QuoteThat's what happens when your industry's primary concern is the next quarterly stock report.
So you'd rather it be run by an industry who's primary concern is which voting block should have the highest survival rate?
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
wmw999 2,164
And the self-proclaimed conservatives are only happy if there is someone worse off than they are, so they can feel superior.Quotebig green monster you have on your shoulder shows you are in the right party. As long as you are pissed that somebody has more that you well, you will ALWAYS be pissed.
That's a game that plays well all over the place.
The human condition is such that people are not born equal, nor do they have equal opportunities. You can say they're born equal, but some are smarter, some are prettier, some have better parents, some are born into communities with lots of support and good examples. Some aren't.
That's the way life is. But some people prefer to flatten that out, figuring that if some at the top give a little it spreads a whole lot farther. Others prefer to leave things the way they are, and let people try to make their way to the top.
Boy it sucks if you're one of those who's not so pretty, or smart, or supported. It's like climbing a mountain in a group where some have 40-lb packs, and others have 80-lb packs, and others have porters.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
riddler 0
And to show how the media is just as polarized as everyone else, Fox News has an article entitled Barney Gets an Earful, which describes Senator Barney Frank's town hall discussion of health care. CNN has an article about the same topic, but their title is Barney Frank goes toe to toe at town hall.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
riddler 0
QuoteTry sending a 30 pound package across the country. I PROMISE you fed ex is cheaper. FAR cheaper.
I frequently do. Again, I do this for work. But it's easy to show this online. Shipping a 30-pound package from Albany, NY to Zamora, CA. FedEx's lowest rate is $39.46, and the Post Office offers $13.69. That said, Postal employees don't always give you the cheapest options, unless you specifically ask. I find that FedEx and UPS service centers are much more customer oriented, and if you say that you want it as cheap as possible, they will work with you to get that.
Also, I have customers that do large volumes, and I've seen FedEx and UPS slash their standard rates for them by over 50%, so if you can get it through work, you can save a bundle.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
QuoteQuoteThat's what happens when your industry's primary concern is the next quarterly stock report.
So you'd rather it be run by an industry who's primary concern is which voting block should have the highest survival rate?
Hadn't heard that one yet. First it's "kill the babies" then it's "kill the old folks", now it's "kill the voters".
I think the best response should be a non-response. It's less likely to get picked up by the media that way.
billvon 2,454
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Socialized medicine is what it is. Rationing care to the elderly results in
>the same thing.
Ah, so you're one of the people who really believe the lies.
>the same thing.
Ah, so you're one of the people who really believe the lies.
QuoteI think the best response should be a non-response.
Figured as much.
QuoteIt's less likely to get picked up by the media that way.
Yeah, I'm sure "the media" is attentively watching your every word!
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
mnealtx 0
Quote>Socialized medicine is what it is. Rationing care to the elderly results in
>the same thing.
Ah, so you're one of the people who really believe the lies.
Maybe he read Emanuel's publications in JAMA.
QuoteEven if 25-year-olds
receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is
65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-yearolds
differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would
be ageist; treating them differently because they have
already had more life-years is not.
QuoteSubstantively, it
suggests services that promote the continuation of
the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations,
ensure development of practical reasoning
skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens
in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed
as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals
who are irreversibly prevented from being
or becoming participating citizens are not basic and
should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is
not guaranteeing health services to patients with de-
mentia.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Yeah, I'm sure "the media" is attentively watching your every word!
The comment had nothing to do with me. And I know for a fact that they're not listening to anything I say. I've contacted them numerous times to politely tell them that they suck at their job. It was geared more towards the media's desire to run with nonsensical assertions.
Quote>Socialized medicine is what it is. Rationing care to the elderly results in
>the same thing.
Ah, so you're one of the people who really believe the lies.
Nice Bill. I believe that if you don't let the free market ration health care, then it will have to be rationed by other means. I suppose they could have a lottery, or a mega computer, but most likely it will be managed by a government agency. Some will be denied care, others will get it. Some will get it much later than they need it, which in many cases will be the same as denying care. In any case, these bureaucrats will be making life or death decisions that they should never be involved in. Hence the term "death panel." It's not a lie.
The lie is believing that best way to handle this is turning it over, in part or in full, to the feds. The best way to bring down costs is to allow competition across state lines and get serious tort reform accomplished.
And since the media is watching our forum, congrats to Palin for kicking the shit out of the Harvard grad.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
wmw999 2,164
So in other words, the availability of the patient's money is the best health care rationing method? I believe that's what the free market would imply.
