The Cellar
Page 8 of 51 1234567 8 910111213141518 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Impeding changes to our Health Care system (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16747)

TheMercenary 08-03-2009 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 585724)
How do you know? Clod just told you that she talked with family friend who is a dentist, and who illustrated the "biggest reason (times 2, even)" many don't want to deal with medicare. :eyebrow:
I am not disputing her experience with the one person she had contact with. I fully believe her.

I am talking about the main reason there are so many Docs that do not accept Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare, and a few other state run programs.

Shawnee123 08-03-2009 11:22 AM
*shrugs*

cite

TheMercenary 08-03-2009 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 585726)
*shrugs*

cite
My 30 yrs working in health care. Gimmie a minute and I will pull something out of cyber air.

Quote:
The primary reason physicians cease to accept new Medicare patients is the rate of payment; secondary reasons include complexity of the Medicare program, intensity of treatment needed for elderly patients, and personal preference.
http://www.unmc.edu/ruprihealth/Pubs/PB2004-5.pdf

Quote:
"The decline in physicians providing charity care and treating Medicaid patients is a sign of the financial pressures facing physicians," said Paul B. Ginsburg, Ph.D., president of HSC, a nonpartisan policy research organization funded exclusively by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "With substantial pressure on payment rates from private insurers, physicians may place a lower priority on treating the uninsured and Medicaid patients."
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medica...Physicians.htm

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c.../full/37/22/10

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/12/...to-accept.html

http://www.physicianspractice.com/in...icleID/369.htm

This study shows that the acceptance had stablized during a 10 period but the threat to declining acceptance was still a threat (in the conclusions).

http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/811/

Potential Impact of Obama Care

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208383695408513.html

I could go on but why...

Shawnee123 08-03-2009 11:28 AM
So I just choose whose first-hand account I most believe?

TheMercenary 08-03-2009 11:41 AM
Look again. But hey, we choose who we want to believe everyday. What eva...

Some numbers on here:

http://www.dcmsonline.org/legislativ...mbursement.pdf

https://texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=7431\

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/173/story/43362.html

Waits in care for Medicaid due to lack of physicians accepting the insurance in the Dallas area (2009)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...d.4187740.html

Shawnee123 08-03-2009 11:48 AM
I just thought of my choices in the matter: level-headed Clod, or the guy who so hates the Obama administration that anything and everything even remotely related to anything and everything they do is SUSPECT and EVIL and GOING TO KILL US ALL.

Just sayin'

TheMercenary 08-03-2009 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 585733)
I just thought of my choices in the matter: level-headed Clod, or the guy who so hates the Obama administration that anything and everything even remotely related to anything and everything they do is SUSPECT and EVIL and GOING TO KILL US ALL.

Just sayin'
Hmmmmmm... ok, I find it hard to believe that I ever said anything among the likes of "GOING TO KILL US ALL!"

A bit of an overstatement, but hey, like I said, what eva... :rolleyes:

Shawnee123 08-03-2009 12:08 PM
I was employing hyperbole, as I often see in your cited articles. :lol:

OK, I'll quit now!

TheMercenary 08-03-2009 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 585736)
I was employing hyperbole, as I often see in your cited articles. :lol:

OK, I'll quit now!
Yea, I know that sillyperson. I was giving it back to you...:rolleyes:

TheMercenary 08-03-2009 01:58 PM
Some interesting observations about the Calif Insurance Exchange program and the plans that are being proposed in Congress:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124925648163600125.html

It will be interesting to see if the legal mandate, as proposed, that every single person enters the exchange if they do not already have insurance, whether or not that will have enough people to support it without the pitfalls that have helped the Calif plan become a complete failure. As usual, there are very little details about how the Federal Health Plan is going to work so we will not know until the law is already passed.

Clodfobble 08-03-2009 03:32 PM
(As a side note, I just realized I've been saying Medicare this whole time, but I meant Medicaid. Poor people, not old people. Old people don't have any teeth left, so they don't need dentists. :lol:)

TheMercenary 08-03-2009 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 585830)
(As a side note, I just realized I've been saying Medicare this whole time, but I meant Medicaid. Poor people, not old people. Old people don't have any teeth left, so they don't need dentists. :lol:)
I knew that when you were talking about kids, etc.

TheMercenary 08-03-2009 08:29 PM
Another good op ed with some things to think about as Congress rushes through this change.

