TomAiello 25 #26 July 22, 2009 Quote Ignoring my posts? Isn't everyone?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #27 July 22, 2009 Quote Quote Ignoring my posts? Isn't everyone? Irony score 10/10... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #28 July 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Uhm, why isn't there a market for liberal talk radio? The obvious answer? Because they can think for themselves. which explains http://airamerica.com/. Liberal talk radio for lefties who can't think for themselves, by lefties who can't think. (not a slight on all lefties, just these) But it's not particularly successful, which supports my earlier point. It's sort of like putting a corn dog stand by the entrance to the PETA building. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #29 July 22, 2009 Quote Isn't everyone? We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #30 July 22, 2009 Quote >He wants to. I hear he's not even a citizen! Yea, thats what I've been trying to tell everybody!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #31 July 23, 2009 QuoteQuote Uhm, why isn't there a market for liberal talk radio? Because, for the most part, "libs" don't like loud, deliberate, misinformation, no matter who says it. Most "libs" that I know prefer peer reviewed literature, original sources and rational discussion to fallacious arguments. Radio stations are primarily conservative because that's what their target audience is - people that listen to the radio, typically in the morning and afternoon going to and from work each day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #32 July 23, 2009 QuoteI think I'm still at "admire the guy, disagree with his policies", but I worry that I'm getting closer to "feel like he sold me a bill of goods about who he is.I guess you've never learned the lesson about staying away from side street, used car lots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #33 July 23, 2009 Quote Radio stations are primarily conservative because that's what their target audience is - people that listen to the radio, typically in the morning and afternoon going to and from work each day. Where I live, Rush comes on at noon and Hannity @ 3:00. Also, "libs" commute to work and listen to the radio just as much as "cons" do so I'm not sure that the correlation with employment related travel has much to do with it. My assumption is that radio and TV conglomerates choose their broadcasting content based on market response. They go with what sells, and if validity of content takes a hit in the process then that's just the cost of doing a profitable business. That's why our "news" programming looks more like a cross between "Entertainment Tonight" and a Springer/Povich political pundit paternity test. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d_squared431 0 #34 July 23, 2009 Thank god I did not vote for him!! I tried last night to sneak under the mod-dar in the bonfire with a post but i was recycled...I listened to his speech and thought to myself WTH! For an educated man he really has no clue. Where are his advisors who are supposed to inform him on how medical offices work? He made an ass out of himself with his speech. I never liked Bush but I would rather have him back in the office than Obama and I am a Democrat. Never have I been ashamed to be a Democrat until last night. TPM Sister#130ONTIG#1 I love vodka.I love vodka cause it rhymes with Tuaca~LisaH You having a clean thought is like billyvance having a clean post.iluvtofly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #35 July 23, 2009 Quote For an educated man he really has no clue. Where are his advisors who are supposed to inform him on how medical offices work? I missed the speech (plowing through a stack of Dr. Seuss books) . Where is it that you think he fumbled? I can only speak from the standpoint of a paying health care customer but it seems to me that how medical offices work IS the problem. It seems to me that more time /effort/money is spent on accounting and dealing with ridiculous paperwork than they do on the actual patient care. This is not to belittle the efforts of the office workers but more the system that has been developed to make things as labor intensive and confusing as possible. I'm constantly amazed that I can spend $0.25-$0.30 out of each health care related dollar to a system that sends me three or four pieces of paperwork and tells me what I may owe. Sorry, I'm getting carried away. What in his speech rubbed you the wrong way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #36 July 23, 2009 QuoteBecause, for the most part, "libs" don't like loud, deliberate, misinformation, no matter who says it. Most "libs" that I know prefer peer reviewed literature, original sources and rational discussion to fallacious arguments. This makes me think you have never listened to liberal radio. Both liberals and conservatives do the same things."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d_squared431 0 #37 July 23, 2009 QuoteQuote For an educated man he really has no clue. Where are his advisors who are supposed to inform him on how medical offices work? I missed the speech (plowing through a stack of Dr. Seuss books) . Where is it that you think he fumbled? I can only speak from the standpoint of a paying health care customer but it seems to me that how medical offices work IS the problem. It seems to me that more time /effort/money is spent on accounting and dealing with ridiculous paperwork than they do on the actual patient care. This is not to belittle the efforts of the office workers but more the system that has been developed to make things as labor intensive and confusing as possible. I'm constantly amazed that I can spend $0.25-$0.30 out of each health care related dollar to a system that sends me three or four pieces of paperwork and tells me what I may owe. Sorry, I'm getting carried away. What in his speech rubbed you the wrong way? He basically said that he wants to go to quality over quantity in the doctors office. I get that I also know that if he passes a cap on how many patients can be seen in a pcp office in 1 working day (8hrs) The cost to run and staff the office will in turn bankrupt the