National Health Care Debate

[The Jays]

It fucking infuriates me that this bill came out today. Why the fuck is it so god damned fucking important for the bill to be bi-partisan when the minority party wants no fucking part in health care reform? The only way to get Republicans on board is if there was an amendment attached that funds another useless fucking war or to build some new shiny dick with Muslim-seeking missiles on it.

[HBox]

Then its obvious that we are off to reconciliation in the Senate. Which honestly is a better option that Baucus' trainwreck of a bill.

Jay Rockefeller was saying today that Baucus was only negotiating with 5 other people in the committee and pretty much ignoring everyone else. He was particularly pissed that Baucus didn't listen to any of his ideas and says he has a bunch of amendments ready to go.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Pelosi worried about angry health care rhetoric (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_angry_rhetoric)

What a series of amazingly inflammatory, incredibly stupid things to say. This person is in power? And two steps away from the Presidency? What a desperate joke she is.

After all her bullshit: "Pelosi's office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco."

[earthbrown]

It fucking infuriates me that this bill came out today. Why the fuck is it so god damned fucking important for the bill to be bi-partisan when the minority party wants no fucking part in health care reform? The only way to get Republicans on board is if there was an amendment attached that funds another useless fucking war or to build some new shiny dick with Muslim-seeking missiles on it.

because if they want the country behind it they need to get it right.


NO PUBLIC OPTION

ONLY REMOVING THE RESTRICTIONS ON INSURANCE companies, so they can operate more like car-insurance, which will make the cost to the consumer go down.


How can the fucking gov't force a private business to take someone who is uninsurable and insure him?

In NYS anyway, if i get a job at an employer, the employers plan is forced to cover me.

all of you Darwinists dont understand "survival of the fittest" do ya? I am more fit, because I was SMART enough to get a job with benefits. My kids live because I am PROVIDING this to them.

No one who eats at restaurants, has cable, internet, newer than 10yo car, i-phones, computers, televisions, ipods, $100 jeans, $100 sneakers, $50 bottles of perfume, video games, YOU GET THE POINT, should BITCH about not being able to get health insurance.

Thats the problem with the poor in this country, they feel entitled to all of the above, including healthcare.

What if I decide my health insurance is not good enough? I cant pay for the level of care that Ted Kennedy, Ronald Regan, Hugh Hefner, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs can get, should I be entitled to BURDEN others with millions of dollars in end of life care to get an extra few years?

What I can afford is standard HMO, I could not go out of pocket for cancer treatment or heart bypass, so I pay for my insurance. By having insurance I am ENTITLED to the care they are willing to offer and pay for.

If we pay for healthcare, I want FORCED STERILIZATION of both men and women who have track records of having children they cannot support.

People dont understand, the more power you give to government, the more they can take from you.

K

K

[GregoryJoseph]

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z25r0Onrw0Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z25r0Onrw0Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[The Jays]

because if they want the country behind it they need to get it right.

The country is behind it. We, as a nation, elected a Democratic president to the White House who is for the public option and true health care reform. We've also, as a nation, elected a majority of Democrats to both the Senate and the House of Representatives. So, a majority of the country has elected people who ought to craft legislation which includes the public option, and the President should sign that bill once crafted and passed.


NO PUBLIC OPTION

ONLY REMOVING THE RESTRICTIONS ON INSURANCE companies, so they can operate more like car-insurance, which will make the cost to the consumer go down.


How can the fucking gov't force a private business to take someone who is uninsurable and insure him?

In NYS anyway, if i get a job at an employer, the employers plan is forced to cover me.

all of you Darwinists dont understand "survival of the fittest" do ya? I am more fit, because I was SMART enough to get a job with benefits. My kids live because I am PROVIDING this to them.

No one who eats at restaurants, has cable, internet, newer than 10yo car, i-phones, computers, televisions, ipods, $100 jeans, $100 sneakers, $50 bottles of perfume, video games, YOU GET THE POINT, should BITCH about not being able to get health insurance.

Thats the problem with the poor in this country, they feel entitled to all of the above, including healthcare.

What if I decide my health insurance is not good enough? I cant pay for the level of care that Ted Kennedy, Ronald Regan, Hugh Hefner, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs can get, should I be entitled to BURDEN others with millions of dollars in end of life care to get an extra few years?

What I can afford is standard HMO, I could not go out of pocket for cancer treatment or heart bypass, so I pay for my insurance. By having insurance I am ENTITLED to the care they are willing to offer and pay for.

If we pay for healthcare, I want FORCED STERILIZATION of both men and women who have track records of having children they cannot support.

People dont understand, the more power you give to government, the more they can take from you.

K

K



But, but I'm smart, I work as a freelance architect, thus, no one covers me because I am my own business. To get insurance for myself and my spouse, I have to pay $932 a month, which doesn't cover everything. I have to pay $30 a visit to the regular doctor and $40 to see my dermatologist, $10 for generic medication, $35 for brand name.

Are the only smart people those who work for a bigger business? I thought I was being a good American and showing rugged individualism by being my own boss and being in charge of my own work.

Why are only smart people entitled to health coverage? Are you saying the mentally challenged should not be covered because they are not smart and cannot find a job which provides coverage?

What if a smart person is wrongly fired from his or her job, their coverage canceled, and while they are looking for a new job, they fall ill and require expensive surgery to correct it or else they would die. That surgery ends up costing thousands of dollars, and they go bankrupt, their credit is destroyed and haunts them for the rest of their lives. Is that what you mean by survival of the fittest? Sucks to be you? That's the American way?

all of you Darwinists dont understand "survival of the fittest" do ya? I am more fit, because I was SMART enough to get a job with benefits. My kids live because I am PROVIDING this to them.


Darwin used "survival of the fittest" as a metaphor for being better adapted for the local, immediate environment." The definition of evolution interprets fit as being those who are able to reproduce themselves.

Evolutionary biologists customarily employ the metaphor "survival of the fittest," which has a precise meaning in the context of mathematical population genetics, as a shorthand expression when describing evolutionary processes. Yet, outside of the shared interpretative context of evolutionary biology, the same metaphor has been employed to argue that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed. Natural Selection, the argument goes, leads to a survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Ergo, natural selection describes the survival of the survivors. Thus one of the core concepts of evolutionary theory is a tautology (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/301/5629/52).

[earthbrown]

But, but I'm smart, I work as a freelance architect, thus, no one covers me because I am my own business. To get insurance for myself and my spouse, I have to pay $932 a month, which doesn't cover everything. I have to pay $30 a visit to the regular doctor and $40 to see my dermatologist, $10 for generic medication, $35 for brand name.

Are the only smart people those who work for a bigger business? I thought I was being a good American and showing rugged individualism by being my own boss and being in charge of my own work.



Darwin used "survival of the fittest" as a metaphor for being better adapted for the local, immediate environment." The definition of evolution interprets fit as being those who are able to reproduce themselves.

I fucking pay $1150 a month, $275 each paycheck, for my insurance. I work for a company, he pays us very well, and we agreed to pay for the full insurance bill, in order to make the maximum rate for our work. We have only 3 employees, so not a major company.

I pay $30 an office visit, prescription co-pays are 20,40,60.

DO you have more than $950 a month in discretionary spending for you and your wife? Cable, internet, restaurant meals, etc etc etc add up.

If we let the insurance companies compete for 50 states worth of people the rates will go down. They started talking about this for the bill, but having the public option could very well undermine this.

Why not FIRST have a insurance deregulation bill, where we remove the restrictions of the insurance companies operating in multiple states. Only mandated rule should OBLIGATE the insurance companies to pay for the services within 45days or face penalties, payable to the provider.

K

[The Jays]

I fucking pay $1150 a month, $275 each paycheck, for my insurance. I work for a company, he pays us very well, and we agreed to pay for the full insurance bill, in order to make the maximum rate for our work. We have only 3 employees, so not a major company.

I pay $30 an office visit, prescription co-pays are 20,40,60.

DO you have more than $950 a month in discretionary spending for you and your wife? Cable, internet, restaurant meals, etc etc etc add up.

If we let the insurance companies compete for 50 states worth of people the rates will go down. They started talking about this for the bill, but having the public option could very well undermine this.

Why not FIRST have a insurance deregulation bill, where we remove the restrictions of the insurance companies operating in multiple states. Only mandated rule should OBLIGATE the insurance companies to pay for the services within 45days or face penalties, payable to the provider.

K


The rates might not go down. With a nationwide pool of people to select from, they would have more reason to provide low rates for only those who are young, fit, and healthy, they would not have to cover any more than the basic health costs for them, and they would be dis-inclined to offer coverage to high risk individuals.

And it just seems odd that the Republicans would embrace corporate federalism, when the Republicans are all about the government not regulating business.

[earthbrown]

The rates might not go down. With a nationwide pool of people to select from, they would have more reason to provide low rates for only those who are young, fit, and healthy, they would not have to cover any more than the basic health costs for them, and they would be dis-inclined to offer coverage to high risk individuals.

holy shit, you just described the BASIC principals of insurance....people who are a better "risk" get better rates, no shit thats how it works.

Most people in this country need car, homeowners, renters, or flood insurance. You pay based on your risk. Again, it is a luxury, not a right to have health insurance.

K

[Syd]

because if they want the country behind it they need to get it right.


NO PUBLIC OPTION

ONLY REMOVING THE RESTRICTIONS ON INSURANCE companies, so they can operate more like car-insurance, which will make the cost to the consumer go down.

You know removing the states ability to regulate commerce violates a fundamental principle of the constitution right?

Beyond that, companies will flock to officially operate out of states such as Arizona which have lax coverage for people and would be able to deny treatment for common heart and lung ailments.

all of you Darwinists dont understand "survival of the fittest" do ya? I am more fit, because I was SMART enough to get a job with benefits. My kids live because I am PROVIDING this to them.

So, what superior genetics do you have that ables you to provide the same healthcare if you were to lose your job? That's right, Darwin has nothing to do with it.

Thats the problem with the poor in this country, they feel entitled to all of the above, including healthcare.

THE POORS ARE COMING TO TAKE MAH MONEY***

hint: chances are you receive more in benefits from taxes than you pay into them

What if I decide my health insurance is not good enough? I cant pay for the level of care that Ted Kennedy, Ronald Regan, Hugh Hefner, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs can get, should I be entitled to BURDEN others with millions of dollars in end of life care to get an extra few years?

No, thankfully your insurance company will deny your claims and stall till you are dead and litigation against them becomes too expensive for your family. There's a reason why Medicare is virtually the only affordable coverage for the elderly.

People dont understand, the more power you give to government, the more they can take from you.

So you'd rather private business fill in the power vacuum? Remember, you can't vote for who heads a corporation.


****
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closing_the_book_on_the_bush_legacy.php

http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2009/09/03/was-2000-2007-the-u-s-%E2%80%99s-new-gilded-age-try-platinum/

might want to read these articles to know where your money is going

A recently released research paper from the University of California shows that in 2007, the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages – nearly twice as much as in 2000. The top 10 percent of American earners pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that, according to the research paper, “is higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of the stock market bubble in the ‘roaring’ 1920s.”

[Syd]

holy shit, you just described the BASIC principals of insurance....people who are a better "risk" get better rates, no shit thats how it works.

Most people in this country need car, homeowners, renters, or flood insurance. You pay based on your risk. Again, it is a luxury, not a right to have health insurance.

K

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32882064/ns/health-health_care/

It must be fun to live in your fairy tale world

[TheMojoPin]

It boggles my mind that anyone still attempts to talk to earthbrown as if he's something other than some kind of racist lunatic.

Think about it: he keeps claiming over and over again that he doesn't want the government infringing on his rights or burdening him with taxes...yet he repeatedly supports ridiculously expensive and draconian things like mass arrests, detaining, deportation, sterilization and even extermination in all seriousness and seemingly without a clue as to how all of that, outside of being utterly despicable and batshit insane, flies right in the face of a less invasive and involved government and would cause his taxes to skyrocket to obscene levels.

Logic doesn't work on him. He claims to loathe the new "socialist" government we have yet wishes for a brutal and totalitarian and fascist government at the same time. He says he champions individual rights and freedoms yet seemingly wants the government to actively stamp out the rights (or even lives) of those that he deems inferior.

[The Jays]

holy shit, you just described the BASIC principals of insurance....people who are a better "risk" get better rates, no shit thats how it works.

Most people in this country need car, homeowners, renters, or flood insurance. You pay based on your risk. Again, it is a luxury, not a right to have health insurance.

K

holy shit, you just described keeping the fucking system we already have. The whole fucking point is to get people who can't get insurance, insurance. Apparently, it's the American way.

[HBox]

Every time earthbrown posts in a thread its akin to the Exxon Valdez desecrating the Alaskan Coast.

[Syd]

It boggles my mind that anyone still attempts to talk to earthbrown as if he's something other than some kind of racist lunatic.

Think about it: he keeps claiming over and over again that he doesn't want the government infringing on his rights or burdening him with taxes...yet he repeatedly supports ridiculously expensive and draconian things like mass arrests, detaining, deportation, sterilization and even extermination in all seriousness and seemingly without a clue as to how all of that, outside of being utterly despicable and batshit insane, flies right in the face of a less invasive and involved government and would cause his taxes to skyrocket to obscene levels.

Logic doesn't work on him. He claims to loathe the new "socialist" government we have yet wishes for a brutal and totalitarian and fascist government at the same time. He says he champions individual rights and freedoms yet seemingly wants the government to actively stamp out the rights (or even lives) of those that he deems inferior.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing, i'll give you that. It sort of is a current in the Republican party, the fetishism of power and the want for authoritarianism.

[underdog]

Every time earthbrown posts in a thread its akin to the Exxon Valdez desecrating the Alaskan Coast.

No way. I'm pretty sure we actually learned something from the Valdez crash.

[epo]

The cognitive dissonance is amazing, i'll give you that. It sort of is a current in the Republican party, the fetishism of power and the want for authoritarianism.

Earthbrown simply enjoys being a pawn in the multi-national corporate machine.

K

[HBox]

No way. I'm pretty sure we actually learned something from the Valdez crash.

True. A lot less wildlife died in the spill too.

[HBox]

The cost of the status quo: 45,000 people a year. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32882064/ns/health-health_care/)

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

[HBox]

The public option just got a weird and unexpected supporter. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/oreilly-public-option/)

[The Jays]

holy shit, you just described the BASIC principals of insurance....people who are a better "risk" get better rates, no shit thats how it works.

Most people in this country need car, homeowners, renters, or flood insurance. You pay based on your risk. Again, it is a luxury, not a right to have health insurance.

K

Basically, you believe only the young, fit citizens should get affordable health insurance. You're 29 and you ride motorcycles. Prepare for your rates to go up, high risk.

[The Jays]

Earthbrown simply enjoys being a pawn in the multi-national corporate machine.

K

He also enjoys drinking regularly, smoking sometimes, eating at McDonald's, and riding motorcycles, you know, the sorts of things health insurance companies look for in a low risk 29 year old male.

[angrymissy]

The public option just got a weird and unexpected supporter. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/oreilly-public-option/)

O'Reilly has been getting weird lately. I'm wondering if he is playing a Fox News Good/Cop Bad Cop, or possibly secretly likes Obama. I saw him shutting down Ann Coulter on the health care debate the other night, favoring Obama in his comments.

[Syd]

O'Reilly isn't much of an ideologue outside of a few areas. Given that it is a pro-business position to be for single payer or public option, it isn't surprising to see a conservative be for it.

[IMSlacker]

I think O'Reilly realizes that he can't out-crazy Glenn Beck, and he's looking for another angle.

[keithy_19]

O'Reilly has been getting weird lately. I'm wondering if he is playing a Fox News Good/Cop Bad Cop, or possibly secretly likes Obama. I saw him shutting down Ann Coulter on the health care debate the other night, favoring Obama in his comments.