Quote:
Obama’s More-for-Less Health Care Doesn’t Add Up: Caroline Baum

Commentary by Caroline Baum

Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama has been exhorting lawmakers to use the August recess to read health- care-reform bills currently before Congress.

In other words, if the president had gotten his way, members would have voted first and read second legislation to revamp one-sixth of the U.S. economy. No wonder public support for both Obama and his health-care plan is eroding, according to recent polls.

Yes, people are resistant to change, as the president noted, especially when it comes to something as important as their doctor. But maybe something else is at play: the growing realization that the numbers don’t add up.

I listened to Obama’s July 29 town hall meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina, hoping to understand how the government plans to deliver more for less, to cover most of the 46 million uninsured Americans while lowering premiums, limiting out-of-pocket expenses and requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care.

I heard Obama say a lot of people will get a lot more without anyone getting less.

I heard him say two-thirds of the cost of covering everyone in America can be paid for “by money that is already in the health-care system.”

I heard him say he favors a public option to increase competition and keep costs down.

I heard him say he “will not sign a health-care bill that is not deficit neutral” and that doesn’t lower health-care inflation over the long term.

Let’s see how some of these claims stack up:

1. Mind Your P’s and Q’s

Obama wants to insure more people and lower the total cost of care. In economic terms, he wants to control price (P) and quantity (Q). What makes Obama think he can repeal the law of supply and demand?

To achieve higher Q and lower P, the supply curve has to shift outward, to the right. How does the government plan to increase the supply of health care? By making it less attractive to young men and women with a passion for medicine and a desire for independence?

Obama says he wants to encourage medical students to become primary-care physicians via financial incentives, reversing the trend toward specialization, which is where the money is.

Easier said than done, says Paul Feldstein, professor of health-care management at the Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine. “It takes a long time to produce more doctors.”

Once the government starts to dictate budgets and salaries in an effort to control costs, medicine becomes a less attractive profession.

Rationing is inevitable, Feldstein says, and there are only two options: with price and free choice or with regulation. Surely Obama spent enough time at the University of Chicago to understand his P’s and Q’s.

2. Inefficiencies of Scale

Obama says his advisers have identified $500 billion to $600 billion of inefficiencies in the system that would pay for reforms. When was the last time the government wrung inefficiencies out of anything? Medicare is plagued with waste and fraud.

Health-care reform is long overdue. We need a system that offers wider choice, proper incentives (eliminating fee-for- service) and subsidies for those who can’t afford it.

We don’t need something that fails to cut costs and eliminates choice. Plan B anyone?

3. Enhanced Competition

Obama says the government needs to offer a public health- care option to encourage competition. This line of thinking leads “to the uncomfortable conclusion that the government must be a player in every industry,” says Cliff Asness, president of AQR Capital, a hedge fund in Greenwich, Connecticut, who debunks this and other health-care myths in a paper posted on his Web site.

How do other industries manage to be highly competitive without Uncle Sam’s interference?

Unless the public wants health-care outcomes akin to those of the nation’s schools -- another sector offering a “public option,” Asness points out -- Obama needs a better plan and a more convincing argument.

4. Measuring the Right Stuff

Obama has accused opponents of his health-care plan of “scaring everybody” with intimations of rationing. He scared back, telling his Raleigh audience last week that “if we do nothing, I can almost guarantee you your premiums will double.”

The high cost of health care is another myth skewered by Asness, in his paper, and Kenneth Arrow, Nobel Laureate in Economics, in an interview in the Atlantic.

The gist of their arguments: This ain’t your father’s health care. Innovations in diagnostic and surgical procedures cost money but allow for better and less invasive treatment.

What about the accusation that the U.S. spends more money on health care and boasts life-expectancy rates well below those of most developed countries?

A red herring. There’s a big difference between health and health care. If you eat too many Big Macs, smoke and drink, that’s a lifestyle choice.

Once you suffer a heart attack or are diagnosed with cancer, the survival rates in the U.S. -- especially for cancer -- are second to none. For all the hoopla over Canada’s socialized medicine, the cross-border flows aren’t south to north.

“The low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health-care system,” according to a new study by University of Pennsylvania professors Samuel H. Preston and Jessica Y. Ho.

What’s the prognosis if ObamaCare is enacted?

“People have to get less or pay more,” Feldstein says.

As a group the elderly are the largest consumers of health- care services. If you want to cut costs, you have to go where it’s being spent.

The Eskimos had an efficient way of rationing: in some cases they simply sent the elderly out to sea on an ice floe. It’s not what Gram and Gramps envisioned for their golden years.
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ah.vuAG5B4iU

TheMercenary 08-06-2009 01:40 PM
White House finally confirms it made a back door deal with the Drug Industry over preserving income. Frankly I don't think they should get any "deal" and neither should the Insurance Industry.

Quote:
August 6, 2009
White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/he...ef=todayspaper

classicman 08-06-2009 10:46 PM
the more things change the more they stay the same.

Urbane Guerrilla 08-07-2009 05:44 PM
Peggy Noonan:

You Are Terrifying Us

Happy Monkey 08-07-2009 06:00 PM
Apparently Peggy Noonan is terrified of her own reflection.

ZenGum 08-07-2009 09:17 PM
She could get surgery for that...

TheMercenary 08-08-2009 07:42 AM
False:
Healthcare Reform will be deficit neutral and $6 billion surplus in 10 yrs

Quote:
During a town hall meeting, U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, a Democrat from Missouri, tried to reassure constituents that his party's health care reform bill would cost less than expected.

"The Congressional Budget Office most recently came out and analyzed the current plan and said that it was not only deficit-neutral, which has been one of the important factors for the president and congressional leaders, but also that over 10 years it would create a $6 billion surplus," Carnahan told an audience on July 20, 2009, at Forest Park Community College in St. Louis.

The audience laughed in response. (To see for yourself, fast forward this video to the 7-minute mark.)

It's a claim that's been repeated by many Democrats since the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group that does all the number crunching for Congress, released its cost estimate for the health care bill on July 17.

In its report, the CBO estimated the bill will cost about $1.04 trillion over 10 years. That sum would be partially offset by $219.3 billion in Medicare savings and by $583 billion in tax increases over the same amount of time.

Still, the bill would create a $239 billion deficit, according to CBO.

We were perplexed: How could Carnahan proclaim a $6 billion surplus if the budget office was projecting a deficit?

The confusion comes down to an accounting question about how to treat $245 billion in the House bill that would cover the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so doctors don't face the potential of a 21 percent cut in fees.

In 1997, Congress agreed that, should Medicare reimbursement rates grow faster than the economy, they would be cut. But instead of following its own rules, Congress has put off those cuts year after year with a Medicare "fix." CBO considers that sum as part of the cost of the bill.

But many Democrats don't. Two days after Carnahan's town hall meeting, the House approved a bill that would require all new spending be paid for by new taxes or spending cuts to other government programs, a practice widely known as pay-as-you-go. That bill exempts the Medicare pay fix from these rules, which effectively reduces the cost of the health care reform bill by that same $245 billion. The pay-as-you-go bill is pending in the Senate.

But in the meantime, CBO will continue to include it as part of the legislation's price tag until the pay-as-you-go rules are put into law.

Back to Carnahan's math: If you accept his assumption that pay-as-you-go ultimately passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law, the health care bill will only cost $797 billion over 10 years. The $219.3 in spending cuts and the $583 billion in tax revenue total $802 billion, so that leaves $5.3 billion extra. (That's not quite $6 billion, but it's in the ballpark. We can assume this is the result of rounding.)

Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, this kind of budget trickery is nothing new to Washington, said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"It's the best way to do business in Washington," he said. "You inflate the baseline [of a bill] to make it seem like you're spending less."

So as for Carnahan's statement, he is definitely misstating CBO's findings. The budget office did not say there would be a $6 billion surplus, it said there would be a $239 billion deficit. Only when Carnahan added some optimistic assumptions did the math work the way he claimed. We find his claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lth-care-refo/

richlevy 08-08-2009 07:31 PM
Still think having private insurance means you're safe?
 
From here.

I think this is another example of how the '%70 of the country who are covered by insurance' does not mean 'fully covered'. I'm guessing the $3000 limit on giving birth was not in the large print. I think the only way to have a baby for $3000 in this country is to squat and drop in a potato field with a midwife and a horse blanket.

Quote:
The individual health insurance market can be a scary place for Americans who turn to it for health coverage. If they're accepted to a plan at all, patients often find that their coverage isn't quite what they were promised, and limits and restrictions lead to high medical bills for covered services that aren't really covered. That's how Sarah Wildman ended up with a $22,000 bill from the hospital where her daughter was born, despite having what she thought was good health insurance with a maternity rider.
Quote:
Pregnancy on the individual health insurance market requires an additional rider that must be purchased before the pregnancy begins. Without this rider, the fetus becomes a pre-existing condition. Prenatal care, delivery, hospitalization, and any complications are not covered. Not a cent.
Wildman discovered that her maternity rider covered her daughter's birth, but with a limit of $3,000. That is not a typo. Her story ended with the company covering 90% of the bills, but, she suspects, this is only because she happened to be writing a story about it.

jinx 08-08-2009 07:41 PM
It cost my ins co $4,000 for me to give birth with a midwife in a free standing birth center. It cost almost $13,000 to get the same job done in a hospital 2 year earlier.

richlevy 08-08-2009 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx (Post 586796)
It cost my ins co $4,000 for me to give birth with a midwife in a free standing birth center. It cost almost $13,000 to get the same job done in a hospital 2 year earlier.
So they're basing their coverage on the lowest possible cost, even though a majority of women still use hospitals.

If the bill was $22,000, there may have been complications, which would possibly have required a switch to the hospital.

I just wonder if anyone told this woman up front "we're only going to cover $3000 because we're assuming that you'll use a midwife."

jinx 08-08-2009 08:03 PM
So it's the insurance company's fault this woman bought and paid for something and had no idea what it was? I'm sure no one told her specifically how much of anything they would cover... I bet it's just all in writing, in a big book they gave her but she never opened.

Quote:
The "maternity" coverage we purchased didn't cover my labor, delivery, or hospital stay. It was a sham.
Then why did you purchase it? Duh.

TheMercenary 08-08-2009 08:55 PM
Most people, insured people, have no idea how insurance works until they use it and find out what is not covered. My wife has become an expert on this criminal industry over the years and how they don't work for you. All the while my employer is tooting their horn over what great coverage we have and how much better it is going to be while they raised our rates $3000 a year.

TheMercenary 08-08-2009 09:44 PM
This could certainly be a good change if inacted:

Quote:
Like many other people, Ms. Krinsk thought that her prescription information was private. But in fact, prescriptions, and all the information on them — including not only the name and dosage of the drug and the name and address of the doctor, but also the patient’s address and Social Security number — are a commodity bought and sold in a murky marketplace, often without the patients’ knowledge or permission.

That may change if some little-noted protections from the Obama administration are strictly enforced. The federal stimulus law enacted in February prohibits in most cases the sale of personal health information, with a few exceptions for research and public health measures like tracking flu epidemics. It also tightens rules for telling patients when hackers or health care workers have stolen their Social Security numbers or medical information, as happened to Britney Spears, Maria Shriver and Farrah Fawcett before she died in June.

“The new rules will plug some gaping holes in our federal health privacy laws,” said Deven McGraw, a health privacy expert at the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. “For the first time, pharmacy benefit managers that handle most prescriptions and banks and contractors that process millions of medical claims will be held accountable for complying with federal privacy and security rules.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/bu...ivacy.html?hpw

classicman 08-08-2009 10:42 PM
Quote:
Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, this kind of budget trickery is nothing new to Washington, said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"It's the best way to do business in Washington," he said. "You inflate the baseline [of a bill] to make it seem like you're spending less."

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 08:26 AM
Looks like Rahm it Through's plan may have backfired on this one...

Georgia Democrat yells at local doctor over health care

Quote:
Tensions are running so high at town hall meetings that Rep. David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, yelled at a local doctor concerned about health care after mistaking him for an "astroturf" political operative looking for a fight.

Mr. Scott became visibly agitated when one of his constituents, a practicing doctor, asked a few questions about health care reform during a town hall meeting. The meeting was held to discuss a road project, but was opened up for questions near the end. That's when Dr. David Hill stood up to speak.

Dr. Hill asked Mr. Scott why he was going to vote for a health care plan similar to that implemented in Massachusetts "that is shown not to work" and if he supported a government-provided health care insurance option.

The congressman replied by accusing the doctor of "hijacking" his event.

"I'm listening to my constituents, OK?" Scott said, "These are people who live in the 13th Congressional district, who vote in this district. That’s who I’ve got to respond to … So what you’ve got to understand, those of you who are here, who have taken and came and hijacked this event we dealing with here, this is not a health care event."