practice. Not enough patients to cover the cost to keep an office open means less doctors and longer waits. Right now for a new patient to establish in the office I work at is 3 days - 1week due to the patients schedule/office hours. Some offices it is a good 2-3 weeks. We see about 24-26 pts in a 8hr a day which is average and do able. This with a staff of 3. In a larger office you may see 35-55 based on rooms providers and so on. He also stated that doctors and staff dont forward the proper past medical information to specialist. Patients dont supply us(doctor offices) with names/addresses/phone numbers of prior doctors or where they had tests done. Then those diagnostic test have to be repeated raising the cost because of miss information from patients. If a patient does not have insurance the the doctors wont order certain tests, that is BS right there. I spend hours sometimes on the phone finding facilities and setting up diagnostic tests for patients with no insurance. I have also had all but 100 dollars paid on mri/ct/ultrasounds for patients. You can not get an appt for a patient without going thru the proper process or that specialist will not see the patient. He wants to penalize the medical field instead of the insurance companies. Then the rising cost of medications. The reason there is so much paperwork to be filled out is because the government got involved with health care. Everything has to be documented! EVERYTHING! It all comes down to compliance with ones own care. There is help out there for patients and most of the patients can qualify for these assistances thru- the hospitals. the other problem that he did not address is the doctor shopping. Patients who shop around for a doctor who will write them pain meds. yesterday we had 2 new patients who only wanted pain meds. These doctor shoppers and drug seekers are draining their insurance cause they make appts every week. It is a said never ending cycle. Obama wants everyone to be covered, well he needs to do it in steps instead of all at once. make sure that military personnel and families are covered 100%, seniors and children are covered 100% and then work on the middle and lower class. The key to insurance is working. If one is not contributing to society why should I or you pay for them. He talked about pre existing medical conditions and that there should not be restrictions. Pre existing conditions after 6 months - a yr are no longer consider pre existing. If a person has had health insurance the there isnt a pre existing claus.TPM Sister#130ONTIG#1 I love vodka.I love vodka cause it rhymes with Tuaca~LisaH You having a clean thought is like billyvance having a clean post.iluvtofly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #38 July 23, 2009 QuoteHe also stated that doctors and staff dont forward the proper past medical information to specialist. This is very true. My wife is the medical director of a rehabilitation unit at one of the "clinic" model systems that Obama has held up as an example. She regularly gets horrifically bad discharge summaries from the main hospital (things like the patients meds not being listed, or the wrong meds being listed, or the same meds being listed three times). She also regularly sees "notes" that are just copy-and-paste of the previous days note, over and over for an entire hospital stay. One patient had exactly the same note for 17 days in a row--no mention of any treatment done or change in condition in that time. She is of the opinion that the main culprit is the EMR (which makes it too easy for an overworked provider to copy and paste instead of actually writing a note) and the "clinic" culture, which emphasizes (as Obama would like) quantity of patients seen over quality of care provided. Most of Obama's proposals will actually make those kind of quality issues far worse. QuoteThe reason there is so much paperwork to be filled out is because the government got involved with health care. Everything has to be documented! EVERYTHING! Absolutely. And the problem with that is that doctors now spend half their day filling out paperwork instead of actually caring for patients. We send these people to school for 12 years, to make them very good at caring for patients, and then we make them spend time filling out paperwork (which they don't really get trained for), instead of doing the job they've spent half their lives becoming experts at. QuotePatients who shop around for a doctor who will write them pain meds. yesterday we had 2 new patients who only wanted pain meds. In Idaho, there is a central drug database run by the state, so a physician can check and see what drugs a patient has gotten from other doctors. Odd aside--my wife once had a patient arrested in her office because he had falsified a police report (stating that the narcotics she'd prescribed were stolen), and asked her to prescribe more. She called the police to check that the report was genuine, and they sent a car to pick the guy up (he was already on parole).-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #39 July 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteBecause, for the most part, "libs" don't like loud, deliberate, misinformation, no matter who says it. Most "libs" that I know prefer peer reviewed literature, original sources and rational discussion to fallacious arguments. This makes me think you have never listened to liberal radio. Both liberals and conservatives do the same things. You're absolutely right. I don't, and for the same reason that I dislike "Conservative" talk radio. They do the same things but one target audience embraces it and the other shuns it for the most part and therefore, there's really no market for it. I don't listen to it because I don't want my head filled with misinformation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #40 July 23, 2009 QuoteYou're absolutely right. I don't, and for the same reason that I dislike "Conservative" talk radio. So you made a comment about something you knew nothing about then? QuoteThey do the same things but one target audience embraces it and the other shuns it for the most part and therefore, there's really no market for it. There clearly is a market for it since it exists. Both sides have people that embrace it. Your attempt to claim that one side is *smarter* than the other is just partisan BS."