There are not endless resources of ANY type. Even sunshine (ever lived in the Pacific NW?). Everything is rationed. However, using money (i.e. free market) as the primary rationing method for scarce resources will encourage the rich to get richer, because they can then buy up and control the market.
It doesn't always work, but neither does anything else. The odds favor it.
I'm not against money or free markets. But dayum, putting EVERYTHING into them is just as stupid as putting nothing into them. Because people with money are just as venal and short-sighted as people without money. Only they have more power.
Wendy P.
There are not endless resources of ANY type. Even sunshine (ever lived in the Pacific NW?). Everything is rationed. However, using money (i.e. free market) as the primary rationing method for scarce resources will encourage the rich to get richer, because they can then buy up and control the market.
It doesn't always work, but neither does anything else. The odds favor it.
I'm not against money or free markets. But dayum, putting EVERYTHING into them is just as stupid as putting nothing into them. Because people with money are just as venal and short-sighted as people without money. Only they have more power.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Quote
In contrast to Obama's claims Palin's message has no truth to it and is flat out fear mongering.
To suggest that Palin's claims have "no truth" is spin. There is some truth. The argument that end-of-life costs are the biggest and thus would have to be controlled somehow is valid. She spun it to give the most shock and awe.
And now Obama is blaming insurance companies and republicans for not getting the public option, despite a favorable congressional party makeup.
[Reply]She'd have a better argument if she were to state that the insurers essentially use "death panels" as the cull the unprofitable policies.
Funny - this is what I've heard as a response.
Also funny - insurance companies don't deny this - they just have lifetime caps on coverage. It's a nice way to a mega-million dollar fines and judgments.
On the other hand, check out trying to sue the VA.
[Reply] That's what happens when your industry's primary concern is the next quarterly stock report.
Yes. And mega-million dollar fines and judgments are bad for business. As risk-pooling and risk-averse entities, they'll pay the $2 million monitoring and care for an insured instead of risking a $20 million civil judgment.
Meanwhile, take a look at a government with a $1.3 trillion deficit so far this year. This is about 180% of health insurance company expenditures this year - just
in deficit alone.
Is this not a reason to fear out of control health care spending by the government.
[Reply]As for the notion of Palin "winning" the debate, I think that speaks more to the ineptitude of most of the media (and the embrace of anti-intellectualism as a political tool)
Or, the ineptitude of the anti-anti-intellectists to come up with a cogent message supporting their plan. Think about it - there is no message on what the plan will do or how it will do it coming from the proponents.
The proponents villainize corporations without propping up the plan. The only people saying anything about the plan are the opponents!
And think of it this way: it is the failure of the proponents to inform the public of their plan. And frankly, this is their strategy. Do not go into any detail about it. I actually posted a talking point memo by a proponent organization that said Point 1 is not to discuss details.
They are sticking to it, except to defend the details as being pointed out by the opponents.
[Reply]They are an opinion echo box, not a source objective information, or any reliable information for that matter
The proponents aren't saying anything other than "insurance companies bad. They created this mess." And tell stories about coverage denials.
Of course, the stories come from the 1 out of 10 insured that are not covered by employer group coverage, where these horror stories are as rare as a balanced federal budget.
And since 9 out of 10 private insured are insured through employers their stories don't match with subjective experience. Hence, the gap between the intellectual elites who have thought this through and know that the population should be pissed. But the people either are too stupid to be mad with what they are paying for or so stupid as to be played as puppets by evil corporations.
[Reply]But that's what happens when your industry's primary concern is the next quarterly stock report.
A problem happens. This is why companies go out of business - focusing on next quarter instead of next decade.
Short-sighted companies go out of business - as we saw with the mortgage banking industry. Bear Stearns killed itself off quite nicely. As did AIG, etc.
Governments tend to focus on short-sightedness - the next election. Thus, the government's business model that allows for a deficit that is 50% of revenues.
And how's this for a scary thought. Imagine that Clinton was successful in providing national, single payor health care. Then Dubya would have been president and in charge of it.
Would that have been a good thin
My wife is hotter than your wife.
In contrast to Obama's claims Palin's message has no truth to it and is flat out fear mongering. She'd have a better argument if she were to state that the insurers essentially use "death panels" as the cull the unprofitable policies. That's what happens when your industry's primary concern is the next quarterly stock report.
As for the notion of Palin "winning" the debate, I think that speaks more to the ineptitude of most of the media (and the embrace of anti-intellectualism as a political tool). They are an opinion echo box, not a source objective information, or any reliable information for that matter. But that's what happens when your industry's primary concern is the next quarterly stock report.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites