.S. insurance plans now give people the choice to be treated in other countries.

So to throw in a quasi-personal anecdote. A while back I was researching total knee replacement surgery for a family member. Apparently the process of taking your knee apart and putting it together again with artificial parts is an enormously complex and lengthy undertaking. I came across a 2003 government report (http://consensus.nih.gov/2003/2003TotalKneeReplacement117html.htm) from the National Institute of Health that had this gem of a quote:


One of the clearest associations with better outcomes appears to be the procedure volume of the individual surgeon and the procedure volume of the hospital. Medicare data indicate that the highest complication rate is observed among surgeons who perform 12 or fewer operations per year, and complication rates decrease as the number of operations performed each year increases. Similarly, complication rates are highest in hospitals that perform less than 25 operations per year, and rates fall with increases in numbers of operations performed.

With that rattling around in my head, the article really struck a chord.

No offense Tahoe but Mxy's posts have a lot of worthwhile info in 'em.

And considering I know nothing about your country's health care system (it's user-pays, correct? No government help at all?) it was interesting to read

^ Its amazing how 12-1 or something makes peeps think posts by them are facts.

Coherence tends to help.

^ gobble up the bullshit.

Keep posting incoherence.

Keep gobbling the bullshit

How's that bullshit taste you've been gobblin up, Fool?

Don't tug on Superman's cape... and yes, I am named after a character who does precisely that. I'm downright filled with irony.
http://media.comicmix.com/media/2009/08/25/superman-supports-welfarre.jpg

I take pride in who I am. Always have, always will. I've worked hard my whole life and have never taken anyone's charity, and I'm not about to start now, no matter what. I'm telling you, there's no way I'm going to sit back and let some black president of the United States try to devise a structure to help me pay for the dialysis treatment I so desperately need to survive.

Not over my dead body.

Just who does this Afro-American occupant of the highest office in the land think he is, anyway? Look, I've got nothing against black people, but some of them act like the whole world owes them something. For example, important government subsidies on my dialysis.

You know, I don't recall asking for some black commander in chief to embrace protections that would prohibit insurance companies from dropping my coverage on a whim and operating as if my continued existence on earth were nothing more than a strategic liability. Plus, if I go along with this progressive health-benefits scheme, he'll probably hold it over my head every time I receive vital care with the aid of the government to which I already pay taxes.

Sorry. I've got too much self-respect for that.

Obama needs to know that there's still one American willing to watch his body drown in its own deadly internal toxins rather than have long-overdue reform crammed down his throat.

Fact is, nobody wants some too-big-for-his-britches black president butting in to suggest that everyone, including me, needs to be treated with dignity. Yet this Obama thinks he can just waltz in and and tinker with a health care system that destroys people like myself every single day.

Can you imagine what'd it be like if he weren't just half black?

Seriously, when Obama's done drumming up support for legislation that might allow me to see my daughter graduate from college and prevent me from dying before my 50th birthday, what's next on the agenda? Will he try to keep my life's savings from evaporating in a stock market that operates free of serious governmental oversight? Is there any aspect of capitalism run amok that this guy won't tamper with? Really, Obama, thanks but no thanks. The last person I need help from is some black leader of the federal government in a position to perhaps improve my quality of life.

The worst part is that I'll have to put up with this guy being a black president for at least three more years. I guess all I can do is try to hold out for the 2012 election. Maybe then we'll get a white president back in office. Maybe he'll have the common decency to let me suffer in peace.

Keep in mind that he has nothing against black people.

WTF is that shit Mxy?

WTF is that shit Mxy?

I'm sure leaving out the "QUOTE=Tahoe" tag was a simple oversight.

The text was from my favorite parody newspaper/site. Some aspects of it seemed less "parodious" than others, so I left it unattributed for a more powerful effect. It was not intended to reflect Tahoe in any way, and I wasn't thinking about him when I posted it.

The Superman comic strip is quite real though, from a famous Republican's comic book. Heh.

I don't even ask what it's from anymore. It's always from the Onion.

It's interesting, once you do some research, just how varied health care costs can be.

I had Kaiser Permamente health care for most of my life, and was willing to pony up $166 a month for solid coverage. Then, suddenly, my rate shot up to $261!! Why? Because I turned 40. No pre-existing conditions. Not an abuser of the system. I've been to the doctor a total of three times in four years, and only two of those were for "emergency" situations. An extra 65 dollars for no other reason than I'm one year older. So, I cancelled their fucking ass.

Aetna seemed like a decent alternative, since I know a few people who have it, and they're okay with it. Their quote for a similar plan: $120!!

Insanity!!!

Wow, you're a man.

http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-football-recruiting/files/2009/03/mikegundymug.jpg

HE'S NOT A KID, WRITE SOMETHING BAD ABOUT HIM

I'm sure leaving out the "QUOTE=Tahoe" tag was a simple oversight.

This site is amazing.

It's all you cocksucking libs that are prejudice.

I don't like this piece of shit prez and I'm the racist.

Y'all suck cock and lots of it.

This site is amazing.

It's all you cocksucking libs that are prejudice.

I don't like this piece of shit prez and I'm the racist.

Y'all suck cock and lots of it.

LOL (tm)(c)(r)pat.pen. Tahoe (all rights reserved)

Go suck some cock you fuckin lib. Thats what you do best.

Go suck some cock you fuckin lib. Thats what you do best.

LOL OMG ur head asplode. 44.

Why I talk to cocksucking racists like you is beyond me.

Why I talk to cocksucking racists like you is beyond me.

I'm just a blank slate upon which you project you rage. Also racism. Other stuff too.

I'm just fine, thanks. I don't like being called a racist, cuz I dont agree with the Gov't taking over health care. But thats about all you faggots can do. So have at it, cocksucker.

But you are an ignorant cocksucking fag liberal. I'm not upset. Just telling it like it is.

I'm just fine, thanks. I don't like being called a racist, cuz I dont agree with the Gov't taking over health care. But thats about all you faggots can do. So have at it, cocksucker.

But you are an ignorant cocksucking fag liberal. I'm not upset. Just telling it like it is.

LOL

That "O" is your mouth everytime you see Obama on TV.

You faggot.

That "O" is your mouth everytime you see Obama on TV.

You faggot.

Don't you have a hot date with your dubya poster and a couple kleenex?

Y'all racist libs like the cock.

Y'all racist libs like the cock.

You talk about cock a lot. Is it because you wish you had one? Or is it that you get so much it feels like you have it coming out of your ass? The internets want to know.

Very typical liberal cocksucking faggot. Just attack peeps who disagree with you cock idol.

Very typical liberal cocksucking faggot. Just attack peeps who disagree with you cock idol.

I just hand you the rope. You hang yourself nicely.

I don't like our Gov't taking over Health Care so I'm a racist.

Actually you dumb liberal faggot, you hang yourself. I wish you knew how fucking stupid calling peeps racists looks, just because they disagree with the Prez.

You are scum. Seriously. You are a faggot.

I don't like our Gov't taking over Health Care so I'm a racist.

Actually you dumb liberal faggot, you hang yourself. I wish you knew how fucking stupid calling peeps racists looks, just because they disagree with the Prez.

You are scum. Seriously. You are a faggot.

You're a walking, talking public service announcements for "Stay on your meds."

Don't disagree with the Prez or you are racist. The faggots will attack.

Don't disagree with the Prez or you are racist. The faggots will attack.