For all the shit he takes, O'Reilly has a show where you hear both sides of the argument.

[TheMojoPin]

Until he shuts off their mic.

[Furtherman]

For all the shit he takes, O'Reilly has a show where you hear both sides of the argument.

Not even close. Especially when you have a host who yells at abortion activists "You have blood on your hands!"

Despite his brief glimpse of logic for the public option, the man is still an ass. Let's not forget he made a young girl very, very rich for sexually harassing her.

[angrymissy]

For all the shit he takes, O'Reilly has a show where you hear both sides of the argument.

I don't think we watch the same O'Reilly show.

[keithy_19]

All I'm saying is with O'Reilly, you at least have two guests that talk about the opposing sides of an issue. With Beck you don't get that. With Olberman you don't get that.

[angrymissy]

All I'm saying is with O'Reilly, you at least have two guests that talk about the opposing sides of an issue. With Beck you don't get that. With Olberman you don't get that.

Um, pretty much every news show has two guests that talk about the opposing sides of an issue, including Beck and Olbermann.

[HBox]

Until he shuts off their mic.

HE DOES IT LIVE.

[HBox]

The Onion RULES. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33420)

I got so excited by the headline that I thought it was a recent headline. Dammit. Or maybe the Onion can just see 8 years into the future.

[epo]

HE DOES IT LIVE.

FUCK IT!

[SonOfSmeagol]

Obama in media blitz to push health care overhaul (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hhk6rzBpvW7brAthdyfdRk-O73PwD9APTCUG1)

There’s been an amazing amount of media coverage for this health plan lately. I can’t recall a president taking so many opportunities for selling an initiative. The address to Congress, lots of publicity trips, 60 minutes and other interview shows, internet, the upcoming weekend blitz, just about every Dem involved, etc etc, all kind of crammed into the last couple-few weeks. I can’t recall such an all out multimedia campaign.

[booster11373]

Obama in media blitz to push health care overhaul (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hhk6rzBpvW7brAthdyfdRk-O73PwD9APTCUG1)

There’s been an amazing amount of media coverage for this health plan lately. I can’t recall a president taking so many opportunities for selling an initiative. The address to Congress, lots of publicity trips, 60 minutes and other interview shows, internet, the upcoming weekend blitz, just about every Dem involved, etc etc, all kind of crammed into the last couple-few weeks. I can’t recall such an all out multimedia campaign.

Really? are you 8 years old or younger? maybe you've heard the word Iraq?

[Dude!]

Really? are you 8 years old or younger? maybe you've heard the word Iraq?

what is this 'Iraq' of which you speak?

[epo]

Obama in media blitz to push health care overhaul (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hhk6rzBpvW7brAthdyfdRk-O73PwD9APTCUG1)

There’s been an amazing amount of media coverage for this health plan lately. I can’t recall a president taking so many opportunities for selling an initiative. The address to Congress, lots of publicity trips, 60 minutes and other interview shows, internet, the upcoming weekend blitz, just about every Dem involved, etc etc, all kind of crammed into the last couple-few weeks. I can’t recall such an all out multimedia campaign.

Do you remember Bush basically campaigning for privatization of Social Security? Of course nobody brings it up because he completely shit the bed.

[keithy_19]

The public option just got a weird and unexpected supporter. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/oreilly-public-option/)

O'Reilly talked about this tonight. Says that they took it out of context. He showed a clip where he stated that the public option is dead. Then he went on, in the clip, and described what he would like. Private insurers with government regulations.

[booster11373]

Kill all doctors!!!! burn all nurses No health care for anyone close the CDC its a evil government project!!!!!!!!

[SonOfSmeagol]

FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_insurance_tax_fact_check)

Hey if it’s a tax call it a tax and be done with it. Some people, so I’ve heard, actually like more taxes. Not me. And he did say before the election that he wouldn't raise taxes, didn't he. But, the thing is, it’s disturbing to have him either (1) think you’re stupid and try to lie to you (insulting too) or (2) not know what the fuck he is talking about. (over and over and over and over again on assorted networks).

[hanso]

O'Reilly talked about this tonight. Says that they took it out of context. He showed a clip where he stated that the public option is dead. Then he went on, in the clip, and described what he would like. Private insurers with government regulations.

What good would that do?
When the next Rep.to take office would just toss away the regulation.

[foodcourtdruide]

All I'm saying is with O'Reilly, you at least have two guests that talk about the opposing sides of an issue. With Beck you don't get that. With Olberman you don't get that.

I think the "one extreme vs. another extreme" style is actually incredibly uninformative.

I think many people are so uninformed because they get their news from these styles of shows.

[Misteriosa]

this is just sickening...

Firm cancels health insurance coverage for girl, 17, after celiac disease diagnosis (http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-thu-problem-briana-rice-sep17,0,807488,full.column)

Dale Rice said the insurance company cherry-picked from various doctors' visits, and that none of his daughter's health problems were ongoing. He attributed the dizziness to dehydration, the fatigue to his daughter staying up late surfing the Web, the elevated cholesterol to an inaccurate test, and said the cough is now gone.

We are livid," said Dale Rice, who, along with his wife, is out of work. "When a private insurer gets legitimate claims and seeks to find excuses not to pay them, they are clearly demonstrating morally and ethically bankrupt behavior."

this is not the whole article, but the fact that this sort of business practice is allowed is shameful.

edit: i forgot to mention, the rescission has left the family with over $20k in unpaid medical bills racked up when they thought they had coverage. the next step for them is bankruptcy.

[underdog]

this is just sickening...

Firm cancels health insurance coverage for girl, 17, after celiac disease diagnosis (http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-thu-problem-briana-rice-sep17,0,807488,full.column)





this is not the whole article, but the fact that this sort of business practice is allowed is shameful.

Good! Health care is not a right!

We're a civilized society so we should let our poor and weak go broke or die because they get a treatable disease!

[Jujubees2]

this is just sickening...

Firm cancels health insurance coverage for girl, 17, after celiac disease diagnosis (http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-thu-problem-briana-rice-sep17,0,807488,full.column)





this is not the whole article, but the fact that this sort of business practice is allowed is shameful.

That's the problem when the medical field is treated as a business. All the company cares about is its bottom line. Who cares if a 17-year-old has no health insurance now and her family will be bankrupt?

[underdog]

That's the problem when the medical field is treated as a business. All the company cares about is its bottom line. Who cares if a 17-year-old has no health insurance now and her family will be bankrupt?

Maybe if the girl wasn't such a weakling and a hippie, she'd go out and get a job and pay for her own health insurance!

USAUSAUSA! These colors don't run! Love it or leave it! Tea parties!

[west milly Tom]

Maybe if the girl wasn't such a weakling and a hippie, she'd go out and get a job and pay for her own health insurance!

USAUSAUSA! These colors don't run! Love it or leave it! Tea parties!



Its a shame that you reduce the logical opposition to obamacare to this. You should pay closer attention. Health care isn't a right plain and simple. The rights of others shouldn't tread on my rights. Life liberty property and the pursuit of happiness. The rights to action. That article on the other thread is great. You should take 5 minutes and read it before actually dismissing it because of the poster. It illustrates perfectly the opinions of the majority of this country.

[epo]

Its a shame that you reduce the logical opposition to obamacare to this. You should pay closer attention. Health care isn't a right plain and simple. The rights of others shouldn't tread on my rights. Life liberty property and the pursuit of happiness. The rights to action. That article on the other thread is great. You should take 5 minutes and read it before actually dismissing it because of the poster. It illustrates perfectly the opinions of the majority of this country.

Actually, when the majority of the country has the "public option" explained to them impartially...favors the public option at a rate of over 70+%.

Other people having health care coverage doesn't have shit to do with your rights.

[west milly Tom]

Actually, when the majority of the country has the "public option" explained to them impartially...favors the public option at a rate of over 70+%.

Other people having health care coverage doesn't have shit to do with your rights.


First 70+% is a skewed poll number. I read a great article on that gallup poll ill yet and find the link.

Next it sure does. How is taking from the doctors and companies that provide health care and medicines and forcing their hand to do other than what they want to do not screwing with peoples rights? Come on man. Should uncle Sam be able to force my company to give free train rides to people? Where does it end?

[TheMojoPin]

WMT why do you consider a free press a right?

(For the record, I don't think it or health care are an inherrent "right," but the reasoning you just spelled out arguing against the right to health care could easily be applied to the expected right of a free press)

[The Jays]

Its a shame that you reduce the logical opposition to obamacare to this. You should pay closer attention. Health care isn't a right plain and simple. The rights of others shouldn't tread on my rights. Life liberty property and the pursuit of happiness. The rights to action. That article on the other thread is great. You should take 5 minutes and read it before actually dismissing it because of the poster. It illustrates perfectly the opinions of the majority of this country.

It's a shame you reduce your opposition to catchphrases like Obamacare. How does offering a public option tread on your rights? Your hospitals, medical centers, doctors and nurses are still all working for independent companies. There will still be private insurance to pay for. The public option is meant for those who cannot afford anything else, and to keep the insurance companies in check by offering a competitive plan. And there are ways to pay for this without raising your taxes. One way would be to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction, which costs $75 - $100 billion a year.

[foodcourtdruide]

First 70+% is a skewed poll number. I read a great article on that gallup poll ill yet and find the link.

Next it sure does. How is taking from the doctors and companies that provide health care and medicines and forcing their hand to do other than what they want to do not screwing with peoples rights? Come on man. Should uncle Sam be able to force my company to give free train rides to people? Where does it end?

Funny you should mention train rides. I have a few friends outside the U.S., and they're always surprised when I tell them my company doesn't pay for my transportation. I'm not making a point, what you said just made me think of that.

[IMSlacker]

And there are ways to pay for this without raising your taxes. One way would be to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction, which costs $75 - $100 billion a year.

Getting rid of deductions is the same thing as raising taxes.

[The Jays]

First 70+% is a skewed poll number. I read a great article on that gallup poll ill yet and find the link.

Next it sure does. How is taking from the doctors and companies that provide health care and medicines and forcing their hand to do other than what they want to do not screwing with peoples rights? Come on man. Should uncle Sam be able to force my company to give free train rides to people? Where does it end?

What the hell says anyone would force their hand to do otherwise? Cite this, please. You're wildly making a claim, not backing it up, and then jumping to a conclusion.

[west milly Tom]

WMT why do you consider a free press a right?

(For the record, I don't think it or health care are an inherrent "right," but the reasoning you just spelled out arguing against the right to health care could easily be applied to the expected right of a free press)



How does the free press infringe on anyone? Perhaps I lost you here. Care to elaborate?

[west milly Tom]

It's a shame you reduce your opposition to catchphrases like Obamacare. How does offering a public option tread on your rights? Your hospitals, medical centers, doctors and nurses are still all working for independent companies. There will still be private insurance to pay for. The public option is meant for those who cannot afford anything else, and to keep the insurance companies in check by offering a competitive plan. And there are ways to pay for this without raising your taxes. One way would be to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction, which costs $75 - $100 billion a year.

Eliminating deductions=raising taxes

Keeping in check=eliminating free trade.

The public option is also a phrase. I don't want to rehash this point again but private companies can't compete with a cheaper plan. The public option will become the only option for many who don't want or need it, including myself.

[underdog]

Its a shame that you reduce the logical opposition to obamacare to this. You should pay closer attention. Health care isn't a right plain and simple. The rights of others shouldn't tread on my rights. Life liberty property and the pursuit of happiness. The rights to action. That article on the other thread is great. You should take 5 minutes and read it before actually dismissing it because of the poster. It illustrates perfectly the opinions of the majority of this country.

THESE COLORS DON'T RUN!

What the hell says anyone would force their hand to do otherwise? Cite this, please. You're wildly making a claim, not backing it up, and then jumping to a conclusion.

Whoa, easy there. You're saying WMT would come here, make a wild claim, not back it up, and then disappear without citing any sources? That's craaaaazy.

[TheMojoPin]

How does the free press infringe on anyone? Perhaps I lost you here. Care to elaborate?

Not in terms of infringing, but in terms of how its expected to be a right. Why? Why is it acceptable to expect to have the right to a free press or the right to worship as one pleases but it's not acceptable to expect a right that entails having access to realistic health care? It seems that many of our expected and assumed "rights" are very subjective to begin with. Why are some rights considered essential but others are not?

[TheMojoPin]

Keeping in check=eliminating free trade.

The public option is also a phrase. I don't want to rehash this point again but private companies can't compete with a cheaper plan. The public option will become the only option for many who don't want or need it, including myself.

They can compete if they lower their premiums and stop gouging their customers. You seem to think it's more important that the private companies be free to charge people whatever they want no matter how unrealistic it is than people being able to afford health care.

I don't want the private options totally eliminated but I don't want them to continue on the path that they've been on for years where quality health insurance becomes more and more of a luxury that only a relative few can afford. If making them relatively honest means that some of the companies fall by the wayside, well, that's the result of greed and dishonesty and they made their own bed.

[underdog]

They can compete if they lower their premiums and stop gouging their customers. You seem to think it's more important that the private companies be free to charge people whatever they want no matter how unrealistic it is than people being able to afford health care.

It's the free market! It's capitalism! Love it or leave it!

[The Jays]

They can compete if they lower their premiums and stop gouging their customers. You seem to think it's more important that the private companies be free to charge people whatever they want no matter how unrealistic it is than people being able to afford health care.

It seems insurance companies are willing to charge what they want because of the prevalent concept of employer-based health coverage. The companies know they have to provide to their employers, so the insurance just keeps jacking the prices, so every year, when it's time for open enrollment, the plans get shittier and shittier because the employer can't afford the plans he used to be able to.

[west milly Tom]

Not in terms of infringing, but in terms of how its expected to be a right. Why? Why is it acceptable to expect to have the right to a free press or the right to worship as one pleases but it's not acceptable to expect a right that entails having access to realistic health care? It seems that many of our expected and assumed "rights" are very subjective to begin with. Why are some rights considered essential but others are not?



Freedom of the press is a right expressly provided by the first amendment to protect citizens from an overbearing government. It costs citizens nothing, but gives them much. Again it is a right to action.

National health care IS overbearing government. The anti-fedrealist philosophy that governed the birth of our nation is a perfect counter for obamacare.

[TheMojoPin]

Freedom of the press is a right expressly provided by the first amendment to protect citizens from an overbearing government. It costs citizens nothing, but gives them much. Again it is a right to action.

And my point is that it's a wholly subjective, artificial construct. If we can decide that that right should exist, why not the right to affordable health care and protection from the unscrupulous and unrealistic "sale" of health care ?

National health care IS overbearing government. The anti-fedrealist philosophy that governed the birth of our nation is a perfect counter for obamacare.

The formation of the USA was hinged on both anti-federalist AND federalist philosophies. One side did not win out over the other: both were and are necessary and were expressly incorporated together.

Why do you value the profit-making ability of health insurance companies over the ability of Americans to afford health care?

[The Jays]

Because he does not want to be forced to pay less for health care when he has the freedom to pay more.

[Syd]

The formation of the USA was hinged on both anti-federalist AND federalist philosophies. One side did not win out over the other: both were and are necessary and were expressly incorporated together.

US was formed originally on anti-federalist philosophies. The Articles of Confederation lasted a scant 12 years in a developing nation before everyone had realized that a stronger, more robust government must be formed in order to enact the will of society. Without the proper US Constitution, states would continually be at odds with each other and the Republic would falter. Although it eventually did with the Civil War, the 14th amendment solidified the need for an overarching hierarchy of democratically elected individuals to maintain the rights of man.