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #41 July 23, 2009 Quote..... He talked about pre existing medical conditions and that there should not be restrictions. Pre existing conditions after 6 months - a yr are no longer consider pre existing. If a person has had health insurance the there isnt a pre existing claus. I'm not ignoring the rest of your post but this jumped out at me. I have a friend who, as a grad student, was being insured by what turned out to be sequential six month policies. Apparently she let one lapse by a couple of weeks. She went in to have a procedure done that was diagnosed during the previous six month term. They denied the procedure due to it being a "pre-existing condition", even though she had been with the same company for at least the previous three years. I agree with you about the doctor shopping. That should be easy enough to figure out and it touches upon the other concern about a failure of past records being available to current providers. There's really no excuse these days for there to be any hindrance to information flow between doctors (and by "doctors" I mean "DOCTORS", not insurance employees on risk management duty). And I think Tom pointed out well one of the major problems, that being doctors being pulled away from patients in favor of mindless paper shuffling. I also agree that the insurance companies should be the focus, not the Dr's offices. By your own description it sounds like you spend more time doing work for or working around obstacles put up by insurers. That's not health care IMO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #42 July 23, 2009 Quote So you made a comment about something you knew nothing about then? I listened enough to find out that the lib version was just as invaluable as the con version. But I still do occasionally tune in to right wing yack radio to find out what the talking point of the day is. (It's actually kind of funny to tune in and then cross reference to the new SC thread titles). Quote There clearly is a market for it since it exists. Both sides have people that embrace it. Your attempt to claim that one side is *smarter* than the other is just partisan BS. You can call it "smarter" if that's how you interpret it but that's not what I said. I was simply pointing out that there is a profitable market for one flavor and a dwindling market for the other and gave an opinion as to why based on personal experience. If you have an another idea as to why the right wing noise machine has a market but the left doesn't then I'd be interested in hearing it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #43 July 23, 2009 Quote Quote >He wants to. I hear he's not even a citizen! Conversation diversion detection meter pegged. I hear he is Muslim, black, pissed as hell, and not gonna take it any more. Suppose I better smiley that: But seriously, didn't vote for him last time around, wouldn't vote for him now, and most likely would not vote for him in the future." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d_squared431 0 #44 July 23, 2009 QuoteQuote..... He talked about pre existing medical conditions and that there should not be restrictions. Pre existing conditions after 6 months - a yr are no longer consider pre existing. If a person has had health insurance the there isnt a pre existing claus. I'm not ignoring the rest of your post but this jumped out at me. I have a friend who, as a grad student, was being insured by what turned out to be sequential six month policies. Apparently she let one lapse by a couple of weeks. She went in to have a procedure done that was diagnosed during the previous six month term. They denied the procedure due to it being a "pre-existing condition", even though she had been with the same company for at least the previous three years. I agree with you about the doctor shopping. That should be easy enough to figure out and it touches upon the other concern about a failure of past records being available to current providers. There's really no excuse these days for there to be any hindrance to information flow between doctors (and by "doctors" I mean "DOCTORS", not insurance employees on risk management duty). And I think Tom pointed out well one of the major problems, that being doctors being pulled away from patients in favor of mindless paper shuffling. I also agree that the insurance companies should be the focus, not the Dr's offices. By your own description it sounds like you spend more time doing work for or working around obstacles put up by insurers. That's not health care IMO. That is exactly right! The worst insurance company out there to get auths with is BC/BS. A patient who gets injured(non emergency) has to have reg xrays, then3-6 wks physical therapy prior to getting an mri. Now, 3-6wks of PT can cost a patient 15-45 dollars a visit for a copay and that is 2-3 visits per week. Of course there still is a percentage of that PT that is not covered and the patient has to pay it. Just crazy. Kind of off topic and I dont want to have anyone get pissed at this part but this is what bothers me. The US will give medicare to a person who is not a citizen. They have legal residency but are not a citizen. Someone explain that one to me. Then that person applies for disability and gets it! Yes, this is a patient at the office I work in. This patient can not speak any english at all but is covered by medicare with full benefits! Where is the logic with this? Health care for everyone isnt the issue, the issue Obama needs to work on is the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. They are the ones making health care so expensive with their regulations.TPM Sister#130ONTIG#1 I love vodka.I love vodka cause it rhymes with Tuaca~LisaH You having a clean thought is like billyvance having a clean post.iluvtofly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #45 July 23, 2009 Quote...the issue Obama needs to work on is the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. They are the ones making health care so expensive with their regulations. There are also a lot of regulations created by the federal government, that have a similar effect. And medicare isn't exactly the nicest "insurance company" to work with, either.