"You chose to come and to do it on your own," he yelled. "Not a single one of you had the decency to call my office and set up for a meeting." He went on, in a threatening voice, "You want a meeting with me on health care, I'll give it to you!"

The outburst is yet another example of how confrontational town hall meetings have become over recent weeks, as constituents are becoming more forthright in asking their elected representatives challenging questions. These actions and other forms of protest have been encouraged by limited government advocacy groups opposed to the stimulus package, the Democrats favored health care reforms and other big spending government proposals.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...doctor-over-h/

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 09:32 AM
Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/he...lobby.html?hpw

You can bet some deal lucrative to the big Pharm had to be done to get them on board.

DanaC 08-09-2009 11:55 AM
what would you like to see happen instead Merc?

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 03:02 PM
On the big Pharm or on the overall plan?

On Pharm I would like to see them not have secret meetings at the White House and make behind the scenes deals that favor bussines as usual where they make huge profits on everyone who can pay or has insurance.

DanaC 08-09-2009 03:56 PM
In terms of widening affordable access to healthcare, or in terms of tackling the problems of the ininsured/under insured?

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 586907)
In terms of widening affordable access to healthcare, or in terms of tackling the problems of the ininsured/under insured?
I completely support widening affordable access to healthcare and figuring out a way to support the under or uninsured. The problem I have with the approach is the way they plan to pay for it. If the majority of the population wants it, everyone needs to pay into it. Either through some sort of flat percent of every income, regardless of income, or through user taxes in sales tax or something similar to a VAT. The approach they are Rahming through Congress is fraught with missteps and pitfalls, combined with back door deals with the industry. If you go back years, I have always said we have a health insurance crisis. The current plan in Congress may eventually bankrupt this country and place the burden of paying for it on a minority of taxpayers.

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 07:49 PM
Wow..

Quote:
The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

Barbara Wagner
(Paul Carter/Register-Guard)The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 586907)
In terms of widening affordable access to healthcare, or in terms of tackling the problems of the ininsured/under insured?
Keeping my previous response in context, and my 30 plus years in the business of healthcare, I am not at all confident that the government can successfully implement a program of government sponsored insurance or a single payer plan (I fully understand that this is currently not on the table but there is no doubt that this is where Obama and many other liberal democrats want to go in time). Nor any plan which encourages the mass migration of those with private insurance, or employers who provide insurance to employees to a government run plan.

People cannot draw parallels between countries the size of Sweden, France, the UK, or other small economies and populations and extrapolate those plans to a country the size of the US with ease. The US is much more complex in its relationships with business and insurance as we now know it. But given what we have seen about the potential back door deals the Obama administration is making with various special interest groups, I am futher discouraged that implementation of a national coordinated effort to provide insurance to some 30 million people can actually work. I believe that care will continue to be rationed but to a greater degree than it is now with a greater emphasis on cost containment spread over a greater number of people. This form of rationing is slowly creeping into the care of Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programed patients. Various more expensive techniques and procedures are not offered to these patients because the insurance will not pay. A procedure that can cost 1/10th the cost in a free-standing surgical center is passed over for a much more expensive procedure which the insurance company will pay for in a hospital. That is detrimental to the system as a whole increasing costs for the patients and other insured people, not to mention the public whom ultimately is paying for it all. The current government run program is broken and fiscally inefficient. What makes anyone think they can expand it by 1000 fold and do a better job?


The issue of illegal aliens must be addressed to eliminate a weakness and further drain on any national program for the uninsured.

The issues of reimbursement fro providers must be addressed, and they are not.

The issues of payment for catastrophic care must be addressed and they are not.

The issues of chronic expensive care and treatment of rare and complex disease needs to be addressed.

The issue of how all this is going to be paid and by whom has not been exposed to the fullest in any plan and those issues must be on the table with adequate time for debate. I do not believe, as history has shown us in this Congress, that this will happen.

What ever plan is developed, Congress should pledge to enter the same plan as the "government option", including Ted Kennedy, and the same level of care should be given to them as should be given to the homeless person on the street.

Undertoad 08-10-2009 01:32 AM
Quote:
What ever plan is developed, Congress should pledge to enter the same plan as the "government option", including Ted Kennedy, and the same level of care should be given to them as should be given to the homeless person on the street.
Yessir, that's the acid test: if they have developed a public insurance plan that cuts costs AND works well, they can demonstrate faith to the public by signing up for it.

