Obama Care vs Republicans

[DanaC]

Rationing of organs and waiting lists for them aren't because of money or because gubmint runs healthcare (it doesn't by the way): it's because there is a very limited number of organs available at any one time.

This is the case in every country. Every country rations access to transplanted organs in order to try and get as many successful transplants as possible from the low number of organs available at any given time.

That rationing usually goes along the lines of prioritising certain potential outcomes over others: in other words, if someone is unlikely to live for more than two years after the transplant they will be a lower priority than someone who is likely to live another ten years with the transplant. If the reason for the need for transplant is because of something the patient is doing (such as drinking) and the patient is going to continue to do that thing then they are unlikely to be a higher priority than someone who is making every effort to stop doing that thing.

In an ideal world, everybody who needs an organ would have one, because every person capable of donating an organ would do so. A lot of people do not want to donate organs in death. Or they do not want their relative's organs to be removed for donation.

This is something every country has to cope with.

[DanaC]

Adak, you said:

Then I heard about these commissions in Great Britain. They decide what treatments (if they're expensive), will be used, for what type of patients. The older you get, the fewer expensive treatments you qualify for, or the longer you have to wait.

That's really doesn't sound like anything I've read about health commissions.

Don't get me wrong, the system, as i already said isn't perfect. Sometimes it takes a little while for new stuff to be approved - though often it ends up approved because the drug companies have realised that the NHS will not purchase over-priced drugs and have dropped their wholesale price.

The NICE guidelines that NHS treatments are based on, are constantly updated. They make an assessment as to whether a drug is both effective and cost effective. It is not sensible to spend £50k on treatments that offer a small chance of extending someone's life for 8 months. It is sensible to spend that on a 50/50 shot at an extra ten years.

I pulled those figures more or less out of my arse :p

Also worth remembering that drugs and procedures and devices are much, much cheaper here. The NHS has a lot of leverage on price in the drugs industry (as well as producing or inspiring a high proportion of new drug and medical technology research). And, whilst the scene is changing on this, much less of the money is swept up by a middle tier of shareholder profits.

[Adak]

I doubt that's true. We see a lot of Canadians coming down to the US to get a by-pass, etc., because they can't wait the 11 months or so that they're required to, in Canada (the waiting period varies).

In the BBC, I was reading about some people who had lost an extreme amount of weight. Over 100 pounds, in fact.

They have applied to have the tremendous excess skin removed - but despite waiting up to 13 years for it, they can't get it done by the NHS. Oh they've stabilized their weight years ago (3 are required), and all that - it's been agreed it's medically necessary, but they can't get the operation scheduled.

You wouldn't see that in the States. The insurer would be in court in a heartbeat (and lose).

I understand you have a grievance system for review of such cases, but then I hear (also on the BBC), about people having to use pliers to pull out their bad teeth, because they can't get scheduled with a dentist.

I admire the good stuff from the NHS, but then I keep hearing about these "fell through the cracks" cases, and I wonder just how big and how many "cracks" are there?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

I doubt that's true. We see a lot of Canadians coming down to the US to get a by-pass, etc.,<snip>I was reading about some people who had lost an extreme amount of weight.<snip>I hear (also on the BBC), about people having to use pliers to pull out their bad teeth, because they can't get scheduled with a dentist.

There's that mouse again

[DanaC]

Every system has gaps. I just told you of a dweller who fell through the gaps in your system.

Here's the difference though: the cases you mention if people unable to get an operation to remove excess skin are a handful and that handful makes the national news. You have 20 million people with no insurance. 20 million people falling through the gap. You shouldn't even call it a gap in America: it's a fucking abyss.

Dentists are a special case: they never fully came into the nhs. Guess what though: you can get dental insurance for private care just like in America. And the stories about people unable to find an nhs dentist are overblown and out if date.

You are picking up a few examples of the system not working perfectly 100% of the time. But you have 20 million people unable to access the system you think works better.

There are gaps here but they're small and they aren't full of poor people or people who've been refused cover because they're already sick with a pre existing condition.

So yeah the insurance companies would cover that operation - for the fortunate insured.

[Adak]

With record deficit spending, the Republicans OF COURSE, wouldn't go along with another 70 Billion increase in spending by the feds.

That's the teaser to make you think that "we're really getting a good deal here!". But you're not, because that's not actual savings. That's vapor money that was never approved for spending, by anybody. So there is no savings - actual savings - in that proposal.

What was offered was another year of the same record spending as this year. In other words -- no savings compared to this year, whatsoever.

Yeah, that's a great compromise there, Harry!

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

That's vapor money that was never approved for spending, by anybody.
So there is no savings - actual savings - in that proposal.

Adak, I believe that is completely wrong.
Otherwise why would the parties have proposed to use it as an impetus to reach agreement ?

From Wikiipedia:

In 2013 specifically, sequestration refers to a section of the Budget Control Act
of 2011 (BCA) that was initially set to begin on January 1, 2013,
as an austerity fiscal policy.

The reductions in spending authority are approximately $85.4 billion
(versus $42 billion in actual cash outlays[note 2])
during fiscal year 2013,[2](p14) with similar cuts
for years 2014 through 2021.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

With record deficit spending, the Republicans OF COURSE, wouldn't go along with another 70 Billion increase in spending by the feds.

Amazing how facts get ignored. We were well on the way to solving our debts when those Republicans took power. They ran up debts. Even invented a war that cost us $trillions. We are still discovering and paying for the last $1trillion created by Mission Accomplished.

What did Republicans want to do? Reduce spending by $1trillion over ten years. They forget that they joyfully massacred 5000 American servicemen in a war that had no purpose. And that costs somewhere between $2 and $3 trillion. Cut $1trillion in ten years because they spent two or three trillion in Mission Accomplished?

What happened to the government surplus? It was spent on tax cuts and welfare to the rich. And other programs that eventually created a massive 2007 recession. But somehow all that get forgotten to blame Obama.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

Amazing how facts get ignored. We were well on the way to solving our debts when those Republicans took power. They ran up debts. Even invented a war that cost us $trillions. We are still discovering and paying for the last $1trillion created by Mission Accomplished.

What did Republicans want to do? Reduce spending by $1trillion over ten years. They forget that they joyfully massacred 5000 American servicemen in a war that had no purpose. And that costs somewhere between $2 and $3 trillion. Cut $1trillion in ten years because they spent two or three trillion in Mission Accomplished?

What happened to the government surplus? It was spent on tax cuts and welfare to the rich. And other programs that eventually created a massive 2007 recession. But somehow all that get forgotten to blame Obama.

The war with Afghanistan was required by the oath of office of the President. Bush had no choice there.

The war with Iraq was another matter, of course. There, I believe Saddam had just made himself into a huge PITA, after invading Kuwait AND Saudi Arabia, making a 10 year war with Iran, and gassing the Kurdish towns (3 of them iirc).

Saddam's secret service had also tried to assassinate Bush Jr's dad, when he went to receive an award in Kuwait or Qatar (it failed, but hardly endeared Saddam to the Bush family).

We knew that the economy in Iraq was shot to hell. Their oil production had been falling for years, with many plants barely working at all. Plus, Saddam had rebuilt his Army to a HUGE level, calling on national fervor ad's to get recruits (it worked).

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was going to attack a nearby country. You don't keep an Army that large, hanging around, just training do you?

No. You use it. Saddam also had a large fleet of mobile missile launchers, and a fair amount of Scuds to use, as well. They became a BIG problem for us, to find and destroy, during the war.

I believe Bush was just convinced by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the CIA, that taking out Saddam now, would be a good idea. Much better than waiting for him to attack another country in the Middle East.

People like to smear Cheney, he is not afraid to be a hawk on matters, but the truth is, Cheney is one very smart dude, and he cuts right to the chase. I don't know what all our options were at that time, but Cheney did, of course. As did Bush and Rumsfeld, and the CIA.

The fight to remove Saddam didn't go well, because Al-Qaeda and the Bath party, used it to raise a huge groundswell of support for joining them, and fighting us in guerrilla fashion. No one could have predicted how successful they would be at it. (OK, one prof. from Columbia U did predict it, and did advise the Pres about it, but nobody believed him, so !)

Our big spending problem was exacerbated by the wars - no doubt. But there are much bigger issues: Top two are Social Security, (which is slowly going broke), and Medicare (which Bush Jr. substantially increased the coverage and cost of).

The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be. We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it, and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Adak

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was going to attack a nearby country. You don't keep an Army that large, hanging around, just training do you?

You've accidentally identified America's biggest problem.

The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be. We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it, and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.

