I Suppose We Should Thank Joe Wilson

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As to number 6, high infant mortality rate, I think a lot of the mothers having babies in this country are unfit and are just short of murdering their newborns. My daughter takes care of newborns having problems. A number of mothers never return to the hospital to visit their newborn. Typically, they only return when the infant is cleared to go home. Nobody holds these babies except the nurses, and nobody buys clothes for these babies except the nurses. Some babies leave the hospital only to die because of parent failure. Oh, I forgot. These babies, for the most part, are delivered at no cost to the parents.

And that could be a byproduct of our gross classism; young intercity girls from poor homes make crappy mothers. If our social system was better they might make better mothers knowing they could rely on the gubbement.

We can both conjecture, but even if we weren't bad at that, we have a myriad of other things we do poorly.

The poor girls get the basic healthcare you are talking about, and part of the "myriad of other things we do poorly": entitlements.

You're talking about a sample size of 1 that isn't random, so this isn't an imperical way of looking at this.

Didn't follow the rest of your reply, but I listed 7 or 8 items where our healthcare lacks over the rest of the world, let's re-examine the entire list ratherthan using non-scientific methods on one to strike the entire notion the US has shitty HC.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And now, the House has officially admonished Wilson. I'm not even sure what that means, but I doubt it means anything. But it seems significant for two reasons:

1. It's the first time in the history of the House (according to CNN) that this has been done.
2. It's clear that party politics have dug in, and we can expect all future votes to be D vs. R.

Yea, next thing you know they'll be impeaching someone for getting a BJ.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Anyone who believes the rankings from the liberal bureaucrats at the WHO is brain dead. Their rankings are meaningless.

There is no more reason to have government run health care than there is to have government run grocery stores to provide us all food so that nobody is hungry.

The system can be/should be improved. Having the government run health care is an idiotic/simpleton solution that will make it worse.

Status quo seems to be working so well, why fix anything?

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

As to number 6, high infant mortality rate, I think a lot of the mothers having babies in this country are unfit and are just short of murdering their newborns. My daughter takes care of newborns having problems. A number of mothers never return to the hospital to visit their newborn. Typically, they only return when the infant is cleared to go home. Nobody holds these babies except the nurses, and nobody buys clothes for these babies except the nurses. Some babies leave the hospital only to die because of parent failure. Oh, I forgot. These babies, for the most part, are delivered at no cost to the parents.

And that could be a byproduct of our gross classism; young intercity girls from poor homes make crappy mothers. If our social system was better they might make better mothers knowing they could rely on the gubbement.

We can both conjecture, but even if we weren't bad at that, we have a myriad of other things we do poorly.

The poor girls get the basic healthcare you are talking about, and part of the "myriad of other things we do poorly": entitlements.

You're talking about a sample size of 1 that isn't random, so this isn't an imperical way of looking at this.

Didn't follow the rest of your reply, but I listed 7 or 8 items where our healthcare lacks over the rest of the world, let's re-examine the entire list ratherthan using non-scientific methods on one to strike the entire notion the US has shitty HC.

I'm afraid scientific methods have curtailed your full mental capability; kind of like a new pilot never learning to navigate without a gps. It's called deadreckoning. If medicare, medicaid, social security, the US Post Office, Amtrack, Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac are broke and mismanaged by our government, just how do you think the government will manage healthcare? I like mine the way it is; no bannana for you tonight.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[riddler 0]

Quote

mismanaged by our government, just how do you think the government will manage healthcare?

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

mismanaged by our government, just how do you think the government will manage healthcare?

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

In order to compete it has to be self-sufficient, and cease to exist if it fails.

Do you think the government won't try to prop up a failing system by either borrowing a bunch more money to support it or adding regulation to the system so that the public 'option' will be more competitive?

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

mismanaged by our government, just how do you think the government will manage healthcare?

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

Maybe the government should just protect the public, but that's kind of hard when the main healthcare architect, Democrat Senator Max Baucus has been on the take from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies for years.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.

The problem here is that the 2007 WHO report doesn't discuss that. If there's a link to the actual report that the writer is editorializing, I'd like to see it.

Quote

So that explains it quite well. I would summarize it like the rest of the US, if you have a lot of money, it's the sebt country in the world, if you have no money, it's one of the worst places. It's much better to be poor in Canada or Western Europe.

Summarizes quite well that the United States doesn't have a socialized medical system, yes - that's ALL it does.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

As to number 6, high infant mortality rate, I think a lot of the mothers having babies in this country are unfit and are just short of murdering their newborns. My daughter takes care of newborns having problems. A number of mothers never return to the hospital to visit their newborn. Typically, they only return when the infant is cleared to go home. Nobody holds these babies except the nurses, and nobody buys clothes for these babies except the nurses. Some babies leave the hospital only to die because of parent failure. Oh, I forgot. These babies, for the most part, are delivered at no cost to the parents.

And that could be a byproduct of our gross classism; young intercity girls from poor homes make crappy mothers. If our social system was better they might make better mothers knowing they could rely on the gubbement.

We can both conjecture, but even if we weren't bad at that, we have a myriad of other things we do poorly.

Quote

what we do poorly is hold the non custodial parent responsible to help raise and fund the children. the courts and lawyers screw it up and the custodial parent ends up on welfare and food stamps.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

Wrong, because individuals will be less and less likely to even have the choice.

Competition is great, but you are mistaken if you believe Obama's lies that the govt plan will be competing fairly in the market to keep the private insurance companies honest.

It has been proposed that employers would be charged 7 or 8 percent of salary to put a worker on the govt option plan. Employers that provide a good health insurance plan pay much more than that. So, employers have a strong economic incentive to go with the govt plan as a cost saving. Do you think the savings to a company will be passed on to the employee? Of course the true cost of the govt providing that plan will be more than what the employer will be paying the govt.

I understand that some employers only pretend to offer health insurance, when what they really offer is the ability of the employee to buy it through the employer at full/near full cost - those employees will see the govt plan as a big improvement.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,426]

> If you could show that crash victims in one place are more likely to
>die than in another place, that would say something about care.

Correct. And if they are dying of nosocomial infections, that says a lot about care.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Insurance companies have had many decades to come up with affordable plans that cover people with pre-existing conditions, including the universal pre-existing condition of getting old (happens to all of us). So far, they have not expressed any interest in competing for this "market". The same applied to retired people, which led to the introduction of Medicare. At the time the insurance industry, and conservatives, decried the "government takeover" and claimed that it was the beginning of the end of the private insurance industry. Obviously that hasn't happened. Why not? Because there isn't really any competition, private industry never had any interest in the elderly market, it just doesn't pay enough. So, why would a plan that would cover people who private insurance won't touch with a ten-foot pole (those with pre-existing conditions) be a threat to the insurance industry? And, how long do we give the industry to come up with their solution to the problem? 50 years? 100? Forever?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Insurance companies have had many decades to come up with affordable plans that cover people with pre-existing conditions, including the universal pre-existing condition of getting old (happens to all of us). So far, they have not expressed any interest in competing for this "market". The same applied to retired people, which led to the introduction of Medicare. At the time the insurance industry, and conservatives, decried the "government takeover" and claimed that it was the beginning of the end of the private insurance industry. Obviously that hasn't happened. Why not? Because there isn't really any competition, private industry never had any interest in the elderly market, it just doesn't pay enough. So, why would a plan that would cover people who private insurance won't touch with a ten-foot pole (those with pre-existing conditions) be a threat to the insurance industry? And, how long do we give the industry to come up with their solution to the problem? 50 years? 100? Forever?

Don

Yea, we'll follow the GOP approach, we'll give em 5 years and then the trigger kicks in.....of course they have the safety on, that being the safety of hoping in 5 years they can have the WH back or at least get a majority in 1 or both chambers of congress.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As to number 6, high infant mortality rate, I think a lot of the mothers having babies in this country are unfit and are just short of murdering their newborns. My daughter takes care of newborns having problems. A number of mothers never return to the hospital to visit their newborn. Typically, they only return when the infant is cleared to go home. Nobody holds these babies except the nurses, and nobody buys clothes for these babies except the nurses. Some babies leave the hospital only to die because of parent failure. Oh, I forgot. These babies, for the most part, are delivered at no cost to the parents.

And that could be a byproduct of our gross classism; young intercity girls from poor homes make crappy mothers. If our social system was better they might make better mothers knowing they could rely on the gubbement.

We can both conjecture, but even if we weren't bad at that, we have a myriad of other things we do poorly.

Quote

what we do poorly is hold the non custodial parent responsible to help raise and fund the children. the courts and lawyers screw it up and the custodial parent ends up on welfare and food stamps.

No doubt the Domestic courts AFU'd unless you are a woman in virtually all cases. But that isn't the biggest issue here.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

???