Undertoad 08-10-2009 01:32 AM
Quote:
What ever plan is developed, Congress should pledge to enter the same plan as the "government option", including Ted Kennedy, and the same level of care should be given to them as should be given to the homeless person on the street.
Yessir, that's the acid test: if they have developed a public insurance plan that cuts costs AND works well, they can demonstrate faith to the public by signing up for it.

TheMercenary 08-10-2009 10:12 AM
What we have here is an Administration and Congress that is pushing an ideology, ideas, and a play to solidify political power cloaked in supposed good intentions at the expense of the science, facts, and fiscal responsibility.

classicman 08-10-2009 10:18 AM
It's Bush's fault - The R's did nothing when they had control and people are pissed. They want it and now the D's have to figure out how to give it to them.
Whether it costs a shitload or not is a whole nother story.
BTW - How many illegals will be covered under whatever new plan is developed and at what cost? I've heard partisan crap on it, but don't want to go that route. Still I'm curious.

Happy Monkey 08-10-2009 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 587020)
BTW - How many illegals will be covered under whatever new plan is developed and at what cost? I've heard partisan crap on it, but don't want to go that route. Still I'm curious.
My guess: however many can get and keep fake social security numbers.

Happy Monkey 08-10-2009 11:44 AM
An amusing argument from someone scared of rationing:
Quote:
People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Hopefully, Hawking will never move to the U.K. - they'd kill him!

classicman 08-10-2009 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 587027)
My guess: however many can get and keep fake social security numbers.
Would they have to? I have no idea how all that works. I'm a natural born citizen and have no experience in the illegality of who what & how all that happens.

jinx 08-10-2009 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 587031)
Hopefully, Hawking will never move to the U.K. - they'd kill him!
Not on purpose... but accidents do happen. 1, 2, 3, 4

TheMercenary 08-10-2009 06:24 PM
Now where have I heard this before.... hmmmmmmm....

In a Tight Spot, Pelosi Calls Health Care Critics 'Un-American'

Pushing her agenda and attempting to demonize the oppostion. A play right out of the Republickin's book. Say hello to the Nazi Pelosi...

richlevy 08-11-2009 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 586935)
Quote:
But under the insurance plan, she can the only receive "palliative" or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.
A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study found the drug erlotinib, marketed as Tarceva, does marginally improve survival for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who had completed standard chemotherapy.
The median survival among patients who took erlotinib was 6.7 months compared to 4.7 months for those on placebo. At one year, 31 percent of the patients taking erlotinib were still alive compared to 22 percent of those taking the placebo.
So, going by averages, if you take the drug for 6 months until you die, you have gained 2 months at a cost of $24,000.

Including the death option in the same letter as the denial was insensitive, but I can see where someone would want the information. I heard John Wayne tried to commit suicide during his final months.

Happy Monkey 08-11-2009 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 587111)
Pushing her agenda and attempting to demonize the oppostion. A play right out of the Republickin's book. Say hello to the Nazi Pelosi...
She may have a less cynical view of America. I'd like to agree with her that shouting out a town hall meeting to make sure nobody gets heard is unamerican, or that pretending that living wills are death panels is uinamerican, but I'm not sure I can.

classicman 08-11-2009 01:16 PM
I heard this am that almost 10 million of the uninsured in America are not Americans at all. I believe it was about 20% of the total number uninsured. I dunno how I feel about this. I don't even know if this is a true statement. That does seem like a large percentage though.

TheMercenary 08-11-2009 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 587179)
She may have a less cynical view of America. I'd like to agree with her that shouting out a town hall meeting to make sure nobody gets heard is unamerican, or that pretending that living wills are death panels is uinamerican, but I'm not sure I can.
Eh... no different than how all the Demoncratic supporters acted when Bush was in office. Hell, they could just do the same thing they did and close their town hall meetings to invitation only with pre-printed signs supporting what ever it was they were talking about. It does not change the fact that a large percentage of people are very concerned with the changes Congress is Rahming through on this health plan.

TheMercenary 08-11-2009 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 587195)
I heard this am that almost 10 million of the uninsured in America are not Americans at all. I believe it was about 20% of the total number uninsured. I dunno how I feel about this. I don't even know if this is a true statement. That does seem like a large percentage though.
There is a huge disparity in the numbers reported. Since your mother and father could both be illegal aliens but because momma got across the border before she birthed her child the child is technically not counted by many as "illegal". This is a common event.