Why do you continue to send Tea-Baggers to Washington when its conservatives you need? What we really need are fiscal realists who know the price of instability and will work across the aisle with other serious people. The more baggers you send to Washington the more comfortable the left gets sending their nutters.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Griff

Why do you continue to send Tea-Baggers to Washington when its conservatives you need? What we really need are fiscal realists who know the price of instability and will work across the aisle with other serious people. The more baggers you send to Washington the more comfortable the left gets sending their nutters.

Let me answer this.

I believe it is because the Republican party deciders decided that they'd be better off in the long run if they could have more people in Congress. In an effort to make that possible, they used their energies to redraw Congressional districts to make as sure as possible by gerrymandering the ever-loving-f*ck out of as many districts as they could control. To be fair, this is something to be desired by weak thinkers, or thinkers of weak ideas in both parties. But the Republicans have torn that shit UP!

Because ... as a result of... it's difficult to discern cause and effect here... regardless, now we have the case that many districts are NOT COMPETITIVE. If there's no competition for the election, there's no meaningful exchange of ideas. That "compromise" that Adak pines for so loudly is irrelevant, and therefore not present.

For people with closed minds, made up minds, weak minds, this is very comfortable. And those comfortable voters are like great big steamy piles of poo for the ... they're not poo. But they're intellectually dead, because they're not taking in new ideas. And they're attractive to the carrion feeders politicians who'll eat any free lunch. Campaign money (PAC, SuperPAC, corporate) also factors heavily in this equation.

Competitive districts favor more moderate candidates, ones who are more likely to listen to the ideas of the loyal opposition, indeed, ones who are more likely to have reasonable ideas to be heard by their equally moderate opponents. Think about all the talk you've heard about the fear of being "primaried" from those in Congress. They aren't fearful of losing a fight to an opponent of the other party (unless the "other party" is the Tea Party), they're worried that they're not "conservative" enough. I use "conservative" in "quotes" because these labels are becoming less useful.

These districts are RIDICULOUS.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>
The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be.
We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives
in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it,
and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.

Adak, I know you are enthusiastic about fixing the US, but this is going far too far ... even for you.

Texas Hunting Club Auctioning off Permit to Hunt Endangered Rhino

A Texas hunting group is auctioning off a permit to shoot and kill
one of the most endangered animals in the world: a black rhino.

The Dallas Safari Club, an international organization of hunters and wildlife enthusiasts,
said they plan to auction off a permit to hunt an endangered black rhino from
the government of the Republic of Namibia.

But conservation groups said that the club's claim that the hunt
will actually benefit the species was based on faulty logic.

Actually, I think another article may have gotten it right about
the old grey-haired ones in the herd...

By removing these older males from the population,
you get an increase in the production of calves.
Younger males are able to impregnate the females that are
in that area so you get more offspring than from some of these older males."

I didn't even know there were that many Blacks in the GOP.
They are so few, they must all be Rinos.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh... wait, don't tell me.
You mean Rino's and the Dallas Safari Club wants to kill a....

Never mind.

[henry quirk]

"we need to give this Obamacare a thorough trial"

Like we have a real choice in the matter.

Please understand: I have no objection to the plan itself...it may work as well or better than its proponents think it will...I object only to the mandatory nature of it.

#

"*You sound like a young guy"

51 years young.

#

"even anarchists need a doctor from time to time"

Sure...and, when I do, that's my problem, not yours...can't see a good reason why you should absorb a dime of my medical expenses.









*I take a small offense to this...in my experience, nowadays, it's the young who want each and every one bound tightly to each and every other...me: old and mean, wants to widen the distance...oldsters who celebrate the supposed virtues of 'community', in my experience, have yet to grow up

[Undertoad]

It's just RINO, there is no H.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's just RINO, there is no H.

Yeah, I know. I just like the H for the mental image it brings up. Also, it's how it's pronounced, with a long 'i', instead of a short one.

@Griff:

The nutters were there first - by far. Republicans and conservatives work and take care of their families and don't really have time to go nutters about issues in Washington.

Until they feel threatened. Then you get the Tea Party, Sons of Liberty, etc.

Frankly, I don't believe there's a ghost of a chance of working with the likes of Nancy "food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi, and Harry "sonOfABitch" Reid.

Like now, the President and Reid call for negotiations - but the pre-condition is they have to have EVERYTHING they want, before the negotiations can begin.

Can you fuckin' imagine that?

Not just everything they want for Obamacare - NO. They want the debt ceiling lifted enough for the next half a year or so, as well. (not sure of the time, but it's a long time).