The whole Articles of Confederation thing is an extremely telling thing. It revealed the evil of Thomas Jefferson in believing the need for a constant revolution, an anarcho-socialist mindset that is similar to later Marxist thinkers like Trotsky. Why Teabaggers fetishize thinking of communists with the quote of "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" is beyond me. Then again, the cognitive dissonance required to be a Teabagger is beyond my ability.

Fact of the matter is, a great empire requires a great government to protect the will of the people. It has been proven throughout history time and time again.

[foodcourtdruide]

Fact of the matter is, a great empire requires a great government to protect the will of the people. It has been proven throughout history time and time again.

Your post was really well put, thanks.

I wish the conservative agenda was more accountable government, not some loosely explained fantasy of little-to-no government.

How do people trust the leaders of big business more than the leaders we elect? I don't understand it at all.

[high fly]

this is just sickening...

Firm cancels health insurance coverage for girl, 17, after celiac disease diagnosis (http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-thu-problem-briana-rice-sep17,0,807488,full.column)





this is not the whole article, but the fact that this sort of business practice is allowed is shameful.







That's the problem when the medical field is treated as a business. All the company cares about is its bottom line. Who cares if a 17-year-old has no health insurance now and her family will be bankrupt?



The first thing taught about corporations in Business 101 is their purpose is to generate profits for the shareholders. That is what a corporation is formed to do.
Health insurance companies do this by chargng as much as they can while denying as much coverage they can get away with.
Therefore, insurance company bureaucrats have a motive that government bureaucrats do not.

Our system is designed to screw the sick and dying out of as much money and health care as possible....

[SouthSideJohnny]

I find the double standard in the political forums to be interesting.

WMT or earthbrown posts, and we see this type of response.

You're wildly making a claim, not backing it up, and then jumping to a conclusion.

You're saying WMT would come here, make a wild claim, not back it up, and then disappear without citing any sources? That's craaaaazy.

Yet Jays can post this:

And there are ways to pay for this without raising your taxes. One way would be to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction, which costs $75 - $100 billion a year.

The usual posters (except Mojo on occasion) don't question it or point out the complete lack of support for the statement. IMSlacker and WMT point out that removing deductions = raising taxes, but still nothing from the regulars.

[angrymissy]

I find the double standard in the political forums to be interesting.

WMT or earthbrown posts, and we see this type of response.

Yet Jays can post this:

The usual posters (except Mojo on occasion) don't question it or point out the complete lack of support for the statement. IMSlacker and WMT point out that removing deductions = raising taxes, but still nothing from the regulars.

Generally the person opposing the argument is the one asking for backup or support. If you don't believe what is stated, you then ask for backup.

Obama discussed his plan to pay for healthcare without raising taxes (on people making less than $250k) on a few of the shows he was on in the past few days.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/20/ftn/main5324077.shtml

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE58J18320090920

[foodcourtdruide]

I find the double standard in the political forums to be interesting.

WMT or earthbrown posts, and we see this type of response.





Yet Jays can post this:



The usual posters (except Mojo on occasion) don't question it or point out the complete lack of support for the statement. IMSlacker and WMT point out that removing deductions = raising taxes, but still nothing from the regulars.

I'm not really a big taxes person, so I wasn't sure. I don't understand your point though. IMSlacker responded to him and said he was incorrect. Also, I've seen people disagree with Jays here before.

[west milly Tom]

Generally the person opposing the argument is the one asking for backup or support. If you don't believe what is stated, you then ask for backup.

Obama discussed his plan to pay for healthcare without raising taxes (on people making less than $250k) on a few of the shows he was on in the past few days.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/20/ftn/main5324077.shtml

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE58J18320090920



Forget for one second that the size of the deficit as it is. Can you tell me that you believe, really believe, that a program that the GAO estimates to cost 2 trillion MORE than the stated obama projection will not cause taxes to go up on working class families? The whole plan relies squarely on the backs of middle America. Its just common sense to know that to pay for something you have to get the money somewhere.

[Jujubees2]

I still don’t understand your logic WMT. People without healthcare are still going to get sick/injured. When they do they will go to an ER where they will not be able to pay. That cost will be passed on to everyone else in the form of higher insurance rates and higher taxes. So why not just insure everyone so that costs can be controlled?

[Syd]

Taxes will certainly go up -- but you will no longer be paying for insurance premiums. Or, you will be paying less for insurance premiums. There will be greater costs now than there will be in the long run without reform -- things will be getting far, far worse. Seeing as we should be citing examples I can only say this from memory but insurance premiums are looking to double over the next decade or so, or more. I'd rather my taxes go up now than for the whole kit-and-kaboodle to explode later, bringing down businesses left and right (since most of the healthcare coverage in America is provided on their dime or at least their nickel)

[angrymissy]

Forget for one second that the size of the deficit as it is. Can you tell me that you believe, really believe, that a program that the GAO estimates to cost 2 trillion MORE than the stated obama projection will not cause taxes to go up on working class families? The whole plan relies squarely on the backs of middle America. Its just common sense to know that to pay for something you have to get the money somewhere.

Did you bother reading the plans on where to get the money?

Obama's re-election will ride on his statement that he will not raise taxes on those making less than $250k.

[west milly Tom]

I still don’t understand your logic WMT. People without healthcare are still going to get sick/injured. When they do they will go to an ER where they will not be able to pay. That cost will be passed on to everyone else in the form of higher insurance rates and higher taxes. So why not just insure everyone so that costs can be controlled?

The government's job is not to control the cost of health care. The market can correct itself if big brother would stay out of the mix altogether.

[high fly]

I find the double standard in the political forums to be interesting.

WMT or earthbrown posts, and we see this type of response.





Yet Jays can post this:



The usual posters (except Mojo on occasion) don't question it or point out the complete lack of support for the statement. IMSlacker and WMT point out that removing deductions = raising taxes, but still nothing from the regulars.



TheJays is right that we can have national health care without raising taxes.
Newt Gingrich said a while back that there is plenty of money already in the system and he was correct.
Other countries cover everyone and do so for far less than what health care costs us, often half as much.
Not only that, but they get far better results in longevity, infant mortality rate, percentage of children with immunizations, ratio of doctors in the population and ratio of hospital beds, to name a few.
They are able to get better results for far less cost and remember they are covering the expensive high risk cases including those with pre-existing conditions.

Right now, hundreds of billions in profits are made every year by insurance and pharmaceutical companies which make our health care more expensive than the superior care other countries deliver.


I do not know if we will end up with a less expensive system, but it is possible.
We have concrete examples of many countries which are doing it.
It pisses me off that the French, of all people, are able to have a health care system that costs much less than ours but yields far better results in category after category.

[west milly Tom]

Did you bother reading the plans on where to get the money?

Obama's re-election will ride on his statement that he will not raise taxes on those making less than $250k.



Be realistic he's already broken several campaign promises.

[high fly]

http://www.jhsph.edu/pcpc/Publications_PDFs/2000_JAMA_Starfield.pdf


The fact is that the US population does not have anywhere
near the best health in the world. Of 13 countries in
a recent comparison,3 the United States ranks an average of
12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators.
Countries in order of their average ranking on the
health indicators (with the first being the best) are Japan,
Sweden, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium, the United
States, and Germany. Rankings of the United States on the
separate indicators3 are:
• 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
• 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall
• 11th for postneonatal mortality
• 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external
causes)
• 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
• 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for
males
• 10thfor life expectancy at 40 yearsfor females,9th for males
• 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
• 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
• 10th for age-adjusted mortality




Every one of those countries ranked above us pay less, often half what we do for health care....

[Syd]

The government's job is not to control the cost of health care. The market can correct itself if big brother would stay out of the mix altogether.

The market has never corrected itself -- wasn't Standard Oil proof positive of that?

[angrymissy]

Be realistic he's already broken several campaign promises.

I would say his track record has been pretty good so far.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[west milly Tom]

I would say his track record has been pretty good so far.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/



Funny I was just going to cite this same source, lol. Your interpretation of pretty good is a little different than mine. No lobbyists, taxes for seniors, the list goes on. Also check the stalled heading.

[angrymissy]

My point remains:

If Obama lies about not raising taxes on people making under $250k, he's toast. Absolute toast. Therefore - I believe that he will do everything in his power to not do so.

[west milly Tom]

Battery dead, talk to all you buddays later.

[west milly Tom]

My point remains:

If Obama lies about not raising taxes on people making under $250k, he's toast. Absolute toast. Therefore - I believe that he will do everything in his power to not do so.



That Missy is what makes our perspectives so different. :)

[high fly]

Here are more stats for you, comparing U.S. health care to other countries which pay far less than we do, and the results:

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Health-health

You will see in category after category, our system is just plain shitty:



We rank #52 and barely beat out Slovenia in physicians per 1,000 people

We're #27 in hospital beds per 1,000 people, just ahead of Turkey

Croatia and 15 other countries beat us in maternal mortality rates

Bosnia & Herzogovina and 46 other countries beat us in life expectancy at birth

Mongolia and over 70 other countries have a higher percentage of children immunized from DPT

60 or more countries have more 1 year-old children immunized from Hepatitus3. We are tied with Rwanda.

We are behind Slovakia and 20 other countries in terms of low birth-weight babies born

But we kick ass when it comes to what we pay!

[underdog]

Here are more stats for you, comparing U.S. health care to other countries which pay far less than we do, and the results:

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Health-health

You will see in category after category, our system is just plain shitty:



We rank #52 and barely beat out Slovenia in physicians per 1,000 people

We're #27 in hospital beds per 1,000 people, just ahead of Turkey

Croatia and 15 other countries beat us in maternal mortality rates

Bosnia & Herzogovina and 46 other countries beat us in life expectancy at birth

Mongolia and over 70 other countries have a higher percentage of children immunized from DPT

60 or more countries have more 1 year-old children immunized from Hepatitus3. We are tied with Rwanda.

We are behind Slovakia and 20 other countries in terms of low birth-weight babies born

But we kick ass when it comes to what we pay!

But they hate our freedom.

[TheMojoPin]

The government's job is not to control the cost of health care. The market can correct itself if big brother would stay out of the mix altogether.

What gives you any kind of indication that the health insurance market will correct itself and become more affordable?

[epo]

The government's job is not to control the cost of health care. The market can correct itself if big brother would stay out of the mix altogether.

So we shouldn't have regulations over anything in the marketplace? We should live in a laissez faire world?

[Jujubees2]

The government's job is not to control the cost of health care. The market can correct itself if big brother would stay out of the mix altogether.

The only way the health insurance market will correct itself is if all the uninsured died. As I stated before, people without health insurance will get sick/injured and require treatment which we will pay for one way or another.

[IMSlacker]

The usual posters (except Mojo on occasion) don't question it or point out the complete lack of support for the statement. IMSlacker and WMT point out that removing deductions = raising taxes, but still nothing from the regulars.

I'd bet I'd be more regular if we had universal health care.

[Jujubees2]

I'd bet I'd be more regular if we had universal health care.

Try prune juice

[west milly Tom]

The only way the health insurance market will correct itself is if all the uninsured died. As I stated before, people without health insurance will get sick/injured and require treatment which we will pay for one way or another.



Here is one example of how costs in health care would come down with less government: plastic surgery. I understand that you will contest but the fact is quality has gone up and cost to consumers has gone down. This is ONE example.

[SouthSideJohnny]

Generally the person opposing the argument is the one asking for backup or support. If you don't believe what is stated, you then ask for backup.

Obama discussed his plan to pay for healthcare without raising taxes (on people making less than $250k) on a few of the shows he was on in the past few days.

TheJays is right that we can have national health care without raising taxes.

My point wasn't whether Obama thinks we can have national health care without raising taxes. I am very aware of how he says he's going to pay for it. I don't think there's a shred of reality to his plan, but that wasn't my issue in my previous post.

My point was simply that Jays made a comment that it could be paid for without raising taxes by removing tax deductions (which is an effective tax increase) and most posters here (except IMS) didn't jump on that position like they would if WMT or earthbrown posted something similar.

On a related issue, I hear the broad, ambiguous statements about how the inefficiencies and cost savings in existing system are going to pay for national healthcare. Can someone please explain exactly how that's going to happen. I just don't see it. Those inefficiencies have been there for years, and now suddenly the federal gov't is going to pass legislation that removes them overnight and turns them into billions of dollars in savings? If that's the case, why hasn't that happened already?

[high fly]

Here are more stats for you, comparing U.S. health care to other countries which pay far less than we do, and the results:

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Health-health

You will see in category after category, our system is just plain shitty:



We rank #52 and barely beat out Slovenia in physicians per 1,000 people

We're #27 in hospital beds per 1,000 people, just ahead of Turkey

Croatia and 15 other countries beat us in maternal mortality rates

Bosnia & Herzogovina and 46 other countries beat us in life expectancy at birth

Mongolia and over 70 other countries have a higher percentage of children immunized from DPT

60 or more countries have more 1 year-old children immunized from Hepatitus3. We are tied with Rwanda.

We are behind Slovakia and 20 other countries in terms of low birth-weight babies born

But we kick ass when it comes to what we pay!
__________________




But they hate our freedom.



....................and the sumbitches won't wear a flag pin, either.....................

[SouthSideJohnny]

If Obama lies about not raising taxes on people making under $250k, he's toast. Absolute toast. Therefore - I believe that he will do everything in his power to not do so.

Of course he's not going to raise marginal income tax rates on anyone making less than $250k. But is that the only definition of "raising taxes"? If I am "penalized" by not paying for health insurance, is that a tax? What about the rumored increased costs under the cap and trade bill? If my utility bills increase because of that, is it a tax? As far as I'm concerned, yes.

Florida doesn't have a state income tax but our "fees" for car registrations, drivers licenses, fishing licenses, lawsuit filing fees, etc . . . . were just jacked way up. The state can say they didn't raise taxes, but I'm paying a shitload more for the same services. That's a tax increase to me.

[SouthSideJohnny]

Here are more stats for you, comparing U.S. health care to other countries which pay far less than we do, and the results:

I don't dispute our health care in the US should be better and less expensive. But comparing our costs to Slovenia, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzogovina, Mongolia, Rwanda, and Slovakia. Come on. . .really? Maybe their healthcare costs significantly less because they don't have the same R&D costs we do? When was the last time you heard about a new medical device or procedure coming out of Rwanda?

[west milly Tom]

I don't dispute our health care in the US should be better and less expensive. But comparing our costs to Slovenia, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzogovina, Mongolia, Rwanda, and Slovakia. Come on. . .really? Maybe their healthcare costs significantly less because they don't have the same R&D costs we do? When was the last time you heard about a new medical device or procedure coming out of Rwanda?

how many US citizens in this country, this thread, would trade their current health care situations for that of: Slovenia, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzogovina, Mongolia, Rwanda, and Slovakia?

[high fly]

My point wasn't whether Obama thinks we can have national health care without raising taxes. I am very aware of how he says he's going to pay for it. I don't think there's a shred of reality to his plan, but that wasn't my issue in my previous post.

My point was simply that Jays made a comment that it could be paid for without raising taxes by removing tax deductions (which is an effective tax increase) and most posters here (except IMS) didn't jump on that position like they would if WMT or earthbrown posted something similar.


Since Social Security is adjusted, it could be claimed that is a tax increase, too.
Then there is the landmine of a claim that not making Bush's temporary tax cuts permanent also constitutes a "tax increase."
No discussion on taxes is really relevant without a discussion on spending. It's like a businessman who only looks at outlays without considering income.
Taxes are merely the operating cost of the government. People are so hung up on the tax issue we now have leaders in government who are afraid to actually charge the people enough to pay the bills.
So what we end up doing is paying extra because the interest on the money we borrow to pay the expenses.
Behind the unwillingness to pay the cost of doing business is an element of cowardice.

Taxes are going to go up, regardless.
If Obama's plan doesn't go through, there will still be added costs for health care for citizens to pay, one way or another. The current system is heading for a cliff.