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #46 July 23, 2009 Quote Health care for everyone isnt the issue, the issue Obama needs to work on is the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. They are the ones making health care so expensive with their regulations. They are also the one's who will be most influential on the final draft of any legislation, which is why it will likely fall very short of the original intent. It reminds me of a recent Daily Show segment that summed up our legislative process pretty well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #47 July 23, 2009 Regarding the thread topic, yea. I'd still vote for him. I already got my votes worth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #48 July 24, 2009 QuoteI listened enough to find out that the lib version was just as invaluable as the con version. But I still do occasionally tune in to right wing yack radio to find out what the talking point of the day is. (It's actually kind of funny to tune in and then cross reference to the new SC thread titles). The difference is you think only one side uses the daily talking points. QuoteYou can call it "smarter" if that's how you interpret it but that's not what I said. Really?!??!!?!? How would you read, "Because, for the most part, "libs" don't like loud, deliberate, misinformation, no matter who says it. Most "libs" that I know prefer peer reviewed literature, original sources and rational discussion to fallacious arguments." You tried to paint only one side as rational. You tried to claim only one side uses good sources. That is total BS. QuoteI was simply pointing out that there is a profitable market for one flavor and a dwindling market for the other and gave an opinion as to why based on personal experience. And your opinion is that only one side is rational and uses good sources. QuoteIf you have an another idea as to why the right wing noise machine has a market but the left doesn't then I'd be interested in hearing it. Sure, how about the party that is in the weaker position panders more to the hard core base. And that base supports the fewer spokespeople with increased strength to compensate for the lack of numbers. There are more, and none of them have to villianize the other party to support the position."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #49 July 24, 2009 Quote The difference is you think only one side uses the daily talking points. No I don't. Didn't say that either. They both do it and that's why we'd all be better off if we quit listening to them. Quote How would you read, "Because, for the most part, "libs" don't like loud, deliberate, misinformation, no matter who says it. Most "libs" that I know prefer peer reviewed literature, original sources and rational discussion to fallacious arguments." You tried to paint only one side as rational. You tried to claim only one side uses good sources. That is total BS. I provided my personal experience and applied that to the market response. But let me clarify because you seem to be missing part of the message. BOTH RIGHT AND LEFT WING TALK RADIO SUCK. Neither should be used as a model for thoughtful news reporting or respectful dialog. Quote QuoteI was simply pointing out that there is a profitable market for one flavor and a dwindling market for the other and gave an opinion as to why based on personal experience. And your opinion is that only one side is rational and uses good sources. As I stated above, BOTH SUCK. But there's only a profitable market base for one. So yes, my opinion is that there are more, maybe I should say "radio listeners" on the right who are willing to embrace lousy information sources. It's a strange phenomena. I have a lucid and rational co-worker who is very thoughtful, sharp and incisive on most every topic except one. "Dems". Bring up politics and he'll foam at the mouth as he recites every pejorative myth out there, and then start making up a few of his own. Fortunately, he also leveled a fair amount of polite criticism towards the other side of the aisle over the last six years or so. I chock it up to some sort of fetish. QuoteIf you have an another idea as to why the right wing noise machine has a market but the left doesn't then I'd be interested in hearing it. Quote Sure, how about the party that is in the weaker position panders more to the hard core base. And that base supports the fewer spokespeople with increased strength to compensate for the lack of numbers. I'll agree completely with that statement, but not in support of your intended argument. We just got rid of (some of) the neocons who personify your description, and hopefully the moral majority influence that helped them compensate for their lack of numbers. The combination of news and entertainment is what I've termed "ignorance peddling". We get way too much of it from way too many sources. Talk radio (right or left) is probably the worst example with regard to impact. You can not have a thought provoking or fair discussion of a topic when the host uses fallacious, pigeon holed arguments, screams at, interrupts, talks over, and then dumps a guest and then regurgitates a talking point. That exposes the listener to the opinion of the host alone, and by rudely disallowing any rebuttal, gives the listener the illusion that the host holds a more valid position. That sort of discussion style is typically the sign of an extremely weak argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #50 July 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote >He wants to. I hear he's not even a citizen! He has yet to prove that he was not the product of Caesarian section. Since that was not a common procedure when the Constitution was written, the framers did not know who they were disqualifying by insisting on "natural born" citizens. Clever! I hadn't thought of it like that before. /Marg Ignoring my posts?www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3415137;search_string=caesarean;#3415137 If they were worth the medium that they show up on, maybe . . . but since they are not.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