Here is a study of the issue.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-04.pdf

TheMercenary 08-11-2009 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 587165)
So, going by averages, if you take the drug for 6 months until you die, you have gained 2 months at a cost of $24,000.

Including the death option in the same letter as the denial was insensitive, but I can see where someone would want the information. I heard John Wayne tried to commit suicide during his final months.
Any way you look at it, it is a form of rationing care. It happens now and will have to happen to a greater degree under any government run plan.

Happy Monkey 08-11-2009 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 587196)
. Hell, they could just do the same thing they did and close their town hall meetings to invitation only with pre-printed signs supporting what ever it was they were talking about.
So I guess we'll never know whether Democratic supporters would have behaved the same.

TheMercenary 08-11-2009 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 587207)
So I guess we'll never know whether Democratic supporters would have behaved the same.
Yea, well if you support something why would you feel a need to protest against it? Do we really know what the individuals who are protesting party affiliation? Or is that an assumption?

Like I said we saw the same thing when people protested again the Repubs but they just controlled the environment better. Which of you were the ones saying that protest IS the democratic way, right, and responsiblity of all Americans?

Redux 08-11-2009 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 587111)
Now where have I heard this before.... hmmmmmmm....

In a Tight Spot, Pelosi Calls Health Care Critics 'Un-American'

Pushing her agenda and attempting to demonize the oppostion. A play right out of the Republickin's book. Say hello to the Nazi Pelosi...
I would suggest that the demonizing is on the side that has been saying that the Obama and/or various Congressional plans:
- are like a single payer European or socialist style program

- will ration health care and put personal health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats

- mandate government funded abortion on demand

- will give the government total unfettered access to personal medical records

- and still the best...provide for death panels or forced euthanasia.
I particularly like how Sarah Palin described it:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Shawnee123 08-11-2009 02:04 PM
Jebus, why does she gotta start everything out with "I love America more than anyone" or some such crap?

Happy Monkey 08-11-2009 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 587208)
Like I said we saw the same thing when people protested again the Repubs but they just controlled the environment better.
In other words, we didn't see the same thing, but you're assuming we would have if the situation had been different.

Redux 08-11-2009 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 587111)
Say hello to the Nazi Pelosi...
So Pelosi is a Nazi and Franken is a pedophile......demonizing much?

Who's next?

TheMercenary 08-11-2009 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 587221)
I would suggest that the demonizing is on the side that has been saying that the Obama and/or various Congressional plans:
are like a single payer European or socialist style program
Not yet, but that is the long term goal.

Quote:
- will ration health care and put personal health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats
Already occurs with all government run and private health insurance programs.

Quote:
- mandate government funded abortion on demand
Yea, I haven't seen that in the currently proposed bill. But I don't really care that much about the issue.

Quote:
- will give the government total unfettered access to personal medical records
Actually the current Bill is unclear because it does command "Reporting". It does not say what information will be excluded. I suspect HIPPA will prevent most PII from being transmitted.

Quote:
- and still the best...provide for death squads or forced euthanasia.
Yea, I don't think most people believe that one.

Quote:
I particularly like how Sarah Palin described it:
Palin is not the spokes person for the majority of people who oppose the Congressional plan to Rahm this bill through to approval.

TheMercenary 08-11-2009 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 587227)
So Pelosi is a Nazi and Franken is a pedophile......demonizing much?

Who's next?
I guess turn around is fair game. I think she act like a Nazi dictator, but that is a personal opinion.

TheMercenary 08-11-2009 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 587225)
In other words, we didn't see the same thing, but you're assuming we would have if the situation had been different.
No, I am saying we saw many of the same behaviors of those who opposed 8 years of Bush and the Republickins in charge. And now that the Dems are getting a taste of the same thing it is suddenly "un-American". Funny, I am sure I have heard that some where...

Redux 08-11-2009 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 587230)
I guess turn around is fair game. I think she act like a Nazi dictator, but that is a personal opinion.
Thanks, Merc.

You made my point about demonizing.

TheMercenary 08-11-2009 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 587233)
Thanks, Merc.

You made my point about demonizing.
Why you are very welcome!

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/nancy_pelosi.jpg


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 AM.
Page 8 of 51 1234567 8 910111213141518 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.