On a related issue, I hear the broad, ambiguous statements about how the inefficiencies and cost savings in existing system are going to pay for national healthcare. Can someone please explain exactly how that's going to happen. I just don't see it. Those inefficiencies have been there for years, and now suddenly the federal gov't is going to pass legislation that removes them overnight and turns them into billions of dollars in savings? If that's the case, why hasn't that happened already?


I'll give you one way costs will be ameliorated, but I do not know to what degree.
Right now we have people pointing out that those who do not have health insurance are still getting treatment at emergency rooms but not paying for it.
So what we have is some of the people paying for the medical care of all of the people.
With everyone participating, everyone will be paying for everyone.
See the difference?


Going to the emergency room is cost inefficient because by the time someone does so, they may have a disease of a condition that could have been caught earlier through testing.
Therefore, it is more expensive to treat what would have otherwise been treated for less.
Additionally, those who do not have health insurance get charged a lot more for care.
here is an example: A guy I work for just had to go in for a test and the cost was $272.
He had the paperwork there which showed his insurance company negotiated the amount paid to the hospital as about $35.
The uninsured don't have anyone making those negotiations so they get stuck with paying $272 for what someone else paid only $35 for.


I am for single-payer because right there you eliminate the hundreds of billions of dollars in profits the insurance and pharmaceutical companies goudge us for every stinking year.
That is a major reason why other countries are able to cover everyone - which includes the expensive high-risk cases and those with pre-existing conditions - and do it for half what we pay.


I do not know how it will all shake out, but I believe it is a moral issue. Health is so basic to life and we should take care of each other and not be so stingy and self-centered so as to deny it to those who are sick and in pain in their hour of need.
But that is what we have, bunch of people trying to keep that from happening.
And yet they also imagine this is a generous country while treating their fellow citizens that way....

[west milly Tom]

Since Social Security is adjusted, it could be claimed that is a tax increase, too.
Then there is the landmine of a claim that not making Bush's temporary tax cuts permanent also constitutes a "tax increase."
No discussion on taxes is really relevant without a discussion on spending. It's like a businessman who only looks at outlays without considering income.
Taxes are merely the operating cost of the government. People are so hung up on the tax issue we now have leaders in government who are afraid to actually charge the people enough to pay the bills.
So what we end up doing is paying extra because the interest on the money we borrow to pay the expenses.
Behind the unwillingness to pay the cost of doing business is an element of cowardice.

Taxes are going to go up, regardless.
If Obama's plan doesn't go through, there will still be added costs for health care for citizens to pay, one way or another. The current system is heading for a cliff.






I'll give you one way costs will be ameliorated, but I do not know to what degree.
Right now we have people pointing out that those who do not have health insurance are still getting treatment at emergency rooms but not paying for it.
So what we have is some of the people paying for the medical care of all of the people.
With everyone participating, everyone will be paying for everyone.
See the difference?


Going to the emergency room is cost inefficient because by the time someone does so, they may have a disease of a condition that could have been caught earlier through testing.
Therefore, it is more expensive to treat what would have otherwise been treated for less.
Additionally, those who do not have health insurance get charged a lot more for care.
here is an example: A guy I work for just had to go in for a test and the cost was $272.
He had the paperwork there which showed his insurance company negotiated the amount paid to the hospital as about $35.
The uninsured don't have anyone making those negotiations so they get stuck with paying $272 for what someone else paid only $35 for.


I am for single-payer because right there you eliminate the hundreds of billions of dollars in profits the insurance and pharmaceutical companies goudge us for every stinking year.
That is a major reason why other countries are able to cover everyone - which includes the expensive high-risk cases and those with pre-existing conditions - and do it for half what we pay.

so yo agree that even though there amy not be a "tax increase" taxes are going up?

Also why are you so afraid of profit? Profit is not evil. Do you have a job? I provide a service for a profit just like doctors and drug companies.

[Serpico1103]

The government's job is not to control the cost of health care. The market can correct itself if big brother would stay out of the mix altogether.

Can you point to an unregulated business that corrects itself? Since the industrial revolution?

A market correcting itself requires consumers with perfect knowledge. Consumers today have little to no knowledge about the products they are buying. That prevents the market from correcting itself.

[high fly]

I don't dispute our health care in the US should be better and less expensive. But comparing our costs to Slovenia, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzogovina, Mongolia, Rwanda, and Slovakia. Come on. . .really?


Yes, really.
Compare the results

Maybe their healthcare costs significantly less because they don't have the same R&D costs we do? When was the last time you heard about a new medical device or procedure coming out of Rwanda?


Rwanda was not mentioned in terms of research, but in percentage of children immunized from Hepatitis3.
Giving immunizations does not require research.

Other countries that kick our ass in health care results as well as costs also do a lot of funding for research.
I used to live down the street from the Institut Pasteur in Paris.
That is where the cocktail was developed that is now given to AIDS patients.


If you are against government funding of research, get familiar with the Public Health Service which taxpayers have been funding since 1798.
Other, often critical research is also being funded by taxpayers.
Take a look at the National Institutes for Health:

http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

Here are a few:

National Cancer Institute (NCI) - Est. 1937
http://www.cancer.gov/


National Eye Institute (NEI) - Est. 1968
http://www.nei.nih.gov/


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) - Est. 1948
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/


National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) - Est. 1989
http://www.genome.gov/


National Institute on Aging (NIA) - Est. 1974
http://www.nia.nih.gov/


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) - Est. 1970
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) - Est. 1948
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) - Est. 1986
http://www.niams.nih.gov/


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) - Est. 2000
http://www.nibib.nih.gov/


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) - Est. 1962
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/



There are 17 more listed here (http://www.nih.gov/icd/index.html)


Would you like to see taxpayer money rescinded from the rsearch work they fund?
You'll save $30.5 billion.

[The Jays]

I find the double standard in the political forums to be interesting.

WMT or earthbrown posts, and we see this type of response.





Yet Jays can post this:



The usual posters (except Mojo on occasion) don't question it or point out the complete lack of support for the statement. IMSlacker and WMT point out that removing deductions = raising taxes, but still nothing from the regulars.


Oh, I'm sorry, I've been out all day so I've been unable to clarify.

The tax rate is not being raised. Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, except for those who make below $250,000. So, the tax rates are staying the same, the tax rates are not being raised.

By removing the mortgage interest deduction, the government does get to raise more funds, but only from people who would normally deduct their interest, which are those filers who itemize deductions.

Here's some linkage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

More than 70 percent of tax filers don't get any benefit from the deduction at all. O.K., many of them are renters. But even among homeowners, only about half claim the deduction. And for the 37 million individuals and couples who do, the rewards, at least on average, are surprisingly modest — just under $2,000 per return. (Figure it like this: the median home, as computed by the Bureau of the Census in 2003, is valued at $140,000. If you finance 80 percent of it with a 6 percent mortgage, your interest bill is $6,720 a year. A taxpayer in the 25 percent bracket would save one quarter, or $1,680.)

But cumulatively, the deduction is a big deal. This year, it is expected to cost the Treasury $76 billion. And the rewards are greatly skewed in favor of the moderately to the conspicuously rich. On a million-dollar mortgage (the people with those really need help, right?), the tax benefit is worth approximately $21,000 a year. And according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a little over half of the benefit is taken by just 12 percent of taxpayers, or those with incomes of $100,000 or more.

Here's another.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123559630127675581.html

The tax increases would raise an estimated $318 billion over 10 years by reducing the value of such longstanding deductions as mortgage interest and charitable contributions for people in the highest tax brackets. Households paying income taxes at the 33% and 35% rates can currently claim deductions at those rates. Under the Obama proposal, they could deduct only 28% of the value of those payments.

So, no, tax rates are not rising. Taxes are being collected by eliminating deductions for people in high tax brackets.

[HBox]

On a related issue, I hear the broad, ambiguous statements about how the inefficiencies and cost savings in existing system are going to pay for national healthcare. Can someone please explain exactly how that's going to happen. I just don't see it. Those inefficiencies have been there for years, and now suddenly the federal gov't is going to pass legislation that removes them overnight and turns them into billions of dollars in savings? If that's the case, why hasn't that happened already?

First of all you have a pretty big misconception. The money is not going to be saved overnight. The costs and savings being discussed are over a 10 year window. Most of the savings will take time.

But there's a lot of ways they can save money. The most talked about way is preventative care. In the immediate term people who are uninsured now being able to go to the doctor with new insurance coverage rather than go to the ER for the most expensive type of care we have. Over time people being able to see a doctor on a regular basis, anyone from healthy people to people with chronic illnesses going untreated, will raise their overall level of health. Instead of people living with underlying ailments until they develop into something serious and expensive they will be able to go to a doctor preemptively and treat it more economically. Obviously this won't happen every time but it will happen a lot.

Another way they could do it is paying by outcomes instead of by treatments. That means a doctor or hospital will get paid based on how well a patient does rather than how many test or treatment they can bill for. This would cut down on unnecessary spending. And it would probably be accompanied by some sort of tort reform so that the doctors and hospitals feel comfortable and don't take part in defensive medicine.

There's more ways but I'm tired.

[Syd]

Tort reform is bad, it caps malpractice to a certain amount. Society should never place a monetary figure on a person's health and well-being.

[SouthSideJohnny]

The tax rate is not being raised. Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, except for those who make below $250,000. So, the tax rates are staying the same, the tax rates are not being raised. So, no, tax rates are not rising. Taxes are being collected by eliminating deductions for people in high tax brackets.

My confusion was that your first post didn't mention tax rates.

[SouthSideJohnny]

Rwanda was not mentioned in terms of research, but in percentage of children immunized from Hepatitis3.

It's easy to cherry-pick one isolated treatment or procedure that any one of these countries does better than the US. Do you really think the health care is better overall in Rwanda? Maybe Hep3 vaccine is needed more there than it is in the mid-west of the US so that explains the higher immunization rate. How does Rwanda compare with the US on ALL other childhood immunizations?

The point of my post was that health care costs less in most of those countries, in large part, since they are not incurring the cost of R&D. Sure, France and a few other large companies are also conducting research and you may consider their health care to be superior. I can appreciate that. But to list a bunch of small countries and say they all spend less per capita on health care than the US is not a legitimate comparison.

[Syd]

Just in a general sense, health insurance doesn't directly fund any R&D and usually the subsidies for that come directly from the American government.

[high fly]

It's easy to cherry-pick one isolated treatment or procedure that any one of these countries does better than the US. Do you really think the health care is better overall in Rwanda?


Yes, but my point was not just Rwanda, but where we rank compared to all tose other nations.
I did not just give one category, but several.
There are plenty more if you follow my links.

The thing is, we are number one only in teen pregnancy and cost.



We pay far more and get far worse results than quite a few countries.
Our system is horrendous in terms of cost efficiency, any way you look at it.

[epo]

Occasionally, I'm reminded that a real journalist lurks deep inside the soul of Shep Smith.

<object width="448" height="368"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002215/vxml.php?448"></param><embed src="http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="448" height="368" flashvars="config=http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002215/vxml.php?448"></embed></object>

[WRESTLINGFAN]

This is funny, no matter if youre for or against a public option, national healthcare or whatever you want to call it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3KDmEvNmJ0

[epo]

This is funny, no matter if youre for or against a public option, national healthcare or whatever you want to call it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3KDmEvNmJ0

Its not only not funny, its fucking stupid. The day I seek out comedy from the Rush Limbaugh Show is the day I kill myself.

[HBox]

Insurers have found a novel way to deny care. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33198459/ns/health-health_care/)

In 2006, attorney Jody Neal-Post tried to get health insurance but was rejected because of treatment — counseling and Valium — she received following a domestic-abuse incident. She says the insurer told her that her medical history made her a high risk, more likely to end up in the emergency room or require additional care.

Four years earlier, Neal-Post says, she had been assaulted by her ex-husband in her home in Albuquerque, N.M. According to police records, both she and her ex-spouse were charged in the incident. The charges were later dropped.

She wasn't prepared for the blow from the insurer. "I was just flabbergasted," says Neal-Post, a 52-year-old attorney. During the altercation with her ex-husband, "I was beaten and choked in my living room," she says. "I'm trying to keep my family together and get medical care. And then you make it through, with everyone back on track, and years later, when it's no longer part of your daily life to remember that and you're feeling good, it's back again."

Clearly the problem is too much regulation.

[Tenbatsuzen]

Insurers have found a novel way to deny care. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33198459/ns/health-health_care/)



Clearly the problem is too much regulation.

Or she should have just listened the first time.

But seriously, I think one of the key phrases in there that both people were charged. I don't think we're getting the entire picture. Perhaps there is some drinking or something else in there?

[Jujubees2]

Or she should have just listened the first time.

But seriously, I think one of the key phrases in there that both people were charged. I don't think we're getting the entire picture. Perhaps there is some drinking or something else in there?

What do you mean? She's applying for health insurance, not a job. Where does it stop? Does the insurance company say "you got a speeding ticket four years ago so you're at greater risk to get in an accident so no insurance for you"?

[foodcourtdruide]

What do you mean? She's applying for health insurance, not a job. Where does it stop? Does the insurance company say "you got a speeding ticket four years ago so you're at greater risk to get in an accident so no insurance for you"?

I agree. This is insane.

[~Katja~]

Or she should have just listened the first time.

But seriously, I think one of the key phrases in there that both people were charged. I don't think we're getting the entire picture. Perhaps there is some drinking or something else in there?
According to police records, both she and her ex-spouse were charged in the incident. The charges were later dropped.

I doubt health insurance pulls police records but much likely only checked her medical history and need for medication and counseling

[high fly]

I agree. This is insane.


There is insanity aplenty.
The incentive for insurance corporations in the system we have is to give as little care as possible, while charging as much as they can get away with.
On top of that, we have some of the people paying for the health care of everyone.

With those two facts in mind, check out how we have people who are against changing to a plan where the incentive is not to deny care and one in which everyone pays for everyone.


Somehow they figure that if a smaller number of people pay for the same thing, it will cost them less than if the same cost were spread out among more people.
They will get quite emotional arguing the former will cost less...

[conman823]

Insurers have found a novel way to deny care. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33198459/ns/health-health_care/)



Clearly the problem is too much regulation.

What's the problem? They shouldn't be regulated, it's a private company. If she is too much of a risk in thier eyes then I fail to see the problem.

The article leave out way to much info for it to be taken seriously. The Media love to just find these stories to throw out there to scare people away.

Plus this broad uses a hypen in her name..........so shes a Cunt and deserves to be thrown to the floor.

What do you mean? She's applying for health insurance, not a job. Where does it stop? Does the insurance company say "you got a speeding ticket four years ago so you're at greater risk to get in an accident so no insurance for you"?

Its nobodys place to tell a company they have to accept anyone, they are in BUSINESS to make money.

Look it might sound harsh but thats the truth. They don't CARE about Me, you or Ms. Cunt-Ragg. Its fucked up totally, but government "regulation" isn't the answer. Anyone who buys the whole gimmick of "this will pay for itself with 'reform'" is insane. These people can't get SHIT straight and I want to trust them with MY Health!

If you people who want this, get this, the taxes WILL go up.

Lord please save us from Tree Huggers and The PC Police, they are ruining everything.

[epo]

Anyone who buys the whole gimmick of "this will pay for itself with 'reform'" is insane. These people can't get SHIT straight and I want to trust them with MY Health!

If you people who want this, get this, the taxes WILL go up.

Tell that to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:

Health-Care Bill Wouldn't Raise Deficit, Report Says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100704078.html)

[HBox]

What's the problem? They shouldn't be regulated, it's a private company. If she is too much of a risk in thier eyes then I fail to see the problem.

The article leave out way to much info for it to be taken seriously. The Media love to just find these stories to throw out there to scare people away.

And I'm sure this is how you would react if you come down with a serious illness and your insurance decides not to pay because they have dug up some bullshit reason.