Nonsense. No one confuses your 1950s ideals with your politics.

And no one confuses you with heterosexual.

And no one confuses you with heterosexual.

In the spirit of the holidays, I hope we can find a community organizer to deliver a thanksgiving meal to your "closet."

I do find it odd that Tahoe uses the insult faggot quite a bit.

Do you need to use the Confessional, T?

No, I don't.

Y'all exptrapolate that I'm a racist cuz this fucktard in office is fucking up this country. I extrapolate out that since y'all feel men should be able to marry men, y'all are cocksuckers.

I think thats fair.

Sounds like some of Obamas cronies, SEIU Union members, are finally being brought to justice. Some were finally arrested.

I'm sure Holder will take care of this one too. Much like the Philly thing.

Fuckin' things up more than the previous idiot?.... not possible

No, I don't.

Y'all exptrapolate that I'm a racist cuz this fucktard in office is fucking up this country. I extrapolate out that since y'all feel men should be able to marry men, y'all are cocksuckers.

I think thats fair.

I lol'd

And I might think you're a lot of things but racist is not one of them.

EDIT: LMAO - thanks GD

I think (hope) that there is a word missing in that last post.

Did anyone actually call T a racist? Or is that just another thing he thinks is real like "the boy" and building that house?

Did anyone actually call T a racist? Or is that just another thing he thinks is real like "the boy" and building that house?

As far as I can tell, no, he's just regurgitating the "opponents of Obama are labelled as racist" talking point. Of course, finding him already so agitated about it, the temptation to poke him with a stick a few times to see what he would do (answer: obsess over cock) was too much to resist.

I probably argue with Tahoe the most, and I don't think I've ever called him racist. I may have said a statement looked racist, but I don't think he actually is. Let's not get into what I think he is politically (we've been there).

As far as I can tell, no, he's just regurgitating the "opponents of Obama are labelled as racist" talking point. Of course, finding him already so agitated about it, the temptation to poke him with a stick a few times to see what he would do (answer: obsess over cock) was too much to resist.

wow, you can type and suck cock at the same time.

Good for you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_re_us/when_drugs_stop_working_norway_s_answer


OSLO, Norway – Aker University Hospital is a dingy place to heal. The floors are streaked and scratched. A light layer of dust coats the blood pressure monitors. A faint stench of urine and bleach wafts from a pile of soiled bedsheets dropped in a corner.

Look closer, however, at a microscopic level, and this place is pristine. There is no sign of a dangerous and contagious staph infection that killed tens of thousands of patients in the most sophisticated hospitals of Europe, North America and Asia this year, soaring virtually unchecked.

The reason: Norwegians stopped taking so many drugs.

Twenty-five years ago, Norwegians were also losing their lives to this bacteria. But Norway's public health system fought back with an aggressive program that made it the most infection-free country in the world. A key part of that program was cutting back severely on the use of antibiotics.

Now a spate of new studies from around the world prove that Norway's model can be replicated with extraordinary success, and public health experts are saying these deaths — 19,000 in the U.S. each year alone, more than from AIDS — are unnecessary.

"It's a very sad situation that in some places so many are dying from this, because we have shown here in Norway that Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can be controlled, and with not too much effort," said Jan Hendrik-Binder, Oslo's MRSA medical adviser. "But you have to take it seriously, you have to give it attention, and you must not give up."

The World Health Organization says antibiotic resistance is one of the leading public health threats on the planet. A six-month investigation by The Associated Press found overuse and misuse of medicines has led to mutations in once curable diseases like tuberculosis and malaria, making them harder and in some cases impossible to treat.

Now, in Norway's simple solution, there's a glimmer of hope.

---

Dr. John Birger Haug shuffles down Aker's scuffed corridors, patting the pocket of his baggy white scrubs. "My bible," the infectious disease specialist says, pulling out a little red Antibiotic Guide that details this country's impressive MRSA solution.

It's what's missing from this book — an array of antibiotics — that makes it so remarkable.

"There are times I must show these golden rules to our doctors and tell them they cannot prescribe something, but our patients do not suffer more and our nation, as a result, is mostly infection free," he says.

Norway's model is surprisingly straightforward.

• Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than any other country, so people do not have a chance to develop resistance to them.

• Patients with MRSA are isolated and medical staff who test positive stay at home.

• Doctors track each case of MRSA by its individual strain, interviewing patients about where they've been and who they've been with, testing anyone who has been in contact with them.

Haug unlocks the dispensary, a small room lined with boxes of pills, bottles of syrups and tubes of ointment. What's here? Medicines considered obsolete in many developed countries. What's not? Some of the newest, most expensive antibiotics, which aren't even registered for use in Norway, "because if we have them here, doctors will use them," he says.

He points to an antibiotic. "If I treated someone with an infection in Spain with this penicillin I would probably be thrown in jail," he says, "and rightly so because it's useless there."

Norwegians are sanguine about their coughs and colds, toughing it out through low-grade infections.

"We don't throw antibiotics at every person with a fever. We tell them to hang on, wait and see, and we give them a Tylenol to feel better," says Haug.

Convenience stores in downtown Oslo are stocked with an amazing and colorful array — 42 different brands at one downtown 7-Eleven — of soothing, but non-medicated, lozenges, sprays and tablets. All workers are paid on days they, or their children, stay home sick. And drug makers aren't allowed to advertise, reducing patient demands for prescription drugs.

In fact, most marketing here sends the opposite message: "Penicillin is not a cough medicine," says the tissue packet on the desk of Norway's MRSA control director, Dr. Petter Elstrom.

He recognizes his country is "unique in the world and best in the world" when it comes to MRSA. Less than 1 percent of health care providers are positive carriers of MRSA staph.

But Elstrom worries about the bacteria slipping in through other countries. Last year almost every diagnosed case in Norway came from someone who had been abroad.

"So far we've managed to contain it, but if we lose this, it will be a huge problem," he said. "To be very depressing about it, we might in some years be in a situation where MRSA is so endemic that we have to stop doing advanced surgeries, things like organ transplants, if we can't prevent infections. In the worst case scenario we are back to 1913, before we had antibiotics."

---

Forty years ago, a new spectrum of antibiotics enchanted public health officials, quickly quelling one infection after another. In wealthier countries that could afford them, patients and providers came to depend on antibiotics. Trouble was, the more antibiotics are consumed, the more resistant bacteria develop.

Norway responded swiftly to initial MRSA outbreaks in the 1980s by cutting antibiotic use. Thus while they got ahead of the infection, the rest of the world fell behind.

In Norway, MRSA has accounted for less than 1 percent of staph infections for years. That compares to 80 percent in Japan, the world leader in MRSA; 44 percent in Israel; and 38 percent in Greece.

In the U.S., cases have soared and MRSA cost $6 billion last year. Rates have gone up from 2 percent in 1974 to 63 percent in 2004. And in the United Kingdom, they rose from about 2 percent in the early 1990s to about 45 percent, although an aggressive control program is now starting to work.

About 1 percent of people in developed countries carry MRSA on their skin. Usually harmless, the bacteria can be deadly when they enter a body, often through a scratch. MRSA spreads rapidly in hospitals where sick people are more vulnerable, but there have been outbreaks in prisons, gyms, even on beaches. When dormant, the bacteria are easily detected by a quick nasal swab and destroyed by antibiotics.

Dr. John Jernigan at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said they incorporate some of Norway's solutions in varying degrees, and his agency "requires hospitals to move the needle, to show improvement, and if they don't show improvement they need to do more."

And if they don't?

"Nobody is accountable to our recommendations," he said, "but I assume hospitals and institutions are interested in doing the right thing."

Dr. Barry Farr, a retired epidemiologist who watched a successful MRSA control program launched 30 years ago at the University of Virginia's hospitals, blamed the CDC for clinging to past beliefs that hand washing is the best way to stop the spread of infections like MRSA. He says it's time to add screening and isolation methods to their controls.

The CDC needs to "eat a little crow and say, 'Yeah, it does work,'" he said. "There's example after example. We don't need another study. We need somebody to just do the right thing."

---

But can Norway's program really work elsewhere?

The answer lies in the busy laboratory of an aging little public hospital about 100 miles outside of London. It's here that microbiologist Dr. Lynne Liebowitz got tired of seeing the stunningly low Nordic MRSA rates while facing her own burgeoning cases.

So she turned Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Kings Lynn into a petri dish, asking doctors to almost completely stop using two antibiotics known for provoking MRSA infections.

One month later, the results were in: MRSA rates were tumbling. And they've continued to plummet. Five years ago, the hospital had 47 MRSA bloodstream infections. This year they've had one.

"I was shocked, shocked," says Liebowitz, bouncing onto her toes and grinning as colleagues nearby drip blood onto slides and peer through microscopes in the hospital laboratory.

When word spread of her success, Liebowitz's phone began to ring. So far she has replicated her experiment at four other hospitals, all with the same dramatic results.

"It's really very upsetting that some patients are dying from infections which could be prevented," she says. "It's wrong."

Around the world, various medical providers have also successfully adapted Norway's program with encouraging results. A medical center in Billings, Mont., cut MRSA infections by 89 percent by increasing screening, isolating patients and making all staff — not just doctors — responsible for increasing hygiene.

In Japan, with its cutting-edge technology and modern hospitals, about 17,000 people die from MRSA every year.

Dr. Satoshi Hori, chief infection control doctor at Juntendo University Hospital in Tokyo, says doctors overprescribe antibiotics because they are given financial incentives to push drugs on patients.

Hori now limits antibiotics only to patients who really need them and screens and isolates high-risk patients. So far his hospital has cut the number of MRSA cases by two-thirds.

In 2001, the CDC approached a Veterans Affairs hospital in Pittsburgh about conducting a small test program. It started in one unit, and within four years, the entire hospital was screening everyone who came through the door for MRSA. The result: an 80 percent decrease in MRSA infections. The program has now been expanded to all 153 VA hospitals, resulting in a 50 percent drop in MRSA bloodstream infections, said Dr. Robert Muder, chief of infectious diseases at the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

"It's kind of a no-brainer," he said. "You save people pain, you save people the work of taking care of them, you save money, you save lives and you can export what you learn to other hospital-acquired infections."

Pittsburgh's program has prompted all other major hospital-acquired infections to plummet as well, saving roughly $1 million a year.

"So, how do you pay for it?" Muder asked. "Well, we just don't pay for MRSA infections, that's all."

---

Beth Reimer of Batavia, Ill., became an advocate for MRSA precautions after her 5-week-old daughter Madeline caught a cold that took a fatal turn. One day her beautiful baby had the sniffles. The next?

"She wasn't breathing. She was limp," the mother recalled. "Something was terribly wrong."

MRSA had invaded her little lungs. The antibiotics were useless. Maddie struggled to breathe, swallow, survive, for two weeks.

"For me to sit and watch Madeline pass away from such an aggressive form of something, to watch her fight for her little life — it was too much," Reimer said.

Since Madeline's death, Reimer has become outspoken about the need for better precautions, pushing for methods successfully used in Norway. She's stunned, she said, that anyone disputes the need for change.

"Why are they fighting for this not to take place?" she said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_re_us/when_drugs_stop_working_norway_s_answer

Bill Maher has been banging the anti-antibiotics drum for years.

http://user.cloudfront.goodinc.com/community/patrick/skulls_infographic.jpg

Only lazy libs lack health care. Acceptable losses.

Only lazy libs lack health care. Acceptable losses.
There's a positive correlation between the risk of parasitical infection and conservative leanings.

Only lazy libs lack health care. Acceptable losses.
Are self employed considered lazy libs?
This shit ain't funny when you got a family of five with no health care... even with a decent salary.
Mother fuckers better get it done soon.

Delivering a hard-fought victory in President Obama's yearlong pursuit of a national healthcare overhaul, a divided House narrowly approved legislation Sunday night that could reshape the way Americans deal with wellness and illness.

House Democratic leaders proved they could hold the majority caucus together, passing the Senate version of the healthcare legislation, 219-212, after weeks of arm-twisting and politicking. Thirty-four Democrats opposed the bill, as did all Republicans.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22,0,2788293.story

The rapture can't come soon enough!

It's all bullshit until we see what goes down in reconciliation.
Looks like I called this one correctly back in September...

reconciliation? lol

no offense mxy.

By reconciliation, I was referring to the formal federal budget mechanism called reconciliation, not reconciliation in the "can't we demonican republicrats just get along and sing kumbaya" sense.

I'm amused at the path it's taken.

Perhaps Tahoe prefers the "nuclear option" BS that the GOP kept saying?

I just love all the talk about how much it will cost us when it saves the budget money over the next 10 years and those same GOP officials approved Bush tax cuts that cost the deficit 2 trillion.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, confirms he called Rep. Bart Stupak 'baby killer' during health care debate - NBC News

Perhaps Tahoe prefers the "nuclear option" BS that the GOP kept saying?

I just love all the talk about how much it will cost us when it saves the budget money over the next 10 years and those same GOP officials approved Bush tax cuts that cost the deficit 2 trillion.

Still talking Bush?

I have been deciding for a long time whether or not to post in this thread. I think healthcare needs reform to be certain, but I question the way we are achieving it. The level of uninsured patients we have right now is completely unacceptable. My issue is with how we are attaining these funds/virtual savings over the next 10 years.

My question to all here is don't you think we would be better off using this ridiculous amount of money to guarantee everyone who wants it the right to a job rather than the right to health insurance? People with jobs means people with health insurance. It also breeds a society that values work, and the fringe benefits that come with it. In fact, the targets for this administration should be at creating jobs as well as making it very affordable for employers to insure their workers.

President BO used the phrase "the average CEO makes over $1,000,000 and that's who we are targeting with the increased taxes" throughout his campaign. My argument is why not just then increase taxes for people who make over $1 million bucks?

Healthcare has so many ridiculous expenses its atrocious, but for the most part, physicians are not one of them. I think its appropriate for some fields (IMO neurosurgery for example) to earn 500,000K to 1mill per year (which is more than most make actually). These are people who finished undergrad, went to medschool, and then completed an 8 year residency (four more than myself, 5 more than internal medicine, family practice, ER, and 3 more than general surgery) and complete a PhD on route to graduation. Many of my neurosurgical colleagues were 40 at the time of graduation, and like me, earned less than minimum wage per hour the whole way.

I am not from the rich blood pool. I like many people in medicine, had parents who both worked and were not docs, and have paid my own way through undergrad, grad school, med school, and residency. Needless to be said, my school loans are high. I will be paying over 1K a month for 30 years for just my med school loan by itself (nondeductible interest mind you). If I get sued for every dime, I will still have to make this payment. If I die, my wife is responsible for this payment, regardless of employment.

Nothing has been done to reduce malpractice, resulting to too many "cover your ass" labs and imaging that is ordered. Insurance companies, drug companies, and orthopedic equipment reps are the ones buying out the suites at sporting events, not us.

This is no boo hoo for us. We as docs earn very well and to tell you the truth I don't have a problem paying 6 figure taxes (bottom line mind you) if it goes to the right place, but the feeling of entitlement we have engendered as a society is not going to get better by this maneuver. If we were really interested in reducing costs, I mean really interested, the answer is honestly simple.
1. Stop smoking or have those who do pay for it.
2. A ridiculously funded physical fitness initiative.
3. Countrywide awareness and access to improved diet.
4. Get everyone jobs - less smoking, less depression, less obesity, more money.

Of course both parties would poop on that, but seriously either of these will make up the cost in half the time.

I will just sum up this whole monologue with this. Primary care is going to suffer horribly in the next 10 years. Good luck seeing your doctor when they have 30% more business and more taxes. I can barely get in as it is. These people are not going to be able to afford similar loan payments as me, with increased workload, more taxes, and the same liability. There is already a shortage, and who realistically is going to take that job? Hell the only people who will go into medicine will be those whose families have the silver spoon to avoid loans. Not the cycle we want. I respectfully welcome your opinions.

The right to a job doesn't mean you get decent healthcare. I have a good job and our health care rates got raised %51 at my company this year by Anthem. Even if %100 of America was employed, what stops the insurance company from jacking up rates?

In fact, many people without a job have better healthcare than middle class workers. My wife has an echo cardiogram done and it's 3,000 bucks (insurance covered 2,000 of it). Someone on medicare gets it for free. Just saw an add in the paper for a health wagon that does Echos for 150 bucks. So glad her doctor charges 3,000 for the same procedure. People with jobs can get screwed just as bad.

bbf, nice post. its rare to find an informed, reasonable opinion on something that has somehow become such a hot button subject.

there are 2 objectives for reform: 1) lower cost, 2) expand coverage.

i, like most, favor the former. however, im dubious of the latter. the benefit is that it will decrease the number of people who get their healthcare in the ER, which is an exhorbitant waste of resources, quite expensive, and the bill usually gets passed on to those who can pay. not fair.

but is this bill better than that? i dont know, and i doubt few people in the world are actually qualified to even guess the answer. i think reading all the guesswork in what the cost of this will really be is quite pie in the sky ish, and relies heavilly on best case scenarios to come up with it actually lowering the deficit.

chris, i think its unfair to equate the loss of revenue in a tax cut to the raise in cost to a tax bill. this bill is much more like the war in iraq, which relied on best case scenarios (light footprint, we'll be greeted as liberators, etc) to suppose it would be funded via oil revenue.

i think this is a bad thing, and dems will get hammered for it for not just an election, but possibly decades to come.

on the pro side, i think small businesses were waiting for this thing to get settled to find out what hiring new employees ment. so hopefully, the job market will pickup.

really, its a joke how tight lipped they were with details.

The right to a job doesn't mean you get decent healthcare. I have a good job and our health care rates got raised %51 at my company this year by Anthem. Even if %100 of America was employed, what stops the insurance company from jacking up rates?

In fact, many people without a job have better healthcare than middle class workers. My wife has an echo cardiogram done and it's 3,000 bucks (insurance covered 2,000 of it). Someone on medicare gets it for free. Just saw an add in the paper for a health wagon that does Echos for 150 bucks. So glad her doctor charges 3,000 for the same procedure. People with jobs can get screwed just as bad.

Chris, this is where you and I couldn't agree more. The exact place we should be spending our dollars is in reducing inequities like that. There is a reason that you pay $1000. I do echocardiograms during heart surgeries, and I can assure you that the machines and maintenance are not cheap. There are tons of patients that I treat on a DAILY basis and make little to no money at all. If I put an epidural into a laboring patient, I make maybe a $100 bucks, yet assume full medical liability in a lawsuit until the child is 18 in most states. What occurs is that in order to make the hospital profitable, you bill the people who have good insurance more than the people who have crappy insurance. Hand in hand with this is that people who have the good insurance will likely find good appointment times, surgical availability, access to consultants, quicker lab turnaround, better hospitals and better accredited physicians, etc etc the list goes on. In the end, we take losses on many patients and make money on less to earn a living. I guess that is the business nature of medicine. Let me also echo that there is a night and day difference between a health wagon echo and the one your wife received. Older equipment with lower sensitivity and resolution, a less skilled technician administering the test (makes a world of difference), and equally as important they spend the extra time and effort to look for rare things rather than export you out the door to fit in as many low reimbursement cases just to make the same amount of money. Still want that 150 dollar exam?

Personally, I think this system is stupid. Drug companies, hospitals, insurance companies, and medical equipment companies act as the countries largest middlemen. The idea that I have to choose my doctor from a book just seems retarded. My recommendation would be to put some of that cash into regulating the insurance company markups through subsidies for providing good insurance to workers.

BBF, honest answer... do you get incentives from drug companies?

From what I understand, many procedures are far cheaper if you decide to pay cash. The hospital gets the money directly and immediately, and doesn't have to deal with the haggling insurance company.

One optometrist I know won't even touch some insurance carriers, for fear they'll deny some of the claim and burden him with a loss. If you walk in with cash, he'll give you a deal -- and this cat has a great reputation and constant business.

This is all fantasy, imo.

You expect to cover everyone and rates go down? How the hell is that going to happen?

We are going to cover the poor and the working man is going to pay for it.

By clearing up the corrupt BS and raising taxes on the rich... 88K+ will pay more for health care... down side is they'll raise payroll taxes.
Unemployment will get a small bump with reductions in companies health care liability.

Where is rich? It changed several times when Obama was campaigning...even though he still is.

Where is rich? It changed several times when Obama was campaigning...even though he still is.

The new bill states 250K per as higher taxed to fund this... the rest is a sliding scale.
Where the republicans have failed with all of this higher spending line is to attach details to prove it... most every claim is being proven false.
Even if they could... what's the cost of saving large scale lives and giving basic benefits to the less fortunate?

See post 173 for my 'failure' and the Dems just 'tell' peeps whats going to happen.

History of our Gov't fucking things up is on the side of the Republicans/conservatives.

We'll see what happens.

And when Health Care cost go crazys (on the working man in the form of higher taxes) libs will deflect by talking about Bush.

By clearing up the corrupt BS and raising taxes on the rich... 88K+ will pay more for health care... down side is they'll raise payroll taxes.
Unemployment will get a small bump with reductions in companies health care liability.

True, but only in theory.

Raising the taxes on the wealthy does absolutely nothing, since it's the rich who can afford CPA's needed to find the loopholes and shelters in the tax code necessary to counteract the tax hikes. In the end, it's all political posturing.

BBF,

I don't think your proposed alternative of spending that healthcare money on providing everyone a job has all the benefits you suggest.

By what mechanism does "people with jobs" mean "people with health insurance"? For the most part, employers don't want to screw with insuring their employees. Insurance is not core to most employers' businesses, and is simply a cost of doing business. The bigger the cost, the more they have to fuck with it (or simply stick it to the employees). International employers see our mess as a U.S.-centric cost they don't have to deal with nearly as much in other geographies.