If you subsidize one insurance company (the government run one) to the tune of a trillion bucks, so they can give stuff away for free, how's that "competition"?

Which is better, the free Yugo or the $200k Ferrari? If everyone picks the Yugo, that proves it's better?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The problem here is that the 2007 WHO report doesn't discuss that. If there's a link to the actual report that the writer is editorializing, I'd like to see it.

Let's just use current data, and BTW, it was real hard to look up WHO.

http://www.who.int/research/en/

It's a bitch to use, have fun with it.

Here's an easier one:

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

Page 164 states we are still 37th, as we were in 2000, this data is data 2008 I believe. Overall distribution and fairness we rate with Turkey and really horribly, taht's the theme, we have the ability to provide, just that greed drives the system. Actually after looking at that data I think this may be a 2000 chart that was written about in 2008. The data is massive, but do you think HC has gotten better since 2000? By that I mean better for everyone, not just the elite.

Here's a cool video describing it and a ton of data extrapolated from the WHO.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/14/paul-hipp/rocker-viral-video-mocks-us-37th-best-health-care-/

Watch the vid.

Quote

Summarizes quite well that the United States doesn't have a socialized medical system, yes - that's ALL it does.

Wait, if you don't have the data, how can you figure that?

Summarizes that healthcare availability and quality suck.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If you subsidize one insurance company (the government run one) to the tune of a trillion bucks, so they can give stuff away for free, how's that "competition"?

Because otherwise it's 2.5T and only some people get a little bit at the discretion of the ultimate death squad: HMO's. BTW, that's 850B over 10 years.

Quote

Which is better, the free Yugo or the $200k Ferrari? If everyone picks the Yugo, that proves it's better?

So we have to be extremists? Why not get the 2009 Camaro?

Tom, do you have a problem if a poor person is w/o medical coverage and has illnesses, has to wait until he/she is near death before they go to the emergency room and then die or become wards of the state disability system? Hope I get an answer.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

So we have to be extremists? Why not get the 2009 Camaro?

Ok. Sure. Which is better, the free Camaro or the $200k Ferrari? If everyone picks the Camaro, does that prove it's better?

Quote

Tom, do you have a problem if a poor person is w/o medical coverage and has illnesses, has to wait until he/she is near death before they go to the emergency room and then die or become wards of the state disability system? Hope I get an answer.

Sure I do.

Here is a plan that would address that issue, while also lowering overall medical costs. Have you read it yet? Would you care to discuss it?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Ok. Sure. Which is better, the free Camaro or the $200k Ferrari? If everyone picks the Camaro, does that prove it's better?

No one's talking free, just gubbment provided if a person is w/o insurance.

Quote

Here is a plan that would address that issue, while also lowering overall medical costs. Have you read it yet? Would you care to discuss it?

As with most right-leaning propaganda, it doesn't hit the bullet points. I skimmed it and found nothing but theory. Obama gave a proposition with bullet points, I've read McCain give a proposition with bullets, all I ask is that you give me a refined proposition with points. Here's one with my comments in bold:

http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/article/Health%20Care/Health_Care_Reform_Republican

1) States, small businesses, and others could group together to offer lower-cost, health care plans.

- You must be employed, a lapse in employment = a lapse in coverge if COBRA expires and even then very expensive.

2) Medicaid users could take the value of their Medicaid benefits and transfer them to a private health care plan.

- Taking the discretion from the government and giving it to HMO death squads. This one is about as deceptive as the idea to put your retirement into 401k's before the crash.

3) People, especially those in lower income brackets or over 55, would receive incentives to build up health care savings accounts.

- Right, IOW's, pay or go without healthcare.

4) Employers would automatically sign up their workers for health insurance, so that employees would have to opt out of coverage if they didn't want it.

- Not really a big change from where it is now. The vast majority of employees sign up as it is, they just have $500/mo premium pays.

5) Tax deductions on insurance premiums for people who get their plans individually or from their companies.

- And if you make 0, a tax deduction is just what the doctor ordered. This is just another tax shelter for well-off people who buy private ins now. How does teh GOP think we are so stupid?

And Tom, where do indigent people get covered here? Yea, that's what I though. I think you just answered the question. BTW, if you care to extrapolate that mess you sent me minus the nationalist bravado in that article, refine what their solution/proposal is, which is probably about like what I posted here, then I will jump back on it.

[wmw999 2,146]

Quote

A more radical reform would, first, end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.

I can see the attraction of such a plan. It won't eliminate the reliance of the poor (including now the elderly who were on Medicare and the really poor who were on Medicaid) on handouts for care, but it would provide a fairly clear target for most households.

However, a couple of questions.
- Where would the universal catastrophic insurance come from
- Any idea of what the deductible would be?
- and I'm assuming that medical savings accounts would be able to be carried over from year to year. I really hate the way they can't be now -- that's incredibly lame.

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)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

A more radical reform would, first, end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.

I can see the attraction of such a plan. It won't eliminate the reliance of the poor (including now the elderly who were on Medicare and the really poor who were on Medicaid) on handouts for care, but it would provide a fairly clear target for most households.

However, a couple of questions.
- Where would the universal catastrophic insurance come from
- Any idea of what the deductible would be?
- and I'm assuming that medical savings accounts would be able to be carried over from year to year. I really hate the way they can't be now -- that's incredibly lame.

Wendy P.

The biggest thing is that it doesn't address the 47M people w/o coverage. It continues to treat them as 2nd class citizens and, let's face it, that's the way the GOP looks at them. Could you imagin 47M people getting HC after not having it for decades? Think of the polling possibilities when about 100M people show up now, 52% voted for Obama anyway, now another appreciative 40+M come along.... I'm smelling roses for several elections to come.

[wmw999 2,146]

Quote

The biggest thing is that it doesn't address the 47M people w/o coverage.

No, actually it does deal with those people -- they get the same high-deductible catastrophic coverage that everyone else gets. Whether they can afford the expenses up to that coverage is an issue, but they do get that coverage.

I think there are has issues, but based on the quoted text, that's not one of them.

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)

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

However, a couple of questions.
- Where would the universal catastrophic insurance come from

I'd fund it with dollars currently appropriated to Medicare and Medicaid, and have the states administer the plans (as they currently do with Medicaid).

Alternately, you could allow the federal government to administer the plan directly, but I think it makes more sense for the states to do so, because the cost of care currently varies so widely from state to state.

Quote

- Any idea of what the deductible would be?

I'd let each state determine that for themselves. If it was a federal plan, I'd say you ought to put the deductible around $3000.

If you wanted to provide healthcare for all (and still create an incentive system to drive costs down), you could easily fund the health savings accounts of each citizen every year at some dollar amount, allowing them to keep the excess at the end of the year.

Quote

- and I'm assuming that medical savings accounts would be able to be carried over from year to year. I really hate the way they can't be now -- that's incredibly lame.

Yes. It is incredibly lame. Keeping the excess is a fundamental part of encouraging consumers to buy wisely. If they can't keep the extra, why try to save it?


Here is an editorial written by someone who has implemented (and is currently using) a plan along these lines within a business. It has some good information about how to really do this. He uses a $3000 deductible and funds each HSA to $1800 every year, if memory serves.

Got to go. More later.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The biggest thing is that it doesn't address the 47M people w/o coverage.

No, actually it does deal with those people -- they get the same high-deductible catastrophic coverage that everyone else gets. Whether they can afford the expenses up to that coverage is an issue, but they do get that coverage.

I think there are has issues, but based on the quoted text, that's not one of them.

Wendy P.

Touche, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't address the issue with a viable solution, it just ignores it/them.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right?

Wrong, because individuals will be less and less likely to even have the choice.

Competition is great, but you are mistaken if you believe Obama's lies that the govt plan will be competing fairly in the market to keep the private insurance companies honest.

It has been proposed that employers would be charged 7 or 8 percent of salary to put a worker on the govt option plan. Employers that provide a good health insurance plan pay much more than that. So, employers have a strong economic incentive to go with the govt plan as a cost saving. Do you think the savings to a company will be passed on to the employee? Of course the true cost of the govt providing that plan will be more than what the employer will be paying the govt.

I understand that some employers only pretend to offer health insurance, when what they really offer is the ability of the employee to buy it through the employer at full/near full cost - those employees will see the govt plan as a big improvement.

OR the private insurance co's can bring their prices down to competitive rates. They will not go hungry, they will not go starving... they will finally just start charging FAIR prices. Maybe their CEO's will have to take a cut on their bajillion dollar bonuses-- Oh my! What will they do with themselves?? That's the whole point behind making this competition result in a better market with fairer prices for the consumers.

I know there is a lot more that goes into all of that, like how we can get into the whole mal practice thing and what the doctors feel they HAVE to charge these companies for their services, but the insurance companies are one of the main reasons they're prices are that high because they know they can get it from them. (IMO)

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)