"Hmm, I need this treatment or I will die. But they are a business of course and now I am a liability. I'll just find a nice, warm hole to die in and thank god the government didn't do anything at all to stop this."

[epo]

What's the problem? They shouldn't be regulated, it's a private company. If she is too much of a risk in thier eyes then I fail to see the problem.



That's stupid. We don't live in the Wild West.

[conman823]

Other Republicans pored over the 27-page report in a late-afternoon huddle, then emerged with the warning that the finance panel's measure would impose a stiff price on people who already have health insurance. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the committee, said he is worried that insurers and other health-care companies would pass on the cost of new fees and taxes to consumers. And he said the bill's expansion of Medicaid would leave a new set of "unfunded mandates" for states already struggling with record budget deficits.


Oh, so my State Taxes will just go up. Great.

The $829 billion cost would be more than offset by reducing spending on Medicare and other federal health programs by about $400 billion over the next decade, and by imposing a series of fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers and other sectors of the health industry that stand to gain millions of new customers under the legislation.

So $429 Billion dollars will come from, Imposing Fees on Insurance Companies, drugmakers, and medical device manufactures.

So the insurance companies paying these fees are suppose to what, be BETTER then they are now? I'm sure it will be great with Uncle Sam twisting thier arm to take someone on or else.

Drugmakers, well thats should have been done a long time ago. I wonder how the Drugmakers Lobbists feel about this? They spent a lot of time and money winning over our elected officials.

And medical device manufactures will just cheapen up there quality to pay the government. Sounds great.

And this is all or nothing right? Either they get Obamacare or else we just go back to letting drugmakers fuck us for a pill.

[conman823]

That's stupid. We don't live in the Wild West.

Your right in the Wild West we would have shot the Bank CEO's for Taking our money and STILL not changing any policy's for Homeowners struggling to pay thier mortages.

Sorry but Obama used all his sock on that bullshit, and has none left for his Healthcare.

[conman823]

And I'm sure this is how you would react if you come down with a serious illness and your insurance decides not to pay because they have dug up some bullshit reason.

"Hmm, I need this treatment or I will die. But they are a business of course and now I am a liability. I'll just find a nice, warm hole to die in and thank god the government didn't do anything at all to stop this."

Or you could die waiting for a needed surgury while the Governement gets around too figuring out how to handle everything.

Listen if all you do it go by your Emotions then we could all say we want to live in this Utopian future. When you look to the Government too much, to often then someday they are going to say "These people NEED us for everything, we don't NEED them". That would be a day of fundamental CHANGE in this country.

I will never subscribe to a Capitalist Country is evil and we should be more Socialist.

How about this: Reform the system to take back the mythical $429 Billion dollars they say they will get from Companies Etc. If they can do that Competently then I will support Government Healthcare.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Its not only not funny, its fucking stupid. The day I seek out comedy from the Rush Limbaugh Show is the day I kill myself.

Are you that offended by it???


Is this president really off limits when it comes to making fun of? Give me a fucking break im sure for 8 years you loved all the parodies of Bush, I thought a lot of them were funny ,but when it comes to your dear leader its all of a sudden Blasphemy. In your world no one can make fun of the great Obama

[epo]

Are you that offended by it???


Is this president really off limits when it comes to making fun of? Give me a fucking break im sure for 8 years you loved all the parodies of Bush, I thought a lot of them were funny ,but when it comes to your dear leader its all of a sudden Blasphemy. In your world no one can make fun of the great Obama

Did I say offended? Nope.

I said not funny.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Well Obamas meeting with doctors on the South Lawn the other day was a staged event. Those labcoats were given to them by white house staff. It was probably Axelrods idea, after all he's a marketing guru


Is this change? Bush did this with members of the military and now Obama is doing the same thing. This whole healthcare reform has become a trainwreck. There is a democrat in the White House, both houses of congress have majorities and still nothing has been passed

[Crispy123]

Well Obamas meeting with doctors on the South Lawn the other day was a staged event. Those labcoats were given to them by white house staff. It was probably Axelrods idea, after all he's a marketing guru


you mean doctors dont just randomly hang out on the south lawn of the white house? shocking!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

you mean doctors dont just randomly hang out on the south lawn of the white house? shocking!

Well since Obama and Doctors love to play golf maybe they were going to practice working on their putts afterwards

Turns out these doctors are part of a group called "Doctors for Obama" so of course he would have his cheerleaders there

[west milly Tom]

New ibt poll compiled september 16 indicated that 43% of all doctors "would consider quitting" if a public option is installed. Find the link on your own I don't care enough to bother.

[angrymissy]

IBD (not ibt) posts garbage on a regular basis. They had an article a few months ago that ended up being taken down becuase it was incorrect. They post this "poll", yet don't post the methodology behind it.

I'll trust the New England Journal of Medicine over them. Notice how they post a detailed methodology?
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/20090914_keyh_f1.jpg

[IMSlacker]

New ibt poll compiled september 16 indicated that 43% of all doctors "would consider quitting" if a public option is installed. Find the link on your own I don't care enough to bother.

Here's a link. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/ibdtipp-doctors-poll-is-not-trustworthy.html)

1. The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. The only other mail-based poll that I'm aware of is that conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, which was associated with an average error of about 7 percentage points -- the highest of any pollster that we tested.

2. At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and th quality of care will be better?". Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.

3. As we learned during the Presidntial campaign -- when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 -- the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they're doing. I mean, literally none. For example, I don't trust IBD/TIPP to have competently selected anything resembling a random panel, which is harder to do than you'd think.

4. They say, somewhat ambiguously: "Responses are still coming in." This is also highly unorthodox. Professional pollsters generally do not report results before the survey period is compete.

5. There is virtually no disclosure about methodology. For example, IBD doesn't bother to define the term "practicing physician", which could mean almost anything. Nor do they explain how their randomization procedure worked, provide the entire question battery, or anything like that.

[foodcourtdruide]

New ibt poll compiled september 16 indicated that 43% of all doctors "would consider quitting" if a public option is installed. Find the link on your own I don't care enough to bother.

Oh yeah? Well, I just saw a poll on PIMB that said 98% of doctors believe exactly what my political beliefs are. Find the link yourself.

[west milly Tom]

Exactly why I never source. Go back and do a little reading, every time I do the source is attacked as bogus. Remember the Acorn portion. The outcome proved the source right.

[angrymissy]

IBD posted an article a few months ago stating that if Stephen Hawking had lived in Europe - he would be dead becuase of their state run health care.

In 2009, Investor's Business Daily (IBD) claimed in an editorial,[36] "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." This caused widespread criticism, as Hawking does in fact live in the UK, and has received NHS treatment.[37] Hawking personally replied that, "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he said. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."[38] Eventually, IBD issued a correction,[39] but continued to defend the original editorial, calling the mention of Hawking a "bad example" and accusing those that mentioned their error of "chang[ing] the subject."[40]

[west milly Tom]

But thank you Miss for the correction IBD.

[west milly Tom]

IBD posted an article a few months ago stating that if Stephen Hawking had lived in Europe - he would be dead becuase of their state run health care.


You disagree?

[angrymissy]

Exactly why I never source. Go back and do a little reading, every time I do the source is attacked as bogus. Remember the Acorn portion. The outcome proved the source right.

Cmon, you just pulled this link from Michelle Malkins page without checking it out.

Any poll that does not post the methodology behind the poll is not a reliable poll.

Why is their outcome correct, and the NEJM's is incorrect?

[angrymissy]

You disagree?

Oh my god, please please please reread. Where is Stephen Hawking FROM?

[foodcourtdruide]

Exactly why I never source. Go back and do a little reading, every time I do the source is attacked as bogus. Remember the Acorn portion. The outcome proved the source right.

So instead of using sources that would be more difficult to refute, or stating the potential bias in your original post, you decide not to source at all?

[west milly Tom]

Cmon, you just pulled this link from Michelle Malkins page without checking it out.

Any poll that does not post the methodology behind the poll is not a reliable poll.

Why is their outcome correct, and the NEJM's is incorrect?


To be honest tootse I don't know. I just know that any source I post hits hammered but if you link msnbc its perfectly fine. Also I done visit Malkin's site.

[west milly Tom]

Oh my god, please please please reread. Where is Stephen Hawking FROM?



Joke, please joke.

[angrymissy]

To be honest tootse I don't know. I just know that any source I post hits hammered but if you link msnbc its perfectly fine. Also I done visit Malkin's site.

He's from the UK and received his treatments through NHS.

But IBD didn't bother to check that before saying he would be dead if he was treated in the NHS.

They don't fact check, and they don't post the methodology behind their polls.

Why is their poll so different from the other polls that post their methodology? The NEJM has it down to every last detail on their site.

[west milly Tom]

He's from the UK and received his treatments through NHS.

But IBD didn't bother to check that before saying he would be dead if he was treated in the NHS.

They don't fact check, and they don't post the methodology behind their polls.

Why is their poll so different from the other polls that post their methodology? The NEJM has it down to every last detail on their site.
Right any source that contradicts your agenda is flawed. I get it.

[angrymissy]

Right any source that contradicts your agenda is flawed. I get it.

No, not the case at all - They did not conduct their poll properly at all. It's very, very basic stuff.

You can't post results of a poll when you "still have responses coming in" - you can't post results of a poll without posting a methodology.

Again - why do you think THIS poll is correct vs. the other polls that are conducted in a scientific manner?

In ronfez.net terms, this would be as if the poll for the Family Feud Team was ended halfway through the poll before everyone had time to vote and that was that.

[Furtherman]

If sources are posted from biased websites, they're not going to be taken seriously. It's not about the opposing view, it's about unchecked and dishonest sources.

The New England Journal of Medicine source that was posted above is an example of a reliable source.

[Jujubees2]

Its nobodys place to tell a company they have to accept anyone, they are in BUSINESS to make money.

Look it might sound harsh but thats the truth. They don't CARE about Me, you or Ms. Cunt-Ragg. Its fucked up totally, but government "regulation" isn't the answer. Anyone who buys the whole gimmick of "this will pay for itself with 'reform'" is insane. These people can't get SHIT straight and I want to trust them with MY Health!

If you people who want this, get this, the taxes WILL go up.

Lord please save us from Tree Huggers and The PC Police, they are ruining everything.

Which is exactly why healthcare shouldn't be a business.

[foodcourtdruide]

If sources are posted from biased websites, they're not going to be taken seriously. It's not about the opposing view, it's about unchecked and dishonest sources.

The New England Journal of Medicine source that was posted above is an example of a reliable source.

This seems like common sense. Why wouldn't the opposing side question your sources? Isn't that the whole point of this?

[west milly Tom]

Which is exactly why healthcare shouldn't be a business.


Lol what should it be?

[Furtherman]

This seems like common sense. Why wouldn't the opposing side question your sources? Isn't that the whole point of this?

It is difficult to have a discussion with someone who is already tuned out, because let's face it, we're all naturally selfish to be proud and to fight for our own needs. It's animal instinct that's in our DNA. Survival tactics.

When it comes to discussion of people as a whole, and what might be good for them, it is difficult for some people to have an open mind. They're unable to break from self-interest thought and behavior. They don't see others as saying and feeling what they really care about, rather they're saying and feeling a striking opposition that threatens their lives.

They're not listening when they let others share what they feel what might be best, rather, while the other one is speaking, they are thinking "How can I respond to show they are wrong?" or in most cases, "When will this person shut up?"


This is the foundation of "sources" who put out bogus polls and unchecked facts.

[epo]

Right any source that contradicts your agenda is flawed. I get it.

That is a completely idiotic statement. The source that you referenced (which you didn't even bother to source), has absolute garbage methodology for information gathering. Their data "magically" contradicts every credible poll done in on the topic due to these flawed methodologies, hence the reason its an absolutely shitty source.

[foodcourtdruide]

It is difficult to have a discussion with someone who is already tuned out, because let's face it, we're all naturally selfish to be proud and to fight for our own needs. It's animal instinct that's in our DNA. Survival tactics.

When it comes to discussion of people as a whole, and what might be good for them, it is difficult for some people to have an open mind. They're unable to break from self-interest thought and behavior. They don't see others as saying and feeling what they really care about, rather they're saying and feeling a striking opposition that threatens their lives.

They're not listening when they let others share what they feel what might be best, rather, while the other one is speaking, they are thinking "How can I respond to show they are wrong?" or in most cases, "When will this person shut up?"


This is the foundation of "sources" who put out bogus polls and unchecked facts.

I always feel foolish when something I say is discredited or shown to be incorrect, but is it really a bad thing? Knowledge is knowledge. Tom, why not defend your source if you believe in it? If I posted something found on mediamatters, and someone called me on it, then the onus would be on me to find other sources to validate my point, or at least defend my source. The other person would be rightfully skeptical of my use of a source from a clearly bias site.

[The Jays]

Lol what should it be?

Maybe not-for-profit entities, instead of insurance companies whose business models are more focused on making money than helping people, which leads to very perverse incentives. The insurance companies are concerned about profit, which is why they're fighting against health reform.

[EliSnow]

Maybe not-for-profit entities, instead of insurance companies whose business models are more focused on making money than helping people, which leads to very perverse incentives. The insurance companies are concerned about profit, which is why they're fighting against health reform.

Blue Cross Blue Shield is still non-profit in a number of states and still have issues with maintaining medical costs.

A lof people are pointing at the for-profit thing, and they ignore that non-profit premiums are rising too.

[foodcourtdruide]

Blue Cross Blue Shield is still non-profit in a number of states and still have issues with maintaining medical costs.

A lof people are pointing at the for-profit thing, and they ignore that non-profit premiums are rising too.

This is purely anecdotal, but my father had Blue Cross Blue Shield when I was a kid and it was BY FAR the best insurance I've ever ever ever ever had.

[EliSnow]

This is purely anecdotal, but my father had Blue Cross Blue Shield when I was a kid and it was BY FAR the best insurance I've ever ever ever ever had.

I'm not sure how old you are, and thus, when you were a kid, but health insurance benefits and costs have changed a lot in the last 20 years. A lot of people's health insurance was better years ago, because health care costs were much cheaper than they are now. Those policies also had the pre-existing treatment provision as well.

Right now, I know that my for-profit insurance has better insurance benefits than Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield in CT.

And as one additional comment, the treatment that helped my wife recently was suggested by my insurance company through their maternity care program. My wife's OB-GYN had never even heard of the treatment, and spent a half hour with my wife finding out about it so that she could use it for other patients.

[foodcourtdruide]

I'm not sure how old you are, and thus, when you were a kid, but health insurance benefits and costs have changed a lot in the last 20 years. A lot of people's health insurance was better years ago, because health care costs were much cheaper than they are now. Those policies also had the pre-existing treatment provision as well.

Right now, I know that my for-profit insurance has better insurance benefits than Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield in CT.

And as one additional comment, the treatment that helped my wife recently was suggested by my insurance company through their maternity care program. My wife's OB-GYN had never even heard of the treatment, and spent a half hour with my wife finding out about it so that she could use it for other patients.

It's been 6 years since I was on my dads insurnace. I had it through college. I'm 28 now.

[angrymissy]

My ins costs $12k (my company shows you how much they pay for your premium) a year and they try to screw me whenever possible. I purposefully chose a PPO and paid more so I don't have to deal with referrals. One of my first jobs out of HS was doing front desk/billing for a doctors office, and referrals were always a bitch.

So far this year they tried to deny a 2nd EKG I had to check on a heart problem after the 1st one came back abnormal (uh, YEAH that's why I needed a second one!). Denied the visit where I went the the doc because I had racing heart/shortness of breath because they called it a "psychical". I got them paid but it took calls to the ins company.

In the past, they denied an ER visit because they said the ER did not send them a copy of some report. Turns out the hospital did send it to them. By the time it all was squared away, the hospital had send a $2k bill to collections and the collection agency expected me to pay it. I spent at least 10 hours resolving that shit and getting the paperwork to take it off my credit.

I gotta stay on fucking top of my ins or face bills from dr offices... but I still am grateful to even HAVE insurance. Between the heart thing and a car accident this year, I'd be owing five figures in medical debt by now.

[EliSnow]

It's been 6 years since I was on my dads insurnace. I had it through college. I'm 28 now.

I'm glad their benefits were great. Do you know how much the premiums were for your dad and/or his employer while he had it?

My point about non-profits were less the benefits and more that they are experiencing the same rising premiums that the for-profits are.

[Jujubees2]

I gotta stay on fucking top of my ins or face bills from dr offices... but I still am grateful to even HAVE insurance. Between the heart thing and a car accident this year, I'd be owing five figures in medical debt by now.

If you don't have insurance (for whatever reason) all it would take is one medical issue to completely send you over the edge.

Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/)

And I'm sorry WMT but I think this country is better than to have sick people who can not get proper medical treatments because they can't afford it or because some healthcare company decide they we too high-risk.

[foodcourtdruide]

I'm glad their benefits were great. Do you know how much the premiums were for your dad and/or his employer while he had it?

My point about non-profits were less the benefits and more that they are experiencing the same rising premiums that the for-profits are.

Honestly, I'm not sure. My father came here as an immigrant in the 60's from Sicily and worked his ass off owning private business's, until he gave up on being an entrepreneur and got a union job on Roosevelt Island (I've asked and he does not know Fez, but actually knows some of the people involved in the stories Fez tells). He worked there for about 20 years and finally retired this year.

Haha, I don't know why I just told you so much personal stuff about me :)

[EliSnow]

Honestly, I'm not sure. My father came here as an immigrant in the 60's from Sicily and worked his ass off owning private business's, until he gave up on being an entrepreneur and got a union job on Roosevelt Island (I've asked and he does not know Fez, but actually knows some of the people involved in the stories Fez tells). He worked there for about 20 years and finally retired this year.

Haha, I don't know why I just told you so much personal stuff about me :)

I think the reason why your dad's benefits were great was because of the union aspect. Unions usually are really good at getting good benefits deals for their members in collective bargaining agreements.

[underdog]

Find the link on your own I don't care enough to bother.

This is different from your other posts how?

[underdog]

It's been 6 years since I was on my dads insurnace. I had it through college. I'm 28 now.

Wow, you look terrible then.

[underdog]

And I'm sorry WMT but I think this country is better than to have sick people who can not get proper medical treatments because they can't afford it or because some healthcare company decide they we too high-risk.

Love it or leave it! These colors don't run!

[Jujubees2]

Love it or leave it! These colors don't run!

Actually they do if you put them in a warm wash...

[Furtherman]

I always feel foolish when something I say is discredited or shown to be incorrect, but is it really a bad thing? Knowledge is knowledge. Tom, why not defend your source if you believe in it? If I posted something found on mediamatters, and someone called me on it, then the onus would be on me to find other sources to validate my point, or at least defend my source. The other person would be rightfully skeptical of my use of a source from a clearly bias site.

Exactly why I never source. Go back and do a little reading, every time I do the source is attacked as bogus.

I went back and did a little reading.

Your sources aren't attacked. You've been asked for links and you've been presented with reliable sources. What has happened, multiple times in this thread, is this:

verifiably is not a word. I don't make anything up. I don't post any thing ridiculous. You have a point of view and because I disagree with it I'm wrong, why not call me a nazi?

Well I guess you know more than the American Heritage Dictionary. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verifiably)

Now please follow your pattern and go away for a while. And when you come back at least try and prove the ridiculous shit as you post it.

More examples:

I didn't know Luxembourg was a major nation. I should read more. Also according to the WHO of the major nations considered Americans have the longest life expectancy. Fucking Luxembourg, eat a dick.

Population *-* 2009*estimate 493,509

When did you hear that from the WHO, 1965? Earlier in the thread a link was posted to current life expectancies by nation and we are nowhere near the top and haven't been since I remember.

And no matter how you look at it we aren't tops in income either. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita)




What other changes would you like to make to the constitution? Should owning a home be a right as well? Perhaps a minimum income should be a right. Where does it end? Take a look at what capitalism has done in the last 200 years and what socialism has. The difference is astounding.

How would providing a public option be changing the Constitution?

Is the fact that taxes pay for fire and police a change to the Constitution?

You realize that health care reform is being delivered through constitutional amendment right?

Too many people call you out on this for me to quote here, and you never answered with a source.



Actually, when the majority of the country has the "public option" explained to them impartially...favors the public option at a rate of over 70+%.

Other people having health care coverage doesn't have shit to do with your rights.

First 70+% is a skewed poll number. I read a great article on that gallup poll ill yet and find the link.

Never linked.

What the hell says anyone would force their hand to do otherwise? Cite this, please. You're wildly making a claim, not backing it up, and then jumping to a conclusion.

Never backed up.



Why do you value the profit-making ability of health insurance companies over the ability of Americans to afford health care?

Never answered.



Did you bother reading the plans on where to get the money?

Obama's re-election will ride on his statement that he will not raise taxes on those making less than $250k.

Be realistic he's already broken several campaign promises.

I would say his track record has been pretty good so far.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/



New ibt poll compiled september 16 indicated that 43% of all doctors "would consider quitting" if a public option is installed. Find the link on your own I don't care enough to bother.

angrymissy proved those polls are inaccurate.

IBD posted an article a few months ago stating that if Stephen Hawking had lived in Europe - he would be dead becuase of their state run health care.

You disagree?

Oh my god, please please please reread. Where is Stephen Hawking FROM?

Joke, please joke.

Where was the joke? Looks more like a cover up for something you didn't know. It's a common mistake - how many people have heard him talk in his English accent before the MS took his vocal cords? - But the mistake of not researching a subject can lead to embarrassing gaffs. We see this all the time with politicians.

To sum up:

You have to admit it is difficult and trying to discuss/argue with someone who does not know the issue and, instead of making a serious effort to understand the issue in their own terms, resorts to conjecture and pull quotes from the media. That is the definition of ignorant, is it not?

Surely hbox wouldn't dismiss a legit counter argument - in fact, I think he's waiting for one.

We all are. No one is attacking your personal beliefs on the subject, rather they are asking how those beliefs will help the national health care dilemma. When you come here every now and again and cite sources that cannot be proven and can be debunked, people will be frustrated. It's not an attack, it's just an expectation to join a civil discussion, which, for a somewhat part, this thread has (with the exception of Gvac's shit stirrin' communist talk pictures ).

[foodcourtdruide]

Though I often disagree with badmonkey and wrestlingfan, I do learn stuff from their posts.

[underdog]

Where was the joke? Looks more like a cover up for something you didn't know. It's a common mistake - how many people have heard him talk in his English accent before the MS took his vocal cords? - But the mistake of not researching a subject can lead to embarrassing gaffs. We see this all the time with politicians.

To be fair, I took it as a joke as well. I can't imagine anyone could be stupid enough to actually think the most overrated scientific mind of our generation is from America.

[angrymissy]

Love it or leave it! These colors don't run!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sWS-FoXbjVI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sWS-FoXbjVI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[EliSnow]

I went back and did a little reading.

Your sources aren't attacked. You've been asked for links and you've been presented with reliable sources. What has happened, multiple times in this thread, is this:





More examples:














Too many people call you out on this for me to quote here, and you never answered with a source.







Never linked.



Never backed up.




Never answered.













angrymissy proved those polls are inaccurate.









Where was the joke? Looks more like a cover up for something you didn't know. It's a common mistake - how many people have heard him talk in his English accent before the MS took his vocal cords? - But the mistake of not researching a subject can lead to embarrassing gaffs. We see this all the time with politicians.

To sum up:



We all are. No one is attacking your personal beliefs on the subject, rather they are asking how those beliefs will help the national health care dilemma. When you come here every now and again and cite sources that cannot be proven and can be debunked, people will be frustrated. It's not an attack, it's just an expectation to join a civil discussion, which, for a somewhat part, this thread has (with the exception of Gvac's shit stirrin' communist talk pictures ).

Long story short: WMT makes factual statements all the time and is often unable to provide any support for the statements.

[Furtherman]

To be fair, I took it as a joke as well. I can't imagine anyone could be stupid enough to actually think the most overrated scientific mind of our generation is from America.

Now that's funny!

[TheMojoPin]

Though I often disagree with badmonkey and wrestlingfan, I do learn stuff from their posts.

Exactly. Those guys back up what they're saying and I've no problem admitting when I'm wrong or have made a mistake in the face of that. I'd say the same about SonOfSmeagol, too.

[Marc with a c]

http://2.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpz5hlI0Ol1qa3xbjo1_500.jpg

[EliSnow]

http://2.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpz5hlI0Ol1qa3xbjo1_500.jpg

Do we have a stupid political signs thread? 'Cause that would be type of funny thread and would address your lament about their absence.

[underdog]

Now that's funny!

Eh, I watched a special on how he sucks once and it's forever stuck in my head.

[Furtherman]

Eh, I watched a special on how he sucks once and it's forever stuck in my head.

What smokes and sits at the top of the stairs?

[boosterp]

I have a couple posts in this thread, mainly comparing costs at the VA for my care to our indigent county health care but should add something about my medical insurance, when I was covered.

Unicare did a great job, friendly staff, and visit co-pays were reasonable for what I needed. But I take 9 prescription rugs, 2 of which are not generic and was paying $260 a month for prescription co pays. For the Celebrex it was $65 alone. This is ridiculous. I made very good money and could afford it, but if I was on a limited budget like now I'd be fucked. Since I am service connected (all my injuries and general care are covered because I was injured in the military) I went back to the VA, canceled my health insurance, and got my care for free saving just over $500 a month. I have admitted that I am lucky because I have care at (in my opinion) the best VA in the country. I am treated very well and get everything I need. So would I get private insurance once I go back to work, hell no when I can save the money and use the taxpayer's dollar.

The human side of me who has worked in health care for nearly 17 years wishes that everyone got the kind of care I do. I hate to see suffering especially because of socioeconomics in a country like this. I wish it were possible to treat everyone equally when applying health care.

Then, I break down the numbers (posted several pages back) and wonder how the hell we can afford this? We've seen what congress estimates the cost at, we know taxes will go up, but is there a point when it becomes no longer cost effective? This is not asking to put a price on someone's life, but more like a call to reform the insurance industry then shoot for public health. I point to California which has had to shut down hospitals and clinics that serve the underprivileged. Fix the system then offer care and everyone will be the better. Otherwise we'll see overspending and abuse similar to what happens with Medicare.

Very interesting article. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande)

McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami—which has much higher labor and living costs—spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.

Thanks Kat for the linky.

[west milly Tom]

Long story short: WMT makes factual statements all the time and is often unable to provide any support for the statements.



That's very funny. You can try to discount me all you'd like my points are valid and unemotional. No oe else is ever asked source and when I post I get a whole page of rebuttals at least.you are trying to make the case~hat its not personal but it really is. I have been the only consistent opposing viewpoint in this thread. I'm regularly called ignorant, selfish, and generally scoffed at. And pro Obamacare view points are readily accepted but I'm asked to source everything. Just admit what goes on here. Don't mask it I'm okay with what you think of me. I post from a blackberry at work and sourcing a post is just somethi g I don't care put the time into knowing that somehow the source will be deemed invalid anyway. Common sense should tell you that I don't make these things up on my own. I'm not a pundit or a think tank. Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit if I was in the tank for Obama as much as the rest of you I'd never be asked to source anything. But if I were I'd be as wrong as you and there wouldn't be anyone in this thread to kick around. You say my right for self preservation drives my stubbornness but really its m love for people and the belief that nobody should be a slave to government. People have faith in yourselves enough to take responsibility for yourselves and help your neighbors who can't. That's how things are supposed to go. Remember the founding ideas, and remember that the government gets its authority from you not the other way around.

[EliSnow]

That's very funny. You can try to discount me all you'd like my points are valid and unemotional. No oe else is ever asked source and when I post I get a whole page of rebuttals at least.you are trying to make the case~hat its not personal but it really is. I have been the only consistent opposing viewpoint in this thread. I'm regularly called ignorant, selfish, and generally scoffed at. And pro Obamacare view points are readily accepted but I'm asked to source everything. Just admit what goes on here. Don't mask it I'm okay with what you think of me. I post from a blackberry at work and sourcing a post is just somethi g I don't care put the time into knowing that somehow the source will be deemed invalid anyway. Common sense should tell you that I don't make these things up on my own. I'm not a pundit or a think tank. Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit if I was in the tank for Obama as much as the rest of you I'd never be asked to source anything. But if I were I'd be as wrong as you and there wouldn't be anyone in this thread to kick around. You say my right for self preservation drives my stubbornness but really its m love for people and the belief that nobody should be a slave to government. People have faith in yourselves enough to take responsibility for yourselves and help your neighbors who can't. That's how things are supposed to go. Remember the founding ideas, and remember that the government gets its authority from you not the other way around.


First, a lot of others include their sources when they make their points.

Second, I have asked others to do the same thing repeatedly. I usually do it when someone makes an unbelievable statement. Some do, and some don't. But you seem to be unable to not cite a source a lot.

For instance, in one another thread you accused Reid and Pelosi of calling our soldiers cowards or calling Bush Hitler on the floor of the Senate/House. We called you out on it, and the fact was that neither of them did either thing. At best, you showed that Byrd made the solider comment, and that Pelosi said some town hall protestors were carrying swastikas. Nothing like you said.

It happens in other threads, not just here, and it happens with others who have similar conservative ideas. Maybe you get asked more often, but maybe it's because you have often said things that have no support. If I were to state that a poll of American people shows that 90% support Obama, I'm guessing you'd want to see me back it up. And you should.

Third, if you are unable to cite to a source because of a blackberry, you don't make the statement or acknowledge that you can't back the point up.

[Furtherman]

That's very funny. You can try to discount me all you'd like my points are valid and unemotional. No oe else is ever asked source and when I post I get a whole page of rebuttals at least.you are trying to make the case~hat its not personal but it really is. I have been the only consistent opposing viewpoint in this thread. I'm regularly called ignorant, selfish, and generally scoffed at. And pro Obamacare view points are readily accepted but I'm asked to source everything. Just admit what goes on here. Don't mask it I'm okay with what you think of me. I post from a blackberry at work and sourcing a post is just somethi g I don't care put the time into knowing that somehow the source will be deemed invalid anyway. Common sense should tell you that I don't make these things up on my own. I'm not a pundit or a think tank. Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit if I was in the tank for Obama as much as the rest of you I'd never be asked to source anything. But if I were I'd be as wrong as you and there wouldn't be anyone in this thread to kick around. You say my right for self preservation drives my stubbornness but really its m love for people and the belief that nobody should be a slave to government. People have faith in yourselves enough to take responsibility for yourselves and help your neighbors who can't. That's how things are supposed to go. Remember the founding ideas, and remember that the government gets its authority from you not the other way around.

I could go back through this thread again and point out how every bolded statement here is false , but I see it wouldn't make a difference.

As for "there wouldn't be anyone in this thread to kick around", we'll always have Jezo.

[west milly Tom]

I could go back through this thread again and point out how every bolded statement here is false , but I see it wouldn't make a difference.

As for "there wouldn't be anyone in this thread to kick around", we'll always have Jezo.


How about the lines not in bold? Ahh it wouldn't make any difference.

FM let me ask you a question albeit hypothetical. If you could reform the system what would you do?

[Furtherman]

The lines not in bold are your own opinion, with only you as a source. Nothing wrong with that and can't be debated. The statements in bold can be, because there is proof in this thread.

As for fixing our national health care, I would continue to push through the changes that have been proposed because they are working towards a goal of health care reform. It's a step in the right direction. Every doctor I've talked to (5), favors the both public and private options. It's not a majority opinion by any means, but I trust their judgment. Most of the push-back out there is just from people who want to see Obama fail. This isn't just his health care reform, it's ours... so we'll work with it... there will be problems that will be remedied. There will be problems that may never get fixed, just as there is in every rule. To sit and do nothing is irresponsible and ignorant, which is what a majority of the backlash is... Earlier you stated that 43% of all doctors "would consider quitting" if a public option is installed.

I want you to think about that... think about who doctors are and what they not only do voluntarily, but also taken an oath to do... and then think of 43% of them considering quitting. Think about that statement.

I do not work in health care, therefore I do not know the intricacies and complex situations it entails. I also know politicians, unless they were a doctor, also do not know these aspects. I know the insurance companies are against it because it will lessen their profits. Who I trust is the doctors and anyone who spells it out clearly enough, without pointing out what one party is trying to do to the other, and I've learned that it's the best step forward we can take.

[foodcourtdruide]

The lines not in bold are your own opinion, with only you as a source. Nothing wrong with that and can't be debated. The statements in bold can be, because there is proof in this thread.

As for fixing our national health care, I would continue to push through the changes that have been proposed because they are working towards a goal of health care reform. It's a step in the right direction. Every doctor I've talked to (5), favors the both public and private options. It's not a majority opinion by any means, but I trust their judgment. Most of the push-back out there is just from people who want to see Obama fail. This isn't just his health care reform, it's ours... so we'll work with it... there will be problems that will be remedied. There will be problems that may never get fixed, just as there is in every rule. To sit and do nothing is irresponsible and ignorant, which is what a majority of the backlash is... Earlier you stated that 43% of all doctors "would consider quitting" if a public option is installed.

I want you to think about that... think about who doctors are and what they not only do voluntarily, but also taken an oath to do... and then think of 43% of them considering quitting. Think about that statement.

I do not work in health care, therefore I do not know the intricacies and complex situations it entails. I also know politicians, unless they were a doctor, also do not know these aspects. I know the insurance companies are against it because it will lessen their profits. Who I trust is the doctors and anyone who spells it out clearly enough, without pointing out what one party is trying to do to the other, and I've learned that it's the best step forward we can take.

This is very well said, FM.

[underdog]

The lines not in bold are your own opinion, with only you as a source. Nothing wrong with that and can't be debated. The statements in bold can be, because there is proof in this thread.

As for fixing our national health care, I would continue to push through the changes that have been proposed because they are working towards a goal of health care reform. It's a step in the right direction. Every doctor I've talked to (5), favors the both public and private options. It's not a majority opinion by any means, but I trust their judgment. Most of the push-back out there is just from people who want to see Obama fail. This isn't just his health care reform, it's ours... so we'll work with it... there will be problems that will be remedied. There will be problems that may never get fixed, just as there is in every rule. To sit and do nothing is irresponsible and ignorant, which is what a majority of the backlash is... Earlier you stated that 43% of all doctors "would consider quitting" if a public option is installed.

I want you to think about that... think about who doctors are and what they not only do voluntarily, but also taken an oath to do... and then think of 43% of them considering quitting. Think about that statement.

I do not work in health care, therefore I do not know the intricacies and complex situations it entails. I also know politicians, unless they were a doctor, also do not know these aspects. I know the insurance companies are against it because it will lessen their profits. Who I trust is the doctors and anyone who spells it out clearly enough, without pointing out what one party is trying to do to the other, and I've learned that it's the best step forward we can take.

So you're saying we should get rid of the Jews?

[conman823]

My ins costs $12k (my company shows you how much they pay for your premium) a year and they try to screw me whenever possible. I purposefully chose a PPO and paid more so I don't have to deal with referrals. One of my first jobs out of HS was doing front desk/billing for a doctors office, and referrals were always a bitch.

So far this year they tried to deny a 2nd EKG I had to check on a heart problem after the 1st one came back abnormal (uh, YEAH that's why I needed a second one!). Denied the visit where I went the the doc because I had racing heart/shortness of breath because they called it a "psychical". I got them paid but it took calls to the ins company.

In the past, they denied an ER visit because they said the ER did not send them a copy of some report. Turns out the hospital did send it to them. By the time it all was squared away, the hospital had send a $2k bill to collections and the collection agency expected me to pay it. I spent at least 10 hours resolving that shit and getting the paperwork to take it off my credit.

I gotta stay on fucking top of my ins or face bills from dr offices... but I still am grateful to even HAVE insurance. Between the heart thing and a car accident this year, I'd be owing five figures in medical debt by now.


First off, sorry to hear about your situation.

Now, please explain to me how your situation would be different in a Government run program. Beside the obvious not having to worry about the bill.

[conman823]

http://2.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpz5hlI0Ol1qa3xbjo1_500.jpg

This sign is great. It goes along with my other favorite things in this whole debate including: "Death Panels" and Glenn Beck crying.

[TheMojoPin]

Now, please explain to me how your situation would be different in a Government run program. Beside the obvious not having to worry about the bill.

When you say "government run program," are you talking about the actually proposed government option or a hypothetical health care system that is completely government-run?

[HBox]

Looks like they might have managed to resuscitate the public option. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/conservative-and-liberal-democrats-warm-to-public-option-compromise.php)

The new compromise? The plan will be run by the federal government. But states will be allowed to opt out of the plan if they wish.

[angrymissy]

First off, sorry to hear about your situation.

Now, please explain to me how your situation would be different in a Government run program. Beside the obvious not having to worry about the bill.

The whole point of my post was about worrying about bills, hence situation would be different because I wouldn't be wasting my time fighting bills.

I'm for Government option, not Govt only, BTW.

And I don't see how it could be worse, considering I've been jacked up on painkillers for over a week now waiting for my insurance to approve a simple procedure that should kill my pain.

[conman823]

Looks like they might have managed to resuscitate the public option. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/conservative-and-liberal-democrats-warm-to-public-option-compromise.php)

The new compromise? The plan will be run by the federal government. But states will be allowed to opt out of the plan if they wish.

OK so lets say I'm in the middle of expensive Treatments for my Cancer, and my State desides to Opt out, then what the hell do I do?

I do like the State idea though, if the people don't like it they can just put in Politicians who will opt out and save the trouble of changing the Federal Government.

[conman823]

When you say "government run program," are you talking about the actually proposed government option or a hypothetical health care system that is completely government-run?

I am talking about the government option PROGRAM, which would be run by the government.

Please with the semantic word play.

[IMSlacker]

OK so lets say I'm in the middle of expensive Treatments for my Cancer, and my State desides to Opt out, then what the hell do I do?


You'd have to move to a private insurer, and they'd have to take you, since they wouldn't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

[conman823]

You'd have to move to a private insurer, and they'd have to take you, since they wouldn't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Yes take me and charge me what?

[IMSlacker]

Yes take me and charge me what?

What do I look like to you, an actuary table?

[SonOfSmeagol]

Very interesting article. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande)

Thanks Kat for the linky.

The Cost Conundrum. Very interesting article indeed on the whole, and I thought the last half of page 7 was especially well done.
=========
I have to take exception with a few who say that most of the opposition is partisan, or to put a point on it, "because they want to see bho fail". The opposition I think is because of the estimated/perceived cost-benefit. A partisan measure is absolutely no good for this country. We probably won’t, in the long run, take a partisan measure that comes this Fall/Winter and “work with it”. If a partisan measure happens then what is done can, and most likely will be, undone by later partisans at even greater cost. No one is saying that reform is not necessary, but a push either way, steamrolling and/or trying to diminish those who oppose it, is probably not the answer. It has to be a collaborative Fed/State/Dem/Rep/Industry solution or it will not work. That said, I have no solution.

[conman823]

What do I look like to you, an actuary table?

I just want answers.........:glurps:

[epo]

And finally the Senate seems to be coming into line on the public option:

Thirty Senate Dems Urge Public Option (http://washingtonindependent.com/63193/thirty-senate-dems-urge-public-option)

Its just a matter of time. From my understanding it should be on the floor of the Senate the week of October 19th.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Exactly. Those guys back up what they're saying and I've no problem admitting when I'm wrong or have made a mistake in the face of that. I'd say the same about SonOfSmeagol, too.

Budday! :drunk:

[TheMojoPin]

Budday! :drunk:

We're going to always disagree, but you back it up! Salut!

[IMSlacker]

I just want answers.........:glurps:

Yeah. None of the articles I've seen have details about what happens to people who are on the public plan when their state decides to opt out. I'd assume that there would be an option to stay on the public plan, kind of like COBRA when you quit or lose your job, but that's just a guess.

[boosterp]

Yeah. None of the articles I've seen have details about what happens to people who are on the public plan when their state decides to opt out. I'd assume that there would be an option to stay on the public plan, kind of like COBRA when you quit or lose your job, but that's just a guess.

Nah, they just refer you to a death panel.

[HBox]

Yeah. None of the articles I've seen have details about what happens to people who are on the public plan when their state decides to opt out. I'd assume that there would be an option to stay on the public plan, kind of like COBRA when you quit or lose your job, but that's just a guess.

The public option would be a government run and policy-holder funded insurance plan. It would be one of many plans on an individual insurance exchange. Most states opposed would likely opt-out before the program is launched. And if a state would initially take part and then later opt-out they would very likely give people time to research and sign up for other private insurance plans on the exchange. It would be dependent on either the guidelines in the bill or how the state wants to handle it. I can't imagine Congress or any statehouse would write a bill that would immediately terminate a lot of people's insurance. But even if they did terminate immediately it wouldn't be as huge a problem as it would be now since people don't have to worry about lapsed coverage and pre-existing conditions.

[epo]

Nah, they just refer you to a death panel.

Since I'm on the death panel, everyone dies.

[underdog]

And finally the Senate seems to be coming into line on the public option:

Thirty Senate Dems Urge Public Option (http://washingtonindependent.com/63193/thirty-senate-dems-urge-public-option)

Its just a matter of time. From my understanding it should be on the floor of the Senate the week of October 19th.

Do you ignore everyone's posts?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Since I'm on the death panel, everyone dies.

Rober Reich beat you to it

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-audio-reveals-obama-advisors-real-health-care-convictions/#

[west milly Tom]

The public option will become the only option. Its a farce. I don't want ti outline again why because its common sense.

[Furtherman]

We all thank you for that.

Its not about laws, its about the common thing that makes us all human.

[west milly Tom]

We all thank you for that.


Totally different. Do we need to do this again?

[Furtherman]

Totally different. Do we need to do this again?

No, you don't have to make baseless claims again and I already answered your question of how I would fix the system.

I'm just saying that you're quick to mention a belief of what makes us human in one thread, yet in this thread you say such humanitarian things as:

Boo hoo. Why should I have to pay for your broken finger. Its not my fault you have a shit job either but I'm sure I paid for some of your education.

[Serpico1103]

Two points.
1) How is a government health plan different than other government programs that we accept as necessary; e.g. police, fire, EMS, education. I know it is "different", I am asking if it is materially different.
2) I notice that Republicans (not all, I know) complain that the government can not run anything well. Yet, when it comes to fighting a war, they trust the government completely and find any dissension unpatriotic and misplaced. When it comes to police disputes with citizens, they quickly side with the police. The military and police are both purely governmental agencies, yet, Republicans seem to love them and find them faultless. But, any humanitarian government agency (education, SS, medicare, national healthcare) is a horribly run system full of waste.

I think the government has its faults. But, as we have seen in the recent years, the private market place is not a perfect self-correcting machine.

[EliSnow]

Two points.
1) How is a government health plan different than other government programs that we accept as necessary; e.g. police, fire, EMS, education. I know it is "different", I am asking if it is materially different.

One major difference is that the other government functions are not run by the federal government. They are traditionally and currently more local institutions than federal based.

And I do know that the national association of insurance commissioners have stated that they welcome global changes, they request that the feds leave insurance regulation, etc. to them. Indeed, a lot of the health care insurance industry is regulated on state levels by departments of insurance.

[EliSnow]

2) I notice that Republicans (not all, I know) complain that the government can not run anything well. Yet, when it comes to fighting a war, they trust the government completely and find any dissension unpatriotic and misplaced. When it comes to police disputes with citizens, they quickly side with the police. The military and police are both purely governmental agencies, yet, Republicans seem to love them and find them faultless. But, any humanitarian government agency (education, SS, medicare, national healthcare) is a horribly run system full of waste.

I think the government has its faults. But, as we have seen in the recent years, the private market place is not a perfect self-correcting machine.

The argument would be that some functions are traditionally government functions and that it's best for the government to do them, including the police, army, etc. They recognize that a government is necessary but should not do everything.

Political conservatives are reluctant to have the government do what is traditionally private, free market functions in a society.

[Serpico1103]

One major difference is that the other government functions are not run by the federal government. They are traditionally and currently more local institutions than federal based.

And I do know that the national association of insurance commissioners have stated that they welcome global changes, they request that the feds leave insurance regulation, etc. to them. Indeed, a lot of the health care insurance industry is regulated on state levels by departments of insurance.

So, do you think people would be happier with every state providing healthcare? In addition, the federal government controls police agencies; FBI, DEA, ATF, TSA, etc. I don't hear the Right railing against federal police systematic mismanagement.
Also, education while "controlled" by state and city governments without adhering to federal "suggestions" I believe they would go bankrupt without federal money. So, they must answer to federal control; federal control that so frightens many on the Right.

[EliSnow]

So, do you think people would be happier with every state providing healthcare? In addition, the federal government controls police agencies; FBI, DEA, ATF, TSA, etc. I don't hear the Right railing against federal police systematic mismanagement.
Also, education while "controlled" by state and city governments without adhering to federal "suggestions" I believe they would go bankrupt without federal money. So, they must answer to federal control; federal control that so frightens many on the Right.


Federal police agencies are still constrained in many ways as to what they police (although that has changed over the years). Generally, those forces are supposed to deal with interstate crime, federal crimes, and other national issues.

And the right has bitched over the years as to some of the mismangement with the FBI and ATF.

Regardless, the policie function is still more locally based than federal. Which makes sense given that the criminal laws that bind us are all local in nature (state or municipality enacted).

As for eduction, what is being proposed for health care has much more federal control than what is present in education. Yes, the states take federal money and have to satisfy certain conditions to take it, but they are still largely independent of federal control.

[Serpico1103]

Federal police agencies are still constrained in many ways as to what they police (although that has changed over the years). Generally, those forces are supposed to deal with interstate crime, etc. And the right has bitched over the years as to some of the mismangement with the FBI and ATF.

Regardless, the policie function is still more locally based than federal.

As for eduction, what is being proposed for health care has much more federal control than what is present in education. Yes, the states take federal money and have to satisfy certain conditions to take it, but they are still largely independent of federal control.

I understand that the federal government is limited when it comes to policing. Unfortunately, that is an area that the Right has also been willing to expand. Scalia finds it appropriate to use federal agents to arrest people for growing pot locally; through an "abuse" of the commerce clause.

I agree with your points.
I was merely trying to point out that the Right accepts government intrusion into their lives on a federal and state level for many things. Yet, with healthcare they are acting like it is something so foreign. I find the distinctions illusory.

Wasn't it GWB who pushed for No Child Left behind. A federal government program which asserted more power over schools.

[badmonkey]

Metric 12—Percentages of claim lines (i.e., records) denied
Description: What percentage of records submitted are denied by the payer for reasons other than a claim edit A denial is defined as: allowed amount equal to the billed charge and the payment equals $0.