By what mechanism does "people with jobs" lead to "less depression"? There's an awful lot of people out there who have depression from their job situation, and no shortage of overwork and stress. Some of it is exasperated by the fact that they are tied to their jobs due to <drum roll please> healthcare considerations. Note that pay has almost nothing to do with depression rates.

By what mechanism does "people with jobs" lead to "less smoking"? The average age for a new smoker is 13, and the earlier they start, the less likely they are to ever stop. Will jobbing the parents somehow mean the kids are less likely to smoke, or do you advocate getting teenagers a real job the moment they puff on a cigarette?

By what mechanism does obesity cost more money than lack of obesity? Some of the obesity cost arguments resemble computer piracy arguments. Do those people who drop dead prematurely due to obesity rather from that cancer they'd get if they lived 10 years longer count as a cost savings? Fat people get paid less for the same work -- to what extent does that offset the added fiscal costs of covering them?

I could go on, but my point is really simple... jobs isn't some be-all end-all cure-all.

We'll look back and wonder why it took so long and so many people had to be dragged kicking and screaming into something so fundamentally good.

I think this will make for an interesting election cycle. Usually there isn't much content they argue about (you basically have the same argument by each side every year). This should be interesting to see each side highlight the health care debate in a few months.

bbf, nice post. its rare to find an informed, reasonable opinion on something that has somehow become such a hot button subject.
Somehow = costs have skyrocketed, while coverage in many cases has shrunk
Really, it's not that difficult to understand.


there are 2 objectives for reform: 1) lower cost, 2) expand coverage.

i, like most, favor the former. however, im dubious of the latter. the benefit is that it will decrease the number of people who get their healthcare in the ER, which is an exhorbitant waste of resources, quite expensive, and the bill usually gets passed on to those who can pay. not fair.

but is this bill better than that? i dont know, and i doubt few people in the world are actually qualified to even guess the answer. i think reading all the guesswork in what the cost of this will really be is quite pie in the sky ish, and relies heavilly on best case scenarios to come up with it actually lowering the deficit.
Of course, keep in mind that it will change over time. What exists now is just a starting point, and will inevitably get morphed just like Social Security and Medicare have. The big deal here is that real resources have been put into making this journey.


i think this is a bad thing, and dems will get hammered for it for not just an election, but possibly decades to come.

on the pro side, i think small businesses were waiting for this thing to get settled to find out what hiring new employees ment. so hopefully, the job market will pickup.

really, its a joke how tight lipped they were with details.
Figuring out what many of those details actually mean in real world terms depends a lot on how entities outside of the government's sphere react. There's a complex cascade of events that has yet to happen, and many unintended consequences await as well as some of the intended consequences (which will almost certainly call for some iterative reform). Sorting out the real impact in many cases will be tough. To take your example, I'm not at all convinced that most small businesses have been waiting to hire pending healthcare reform, versus waiting to hire until the economy shows more signs of recovery in their particular business segments. Can anyone truly "prove" me right or wrong?

As far as the Dems being negatively hit for decades. that's doubtful. It's funny to watch old Republicans who worshipped at the feet of Ronald Reagan rant against healthcare reform, but "don't touch my Social Security and Medicare". The funny part is that those voters who collect Social Security and Medicare, who benefit the most, have been more likely to vote for Republicans than the populace as a whole. Well, really, it's not so funny. It was Reagan, after all, who passed the largest expansion of Medicare after being very publicly opposed to it at the start of his political career.

"Fundamentally good"

Free health care = fundamentally good. Wow, who can argue with that?

Provide housing, food and now health care?

And who pays for it?

Libs always look to the gov't for their idealistic ways and the Gov't just keeps taking and taking more and more taxes.

correction, tahoe.

most of the taxes will be raised by a politician years from now who possibly had nothing to do with this bill and may even hate it.

so, a) he follows the bill's plan and raises unpopular taxes to pay for a bill he doesnt get credit for (but will get the heat on the taxes).

or b) he just doesnt raise the taxes and the bill goes on unpaid for, like alot of things in washington.

why pay for something when you can just not pay for it?

If he really wanted bi-partisan support Obama should've said that that sick people have WMDs.

More Bush talk.

More Bush talk.

You reap what you sew.

You are what you write.

You reap what you sew.

And, if i'm reading your post correctly...Odumba is the President and he pushed for health care so if I call Odumba a fucking idiot for doing this, I'm on topic.

But as soon as y'alls boy gets a lil criticism, you start with the Bush posts.

Seriously...move on. It's 2010. He won the election. It's his ball now. And he's an idiot.

"Fundamentally good"

Free health care = fundamentally good. Wow, who can argue with that?

Provide housing, food and now health care?

And who pays for it?

Libs always look to the gov't for their idealistic ways and the Gov't just keeps taking and taking more and more taxes.

Health care was already provided free, senile one. Now there is a mandate so those who could pay but were riding free will have to either get coverage or pay the penalty.

Lics always talk about morality till you ask them to put their money where their mouth is.

Lics...don't see me talking too much morality...then again I don't consider myself a lic.

Health Care was provided free? Ok, I'll stop paying.

Lics...don't see me talking too much morality...then again I don't consider myself a lic.

Health Care was provided free? Ok, I'll stop paying.

You could have and then walk into any hospital and it was against the law for them not to treat you.

Remember, it was part of the reason to kick out all 'dem e'legal ferners you employ.

As a center-right sort of guy, I don't care either way.

In a perfect world, everyone gets healthcare. In a perfect world, however, the people voting on these kinds of things actually read whatever the fuck they're voting on.

I do have one question for you guys who know about this stuff:

What's the difference between Obamacare and the Massachusetts healthcare system?

As a center-right sort of guy, I don't care either way.

In a perfect world, everyone gets healthcare. In a perfect world, however, the people voting on these kinds of things actually read whatever the fuck they're voting on.

And everyone pays their way.

And everyone has the same advantages to make their own way.

I'm not for quota's either.

I do have one question for you guys who know about this stuff:

What's the difference between Obamacare and the Massachusetts healthcare system?
Much of what would be similar to the Massachusetts healthcare system is many years away, and will undoubtedly get rejiggered over time. There's more to "Obamacare" (which is far more structured by Congress than Obama) than what the Massachusetts setup does. It owes much to what commie-pinko liberal Nixon wanted to do in the way of healthcare reform before Watergate.

The big difference is the ability of the federal government to regulate insurer and consumer behaviors in ways that state governments simply cannot. There wasn't much that a state could do to a nationwide company to control costs, so the Massachusetts plan costs went up 10-20% per year since its inception and became stupid for its poor people. One of the big advantages is that healthcare is less tied to global economies than, say, oil is. While there's a reliance on foreign medical professionals, and it can be cheaper to fly to Thailand to get some procedures, the patients, money, and infrastructure are primarily domestic.

Thus far, there's a number of pieces to the act that cause insurers to do things they don't want to do. There isn't much in the way of cost control, really (apart from reducing the Medicare provider payments which is of dubious cost control benefit in a practical sense). Where things will get interesting is the guv'mint reaction to inevitable price escalation after having a mandate in there to pay for it. Some of the costs going up are inevitable... we use ever-more-costly mechanisms to prolong life and we do squat in the way of population control (which is how China's rise in quality of life for its population has happened). Other aspects of the costs are simply usury, and won't resemble reality without force.

I'm not for quota's either.
Quotas are inevitable. "death-by-spreadsheet" is a reality today. In some ways, the reform act does away with some quota-ing mechanisms insurers have used to take money while not providing care. Laws prevent you from getting as much medicine as you want domestically, even if you can pay for it, so the only way a mega-billionaire can get a billion dollars of care involves a foreign entity with different laws. Of course, that doesn't factor in quality of care. For sufficiently rare diseases, there may be only a few individuals who can provide care, and by the time you pay megabucks to train more because society won't focus much on a disease that kills <1000/year, you'll be dead.

The interesting question involves whether or not quota-ing can be rational. Let's talk breast cancer, since I just saw another pink "walk for the cure" commercial. The actuarial reality is that breast cancer these days is a much more "solved" problem than it has been in the past, and gets disproportionate amount of attention and $ relative to other cancers and fatal diseases because it's (mostly) women's boobies. If some entity (call it a "death panel" :)) were to try to rationally allocate healthcare spending in terms of probable "bang for the buck", breast cancer now ranks low on the list. But they have marketing, and will continue to get disproportionate funding relative to other killers.

Something I have never figured out is why conservatives that are religious also have the GOP every man for himself ideal (where society shouldn't help the common man). That seems totally contradictory considering the bible preaches helping those less fortunate.

Of course this doesn't apply at all to conservatives that are not religious. I can understand why those people have that mentality, even if I don't agree with it. At least their values aren't in contradiction.

Something I have never figured out is why conservatives that are religious also have the GOP every man for himself ideal (where society shouldn't help the common man). That seems totally contradictory considering the bible preaches helping those less fortunate.

Of course this doesn't apply at all to conservatives that are not religious. I can understand why those people have that mentality, even if I don't agree with it. At least their values aren't in contradiction.

That's something that's always baffled me, as well.

Render that unto Caesar.....

It's a matter of priorities. Everyone knows the Bible talks more about saving the blastocysts than helping the less fortunate.

John was a revelatory.

I'm not religiuos but where in the bible does it say to pay for Freddie Freeloader's health care?

Taxpayers pay for housing, food and now health care for Freddie. A d some of the taxpayers are having a hard time paying it for themselves right now. I feel fortunate. But at some point this madness needs to end.

That's something that's always baffled me, as well.

I think a lot of peeps are just prejudging repubs and conservatives.

You could move to somewhere else ... oh wait, are there any more industrialized nations that don't provide those safety nets?

You could move to somewhere else ... oh wait, are there any more industrialized nations that don't provide those safety nets?

You can be like the rest of the world all you want.

On the plus side, when is Rush scheduled to leave for Costa Rica??

FWIW. I respect peeps who say I know the HC thing is going to cost taxpayers gazzillions but it's the right thing to do. I vehemently disagree with it but so be it.

But you fuckin morons who argue cost will go down are just being fuckin stupid. And I mean no disrespect just a dumb contractor talkin.

FWIW. I respect peeps who say I know the HC thing is going to cost taxpayers gazzillions but it's the right thing to do. I vehemently disagree with it but so be it.

But you fuckin morons who argue cost will go down are just being fuckin stupid. And I mean no disrespect just a dumb contractor talkin.

Just like the war in Iraq?

But, that's OK, right......

BTW, exactly HOW many billions of dollars simply "vanished"?

But again, that's OK.

I suppose it's just not right to help your fellow American, but simply glad-handing gazillions of dollars to shit countries who can barely help themselves is fine.

^I think you just brought up Bush again.

Either that or you brought Tahoe into the conversation.

BBF, honest answer... do you get incentives from drug companies?

Merc,
Absolutely not. They got rid of that stuff in the 90s. Nowadays things are much more tight. They do provide food or pens, but only the orthopedic reps do much more.

BBF,

I don't think your proposed alternative of spending that healthcare money on providing everyone a job has all the benefits you suggest.

By what mechanism does "people with jobs" mean "people with health insurance"? For the most part, employers don't want to screw with insuring their employees. Insurance is not core to most employers' businesses, and is simply a cost of doing business. The bigger the cost, the more they have to fuck with it (or simply stick it to the employees). International employers see our mess as a U.S.-centric cost they don't have to deal with nearly as much in other geographies.

By what mechanism does "people with jobs" lead to "less depression"? There's an awful lot of people out there who have depression from their job situation, and no shortage of overwork and stress. Some of it is exasperated by the fact that they are tied to their jobs due to <drum roll please> healthcare considerations. Note that pay has almost nothing to do with depression rates.

By what mechanism does "people with jobs" lead to "less smoking"? The average age for a new smoker is 13, and the earlier they start, the less likely they are to ever stop. Will jobbing the parents somehow mean the kids are less likely to smoke, or do you advocate getting teenagers a real job the moment they puff on a cigarette?

By what mechanism does obesity cost more money than lack of obesity? Some of the obesity cost arguments resemble computer piracy arguments. Do those people who drop dead prematurely due to obesity rather from that cancer they'd get if they lived 10 years longer count as a cost savings? Fat people get paid less for the same work -- to what extent does that offset the added fiscal costs of covering them?

I could go on, but my point is really simple... jobs isn't some be-all end-all cure-all.

Mxy,

Thanks for the post. I will reply to the most obvious points first. Obesity and Smoking. Obesity causes the most health care related cost of ANY modifiable risk factor. Obesity leads to an increased risk of (from surgeon general advisory):

Premature Death, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer, Breathing problems, Hypertension, Sleep Apnea, Gall Bladder Disease, Gall Bladder disease, AND Depression.

These are only the most significantly affected sources. The expense put forth by the care of overweight and obese patients FAR FAR FAR outstrips whatever they will ever pay. I cannot underscore how large the discrepancy is.

I can't quote a source on employment being shown to decrease smoking and depression, but there are MANY sources showing tobacco use is higher in the indigent.

Lastly, people with jobs leading to people with insurance. This is the exact area our government should be targeting. Facilitating financial incentives to employers for offering insurance to ALL their employees and then also introducing programs to increase employment. Encourage everyone to get a job, and then provide everyone with insurance as the cherry on top. Not just provide insurance to people who are just sitting there.
Concurrent with this is expanding the medicare and medicaid coverage (which I believe they are doing) so that people who ABSOLUTELY are not eligible for ANY job are still insured.

^I think you just brought up Bush again.

I know, this is 2010 after all...

Just like the war in Iraq?

But, that's OK, right......

BTW, exactly HOW many billions of dollars simply "vanished"?

But again, that's OK.

I suppose it's just not right to help your fellow American, but simply glad-handing gazillions of dollars to shit countries who can barely help themselves is fine.

this is a really bad way of thinking about things. if you like this because you think getting a chance to get republicans back for the iraqi war, well thats just childish politics and the two party system at its worst.

the iraq war was a bad idea, everyone but tahoe agrees on that. it had noble ideas (democracy in the mid east) but ultimately a luxury we could not afford (ringing bells yet?).

this bill is not deficit neutral. i dont want to call the CBO outright liars, but i would call them 1 degree less than that. every one knows its BS. this thing is gonna be a budget juggernaut. i read (on the NY times) the bill requires in the future a cutback in medicare, or the bill will cost 200 billion a year off that failed provision alone. i wish i had more details to make this point stronger, but how realistic is it that medicare actually gets cut back? i'll make the point that they could do it today, but it would be political suicide. but tomorrow im sure they'll find the spine to do it (some future politician who may hate the health bill. probably not, actually).

in reallity, this thing is putting hundreds of billions in deficits every year.

does that matter? well, if you pay attention to the news, greece lately had a credit explosion and today portugal did the same. the countries' debts will put cement shoes on their economies for ...?

today, for every $1 collected, 15 cents goes to not paying down the debt, but to paying interest on the debt. wow. i give 1 dollar to the fed, get 85 cents of benefits (dubious), and 15 cents go to paying off the credit card.

if we're playing the blame game, clinton left a balanced budget, bush was completely irresponsible, and now obama is making bush look like nirvana. again, i wish i had more detail, but i believe 18 cents per dollar is the next threshold that we will reach due to stimullus. how much worse when obamacare takes over?

keep in mind, 1-.15 is .85, 1-.18 is .82, so if our budget were 1 trillion (hypothetical), just to stay even (assume no inflation) we would have to increase taxes by 30 billion dollars just to stay even. so raise taxes or slash spending or put it on the credit card. 10 years is enough for me to know where i'll put my bet on.

but eventually, people stop wondering about the US's ability to pay back the debt, and as wonder increases, so does the interest rate on the loans. and at some point, the money gets so expensive to borrow that the bubble pops.

and if ^ that doesnt worry you, consider this annecdote. on the news with brian williams tonight, i saw an interview of a restaurant owner. she employed 400 people, 50 of whom had health insurance. when the dust settles on this bill, and rather than 1/8 of her customers having insurance 100% will have insurance. sounds good, right? well, the one number in question is how many employees will lose their jobs, and will stop paying taxes on their income.

david l brooks put it well. he said the US is like a middle class familly speeding towards bankruptcy, but just decided to give a mamoth donation to charity. a noble deed. but uh oh for the future.

Lastly, people with jobs leading to people with insurance. This is the exact area our government should be targeting. Facilitating financial incentives to employers for offering insurance to ALL their employees and then also introducing programs to increase employment. Encourage everyone to get a job, and then provide everyone with insurance as the cherry on top. Not just provide insurance to people who are just sitting there.
Concurrent with this is expanding the medicare and medicaid coverage (which I believe they are doing) so that people who ABSOLUTELY are not eligible for ANY job are still insured.

Encourage everyone to get a job? There are millions of people out there right now who would love to get a job and can't find one. Or found a job that pays a fraction of their old one and doesn't provide benefits. Or have insurance that doesn't provide enough coverage when they need it, drops them when they're sick or refuses to take them on in the first place. These people are real and they're struggling.

I just don't buy the argument that we can't have a health care system in this country that does right by these people because we're paralyzed by fear of some mythical layabout who "just sits there."

I also call shenanigans on all the doomsayers heralding the ragnarok over this. There are many variations on the theme but all our peers among the rich, industrialized nations provide some form of government health care. We're alone in our employer pays free-for-all. It's not american exceptionalism, it's just a busted system that makes us pay more and get less as a country.

What we had wasn't working. What just got passed is flawed but a huge step in the right direction that finally gets us to the beginning of the end of the beginning.

Merc,
Absolutely not. They got rid of that stuff in the 90s. Nowadays things are much more tight. They do provide food or pens, but only the orthopedic reps do much more.

BBF, Always respected your posts... however I have a difficult time believing that a large % of Docs don't receive "extra value" for promoting their goods. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/69120.php
Bottom line is the entire system should be reviewed by an unbiased independent committee to identify unfair practice.. politicians should be the very last to look into the failed system (corrupt MOFOs)

I have a difficult time believing that a large % of Docs don't receive "extra value" for promoting their goods. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/69120.php

They do bribe doctors with conferences in exotic travel destinations and an endless barrage of donuts, bagels and panera bread... but it's not so sinister as outright paying docs to write prescriptions. The unfortunate reality is that if it weren't for the pharma rep who begged, pleaded and scooby-snacked their way into an hour of a doctor's time for a sales pitch, most doctors would get little to no information on new drugs.

Most doctors had a year on pharmaceuticals in med school and that was many years in the past and carving time out of their day to study up on the latest developments just isn't something they make a priority. Once they find a drug they believe works they will prescribe it on auto-pilot until the day they retire unless some new sales rep hottie comes along to ply them away with tasty treats.

None of this is intended to paint big pharma as the good guys but they aren't exactly villains either. It's a competitive market and while every company will push the boundaries of the law as far as they possibly can to make their buck most will stay within the letter of the law.

The best thing we can do as patients is to understand this picture and not meekly accept the first thing offered assuming that when a doctor makes a recommendation he has searched out and weighed all the alternatives. It pays for us to do as much of our own research as possible and armed with some information, ask questions and have a discussion with the doctor about drugs and treatments.

So Medical News wasn't telling the truth?... hmmm

Quite the opposite, they are telling the truth. What I said was just my take on the impact of it. Depending on your perspective, it could be drug companies buying doctors, or as BBF put it just "food and pens" or somewhere in between.

Okay, this is getting a little bilious. That article was from 2007 gentlemen, and at least to some extent it was true. It was a 2009 January 1st directive that all that garbage stopped. Since then they are not even really allowed to buy food for the staff, although sometimes they can sneak something into the hospital. Pens are also gone. The only reps who don't seem to care about this much are the orthopedic reps for the orthopedic surgeons. Not vacations and such, but a graduate from probably pens to dinners (and I do think that is unethical).

As a person who has to at least be familiar with every drug people take including herbals, I will tell you that really just isn't the case anymore. If you took the money out of the pharmaceutical company's hands, we will be the first to be happy. The less middlemen the better.

I can tell you guys don't work in the healthcare sector outside of Chris' wife I believe. I do not mean this in a pejorative way, but only in a lack of exposure away. Ask others who are in the field and see us on a regular basis. I have not worked less than 65 hours in a week since I graduated. Literally. Believe me, I thought it would be better than this. In the end I will do what all the docs I have talked to plan on doing, which is scale back to 40 hours per week, and take a lot less pay in exchange of more time at home. Take those 40 hours per week and provide those people with the time involved care I have always wanted to give and not assume liability for squeezing in 30% more patients, their liability, and continuing to sardine them into each day. It isn't exactly what our healthcare system had in mind and it won't result in anyone getting an appointment or OR date sooner, but at least when I see someone, I will get to take my time and do what I have always wanted to.... and see my family of course.

Mxy,

Thanks for the post. I will reply to the most obvious points first. Obesity and Smoking. Obesity causes the most health care related cost of ANY modifiable risk factor. Obesity leads to an increased risk of (from surgeon general advisory):

Premature Death, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer, Breathing problems, Hypertension, Sleep Apnea, Gall Bladder Disease, Gall Bladder disease, AND Depression.

These are only the most significantly affected sources. The expense put forth by the care of overweight and obese patients FAR FAR FAR outstrips whatever they will ever pay. I cannot underscore how large the discrepancy is.
It's obvious that obesity fucks up and shortens life and quality of life. What I don't get is what the actual dollar cost of that is. Most analyses I've read simply add up the cost of care for obesity-related disease and state "it costs megabucks", ignoring the fact that the non-obese people die eventually, and that long life in general costs more than it ever has. They don't ask "what if", don't present any independent actuarial work. If someone waved a magic wand and ended obesity, wouldn't we turn most those obesity costs into extra Social Security costs? Wouldn't they die of something else like cancer or Alzheimer's complications eventually, which might still lead to big medical costs at the end?


I can't quote a source on employment being shown to decrease smoking and depression, but there are MANY sources showing tobacco use is higher in the indigent.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. Is smoking _caused_ by people not having jobs? Again, the average age that a smoker gets addicted is 13, and the earlier the start, the more unlikely they are to ever quit. The idea seems to be to stop 'em when they're young. Where does having a job figure in, here? I could easily believe that both parents having jobs away from home are _bad_ from a child-rearing perspective, and maybe that is what fuels teen smoking? Maybe it's the fact that the smoker has to commit some crime early on to obtain the cigarettes that leads down the path to poor job prospects? I dunno. All I can see is that it doesn't seem like easy access to jobs fixes based on how the problem manifests.


Lastly, people with jobs leading to people with insurance. This is the exact area our government should be targeting. Facilitating financial incentives to employers for offering insurance to ALL their employees and then also introducing programs to increase employment. Encourage everyone to get a job, and then provide everyone with insurance as the cherry on top. Not just provide insurance to people who are just sitting there.
Concurrent with this is expanding the medicare and medicaid coverage (which I believe they are doing) so that people who ABSOLUTELY are not eligible for ANY job are still insured.
So, you suggest the guv'mint bribe the employers to buy insurance? Why not have the guv'mint bribe citizens or just buy that insurance directly rather than bribe the employers to do so? Is there some particular reason that employers would care about employee health that makes them the best choice? Why punt those decisions on employers, most of whom don't have heatlhcare know-how or leverage against the insurance companies? I think employers hanging healthcare over employees' heads is a bad one. It's not like the old days where one could rely on employers for long-term cradle-to-grave stable jobs that could sustain a family. Why further a traditional model of employer provided healthcare when the nature of the employer employee relationship has changed so much?

Mxy spot on. I've railed on the obese thing for a long time. Why is it cheaper for me to die of cancer at 70 than a heart attack at 55?

Don't forget the mental illness component in the smoking/not working piece.

Totally agree with taking health coverage concerns away from employers. It isn't their area of experience, let experts or individuals with an interest run that joint.

I'm not religiuos but where in the bible does it say to pay for Freddie Freeloader's health care?
You're looking for the section on "burn the liberal infidels" -- Demonotomy 6:66.


Taxpayers pay for housing, food and now health care for Freddie. A d some of the taxpayers are having a hard time paying it for themselves right now. I feel fortunate. But at some point this madness needs to end.
In the particular case of healthcare, we as a country pay roughly double the per-capita costs that countries with socialized healthcare do, and our outcomes aren't any better. What we have as a system doesn't work efficiently in terms of cost control.

Why? Life and death are things where you pay now and quibble about costs later, if you ever get around to "later", and you have a hard time keeping score from a hospital bed. No employer or bloc of employers has any particular leverage over insurers, and complexity in sorting out real-world pricing has grown. We've managed to come up with all these costly life-extending things, such that keeping grandpa alive for those last few months might truly cost more than grandpa ever made in a lifetime. Part of the solution to that problem to pass the costs on to the next captive generation.

What to do? Hoo boy. I'm glad someone's gotten the rocket in the air to try and do something! There's elements that will change as conditions warrant, but it beats burying heads in the sand. Sure, there's problems with paying for it, but Americans have been paying double for the same outcomes from the private sector insurers for awhile now, so there's financial wiggle room to fix the financing. The best outcome is probably something like Medicare, which overall works mostly-ok and a lot of folks seem to like. The worst outcome is something like the VA system, which is a mess of fuck-tacular proportions. Our guv'mint came up with both.

I'm not religiuos but where in the bible does it say to pay for Freddie Freeloader's health care?

First of all health insurance problems aren't unique to people without a job.

Second, people without jobs aren't all freeloaders.

Third, here are some passages with a simple google search (I spent less than a minute finding these, I am sure there are a ton more):


"He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done." Proverbs 19:17

"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor." Proverbs 22:9

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich -- both come to poverty." Proverbs 22:16

"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21

"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." Luke 12:33

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

"However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you." Deuteronomy 15:4

"If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother." Deuteronomy 15:7

As I said this has nothing to do with non-religious people, I understand their thinking. I just don't get the contradiction in religious conservatives at all.

The sheep and the goats. Specifically, Matthew 25:40. What you did for the least of my brothers, you did for me.

Bibletalk aside, there's been some good stuff posted here in this thread, thanks.

BTW, I think the GOP has no chance to repeal this thing. I think their unconstitutional claims don't stick either.

I'm curious Tahoe, I know you oppose the bill based on principles, but do you agree with their notion it is unconstitutional?

where in the constitution does it give congress the right to force the citizens to buy something?

It does when it effects interstate commerce.

Why should I have to pay for people visiting the emergency room for pneumonia because they don't see a doctor at all? You and I have to pay for those costs that could have been prevented with proper insurance and doctor visits.

It also mentions that congress oversee the general welfare of the country (not sure if this would fall under that).

Note that our Founding Fathers forced people to buy guns from private enterprise at their own expense. Check out the Militia Acts of 1792.

where in the constitution does it give congress the right to force the citizens to buy something?

If it helps, think of it as another tax, which like the others you are forced to pay and the constitution allows it.

President Obama responds to GOP threat to repeal health care legislation, telling them to ‘go for it’ and see how voters respond - AP

RpOUctySD68

In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality

This is about redistributing wealth.

If it helps, think of it as another tax, which like the others you are forced to pay and the constitution allows it.

Was income tax derived from a constitutional convention?

could congress pass universal car insurance? perhaps thats next?

Sign me up!

Granholm officially punks Mike Cox for filing suit against the healthcare law:

http://michiganmessenger.com/36102/granholm-directs-cox-to-intervene-in-health-care-reform-lawsuit-in-support-of-legislation

On the plus side, when is Rush scheduled to leave for Costa Rica??

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=102672403103333&ref=mf

If it helps, think of it as another tax, which like the others you are forced to pay and the constitution allows it.

this is what i don't understand, when people talk about the gov't unconstitutionally forcing us to purchase something. what about all the taxes that i must pay which go towards things like roads and public services that i consume? i don't have the choice to pay or not pay for police or fire dept services. isn't that the essentially the same? (i'm genuinely asking)

could congress pass universal car insurance? perhaps thats next?

I'm sure the thieves in DC would like to control every part of our lives.

With Obama we can get there.

Along the lines of what Matt was saying, some things are just in the best interests of the citizenry and should be funded as such, IMO. Public schools, police/fire, roads, traffic lights, etc.

Making sure that all citizens have access to affordable medical care is a logical inclusion.

Bibletalk aside, there's been some good stuff posted here in this thread, thanks.


The bible stuff was specifically asked for.

As for the cost of obesity vs cancer argument, do you factor in the lost research dollars that could be going toward curing something that in many cases is an unavoidable disease vs finding ways to help people who have consciously fucked themselves over?

Also, isn't the point of health care "longer life". So wouldn't you have to do it as a ratio to life span rather than simple $ amounts.

The bible stuff was specifically asked for.

The bible talk was brought up by 2 prejudice guys. They made an assumption that wasn't proven.

Chris asked a legitimate question about religious beliefs and how they factor into the equation. You asked for places where the Bible says to help others. He provided.

Don't ask if you don't want to know. You know, the same thing you do with the rest of reality.