Source: NHXS
Payer Count of records Denied records Percent of claim lines denied Date range
Aetna 637,239 43,317 6.80% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Anthem 250,070 11,546 4.62% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
CIGNA 263,728 9,060 3.44% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Coventry 20,487 590 2.88% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Health Net 4,975 193 3.88% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Humana 143,026 4,142 2.90% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Medicare 6,938,431 475,566 6.85% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
UHC 1,127,691 30,177 2.68% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008


Source: American Medical Association 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf)

[Serpico1103]

Metric 12—Percentages of claim lines (i.e., records) denied
Description: What percentage of records submitted are denied by the payer for reasons other than a claim edit A denial is defined as: allowed amount equal to the billed charge and the payment equals $0.

Source: NHXS
Payer Count of records Denied records Percent of claim lines denied Date range
Aetna 637,239 43,317 6.80% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Anthem 250,070 11,546 4.62% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
CIGNA 263,728 9,060 3.44% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Coventry 20,487 590 2.88% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Health Net 4,975 193 3.88% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Humana 143,026 4,142 2.90% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
Medicare 6,938,431 475,566 6.85% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008
UHC 1,127,691 30,177 2.68% 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008


Source: American Medical Association 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf)

Your point?
That medicare, while 10 times as large as Aetna and 20-30 times as large as the others, denies at the same rate?
So, is this proof that Aetna does not run any better the government agency. A claim that the Right clings to; that private industries are run better than the government.

[GregoryJoseph]

I think we should all work for free and let the government feed, clothe, and house us.

[EliSnow]

Your point?
That medicare, while 10 times as large as Aetna and 20-30 times as large as the others, denies at the same rate?
So, is this proof that Aetna does not run any better the government agency. A claim that the Right clings to; that private industries are run better than the government.

I dont' think that a denial rate means that one system works as well or as bad as another. You need a lot more information than that.

But it is evidence that a government run plan wouldn't necessarily approve more claims than private insurance, which is what a lot of pro-health plan people claim under the argument that for-profit company denies more so they can make more money.

[TheMojoPin]

I think we should all work for free and let the government feed, clothe, and house us.

Or school us, protect us, take care of our mail and our roads!

Oh, shit! It's too late!

[badmonkey]

Your point?
That medicare, while 10 times as large as Aetna and 20-30 times as large as the others, denies at the same rate?
So, is this proof that Aetna does not run any better the government agency. A claim that the Right clings to; that private industries are run better than the government.

I thought we weren't going to be denied care under a government option and the insurance companies are all evil while the government is going to take care of us when we're sick. Are you admitting that govt run Medicare is just as evil as Aetna? Wonder how many of those Medicare denials led to bankruptcy. That probably doesn't matter tho. Those bankruptcy's were probably for the greater good of society after all, they weren't induced by private industry. They were induced by government denials of payment for medical treatment.

The argument from the conservative side is not that there shouldn't be healthcare reform. The argument is that the govt doesn't run things better than the private sector. They will not take care of everybody that gets sick no matter what. Healthcare reform doesn't have to include a government run option. How many Medicare supplemental health insurance packages are out there because Medicare doesn't cover everything? Why would they need to exist if the govt is there to take care of us?

People are still going to be denied healthcare or payment. They will just be denied based on "have you ever smoked a cigarette before?", "did you binge drink in college?", "did you play high risk contact sports like football or rugby?", "do you frequently hang out in bars where smoking is allowed?", "have you ever had homosexual intercourse?", "have you ever had unprotected sexual intercourse with another man or woman?", "have you ever been more than 20 lbs overweight?", etc.

The answers to those questions will be irrelevant within a generation or two as those things are completely banned by the government not just for our own good, but also to reduce the burden of healthcare costs across the country.

[Serpico1103]

I think we should all work for free and let the government feed, clothe, and house us.
Agreed. Freeing us from the rat race and allowing us to pursue the arts. One of the few things that makes us different than a chimp.


I dont' think that a denial rate means that one system works as well or as bad as another. You need a lot more information than that.

But it is evidence that a government run plan wouldn't necessarily approve more claims than private insurance, which is what a lot of pro-health plan people claim under the argument that for-profit company denies more so they can make more money.

I agree. I was guessing at his point since he just posted one stat without any context.

It is inadequate evidence because Aetna can simply refuse to cover someone entirely, therefore there would be no need to deny their claims. While Medicare does not deny people based on needs or prior history. So, the comparison is a weak one. Moreover, it is evidence that since medicare does not deny complete coverage to anyone, that medicare does cover at a higher rate.
But, that is the inherent problem with statistics. They are used by people who don't understand them.

[Serpico1103]

I thought we weren't going to be denied care under a government option and the insurance companies are all evil while the government is going to take care of us when we're sick. Are you admitting that govt run Medicare is just as evil as Aetna? Wonder how many of those Medicare denials led to bankruptcy. That probably doesn't matter tho. Those bankruptcy's were probably for the greater good of society after all, they weren't induced by private industry. They were induced by government denials of payment for medical treatment.

The argument from the conservative side is not that there shouldn't be healthcare reform. The argument is that the govt doesn't run things better than the private sector. They will not take care of everybody that gets sick no matter what. Healthcare reform doesn't have to include a government run option. How many Medicare supplemental health insurance packages are out there because Medicare doesn't cover everything? Why would they need to exist if the govt is there to take care of us?

People are still going to be denied healthcare or payment. They will just be denied based on "have you ever smoked a cigarette before?", "did you binge drink in college?", "did you play high risk contact sports like football or rugby?", "do you frequently hang out in bars where smoking is allowed?", "have you ever had homosexual intercourse?", "have you ever had unprotected sexual intercourse with another man or woman?", "have you ever been more than 20 lbs overweight?", etc.

The answers to those questions will be irrelevant within a generation or two as those things are completely banned by the government not just for our own good, but also to reduce the burden of healthcare costs across the country.

That is a horrible stat to quote to make your point. What are the denials for?
If someone files a claim for plastic surgery is it denied? Yes.
So, have you eliminated all frivolous claims from the denial rate? Do you know why the claims where denied?

[badmonkey]

That is a horrible stat to quote to make your point. What are the denials for?
If someone files a claim for plastic surgery is it denied? Yes.
So, have you eliminated all frivolous claims from the denial rate? Do you know why the claims where denied?

I posted it because I thought it was interesting. I posted the link to the full study so that you could read it all in context for yourself. So... go read it.

[epo]

I think we should all work for free and let the government feed, clothe, and house us.

That's your worst bumper sticker political statement yet.

[Serpico1103]

I posted it because I thought it was interesting. I posted the link to the full study so that you could read it all in context for yourself. So... go read it.

Anything else you want me to do?

If you thought the full study was interesting why didn't you just say "I find this study interesting" and include the link. Instead of just posting a stat that I have to presume you think makes a certain point. What that point is I am left to wonder.

I personally think this health care crisis is a joke. We are dying because we are fat diabetic lazy creatures. The crisis would disappear if people got healthy. Money could be spent on people with real illness and not fat people eating twinkies.
But, instead of getting people healthy, the medical community is concerned with "treating" our ailments.

[epo]

Anything else you want me to do?

If you thought the full study was interesting why didn't you just say "I find this study interesting" and include the link. Instead of just posting a stat that I have to presume you think makes a certain point. What that point is I am left to wonder.

I personally think this health care crisis is a joke. We are dying because we are fat diabetic lazy creatures. The crisis would disappear if people got healthy. Money could be spent on people with real illness and not fat people eating twinkies.
But, instead of getting people healthy, the medical community is concerned with "treating" our ailments.

You are right that Americans do need to take better care of themselves. You are wrong that it is not the ENTIRE issue. The other ends of it are access and regulation.

[EliSnow]

It is inadequate evidence because Aetna can simply refuse to cover someone entirely, therefore there would be no need to deny their claims. While Medicare does not deny people based on needs or prior history. So, the comparison is a weak one. Moreover, it is evidence that since medicare does not deny complete coverage to anyone, that medicare does cover at a higher rate.
But, that is the inherent problem with statistics. They are used by people who don't understand them.

You are wrong.

Refusal to cover someone happens through a denial of a claim. The person (or the doctor on the patient's behalf) submits the claim and it's denied because the company says the person does not have coverage. Thus, denial rates would include refusal to pay based on lack of coverage. There is no other way for it to work.

So the conclusion you draw from the stat is wrong.

[EliSnow]

That is a horrible stat to quote to make your point. What are the denials for?
If someone files a claim for plastic surgery is it denied? Yes.
So, have you eliminated all frivolous claims from the denial rate? Do you know why the claims where denied?

The stat says it defines a denial as "What percentage of records submitted are denied by the payer for reasons other than a claim edit A denial is defined as: allowed amount equal to the billed charge and the payment equals $0."

That includes denials where there is no coverage or because the treatment is experimental or because the claim is for plastic treatment.

[Serpico1103]

You are wrong.
Refusal to cover someoene happens through a denial. The person (or the doctor on the patient's behalf) submits the claim and it's denied because the company says the person does not have coverage. Thus, denial rates would include refusal to pay based on lack of coverage.
So the conclusion you draw from the stat is wrong.


Than the stat seems faulty. Since, a company would be charged with a denial even though the company was not receiving premiums on my behalf.

If I am paying Aetna every month for coverage, I mail in a bill for a legitimate service and they deny me that is a denial.
If I am not covered by Aetna (because of any reason: prior conditions, never paying a premium, dropped), I mail in a bill for a legitimate service and they deny me. How is that the same? Aetna was not receiving money to cover me, so why would they accept the claim?
I am not referring to someone who has Aetna, mails in a claim, and is denied, because as of that claim, Aetna decides to start denying coverage, even though they accepted premiums.

Am I making sense?

Saw your second post.
I still don't see how that stat is relevant.

[HBox]

I'd have to look into those Medicare denial rates, especially the reasoning behind them, but one thing I will say is that fraud is something Medicare has to deal with more often and that's probably a factor.

[EliSnow]

Than the stat seems faulty. Since, a company would be charged with a denial even though the company was not receiving premiums on my behalf.

If I am paying Aetna every month for coverage, I mail in a bill for a legitimate service and they deny me that is a denial.
If I am not covered by Aetna (because of any reason: prior conditions, never paying a premium, dropped), I mail in a bill for a legitimate service and they deny me. How is that the same? Aetna was not receiving money to cover me, so why would they accept the claim?
I am not referring to someone who has Aetna, mails in a claim, and is denied, because as of that claim, Aetna decides to start denying coverage, even though they accepted premiums.

Am I making sense?

Nope, because that's not how claims processing works. Aetna or any insurance company will accept any claim submitted to it. It goes into his claims processing system, and the computer reviews information re: the member, the doctor, the procedure, etc. First step is the member check. If the member doesn't have coverge, the system denies on that basis, spits out an explanation of benefits same as with other denials and it's listed as a denial, with no money allowed for paid.

And it has to work that way because under federal and state laws, the person has to get the explanation and a chance to appeal the decision. Maybe the decision was based upon faulty information from the company who said they fired that person, but didn't. Or the company hired the person but screwed up on providing information to the company.

Regardless, a denial for lack of coverage would be reported just as a denial for an experiemental treatment and would be covered in the stat..

[EliSnow]

I'd have to look into those Medicare denial rates, especially the reasoning behind them, but one thing I will say is that fraud is something Medicare has to deal with more often and that's probably a factor.

Because claims processing is computerized, you don't get a lot of denials for fraud. Usually fraud is caught after the processing.

[EliSnow]

Saw your second post.
I still don't see how that stat is relevant.


It means that it would include all denials regardless of the reason behind them. Essentially it says that a denial is where there is a billed charge but the company refuses to pay anything for that line. That would happen for a denial based upon lack of coverge, experimental treatment, the treatment is cosmetic, etc.

In all such instances, the company/government refuses to pay anything on that claim.

[underdog]

I think we should all work for free and let the government feed, clothe, and house us.

Exactly.

[Furtherman]

What smokes and sits at the top of the stairs?

Steven Hawkin in a house fire.






Hey! No one bit.

[underdog]

Steven Hawkin in a house fire.






Hey! No one bit.

I knew the answer. I was going to boo you but I let it go.

[EliSnow]

One more point:

If I am not covered by Aetna (because of any reason: prior conditions, never paying a premium, dropped), I mail in a bill for a legitimate service and they deny me. How is that the same? Aetna was not receiving money to cover me, so why would they accept the claim?
I am not referring to someone who has Aetna, mails in a claim, and is denied, because as of that claim, Aetna decides to start denying coverage, even though they accepted premiums.


Aenta would have to treat the two situations the same because maybe it's the member's position that he did pay the premium and Aetna wronglly denied for failure to pay premium.

Aetna still has to take the same steps under federal and state law so that the member has the information and can appeal if the person thinks the wrong decision was made.

[Serpico1103]

It means that it would include all denials regardless of the reason behind them. Essentially it says that a denial is where there is a billed charge but the company refuses to pay anything for that line. That would happen for a denial based upon lack of coverge, experimental treatment, the treatment is cosmetic, etc.

In all such instances, the company/government refuses to pay anything on that claim.

So, I think that makes my point. Aetna can deny coverage to anyone it wants while Medicare does not. So, a person usually will not send in a claim form to an insurance company that does not cover them. I understand that people might send a claim to their previous insurer, or send one in hoping that somehow it will get paid. But, if a person knows they are not covered, they will not send in a claim, so Aetna doesn't have to deny it.

It seems like the private schooling argument. People point to how private schools are better than public schools because children in private schools score better. But, that ignores the fact that private schools can kick out stupid and/or unruly kids. While, public schools must include them. This makes private school methodology look better on the surface. Does Yale graduate smart people because Yale is so great at educating, or because Yale only lets smart people attend?

I just think the stat does not tell anything significant without a lot more research.
But, I would prefer a system where healthy lifestyles are rewarded. It benefits society. Much the same way capital income is rewarded with a lower tax rate, because it benefits society.

[EliSnow]

So, I think that makes my point. Aetna can deny coverage to anyone it wants while Medicare does not. So, a person usually will not send in a claim form to an insurance company that does not cover them. I understand that people might send a claim to their previous insurer, or send one in hoping that somehow it will get paid. But, if a person knows they are not covered, they will not send in a claim, so Aetna doesn't have to deny it..

No, it does not make your point. If there is no claim, there is no denial for lack of coverage. And the way that companies deny for coverage is when a claim is submitted by someone without coverage.

So your point that this fact distorts the stat is wrong. The stat would cover denials made based on lack of coverage.

It's a fair statistic.

[angrymissy]

You can't compare medicare denials as a whole vs. Denials from private insurance as a whole, because medicare only covers people 65± while regular insurance covers people of all ages. The onle way to compare it would be if you had data showing denial rates for people 65± insured by private insurance companies

[conman823]

You can't compare medicare denials as a whole vs. Denials from private insurance as a whole, because medicare only covers people 65± while regular insurance covers people of all ages. The onle way to compare it would be if you had data showing denial rates for people 65± insured by private insurance companies

You can compare the Medicare and Medicaid denials. Medicaid covers everyone under a certain poverty level. And I know for a fact that people need referal for Specialists with Medicaid. No referral is a denial as well.

[EliSnow]

You can't compare medicare denials as a whole vs. Denials from private insurance as a whole, because medicare only covers people 65± while regular insurance covers people of all ages. The onle way to compare it would be if you had data showing denial rates for people 65± insured by private insurance companies

The comparison would be better for the latter, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the former is a bad comparison.

Is there any reason why you think people 65 and older would have more denials on medicare than younger people?

[conman823]

Or school us, protect us, take care of our mail and our roads!

Oh, shit! It's too late!

All those examples are terrible.

[HBox]

The comparison would be better for the latter, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the former is a bad comparison.

Is there any reason why you think people 65 and older would have more denials on medicare than younger people?

You are dealing with a shit load more claims overall with the 65+ people versus anyone younger.

[zentraed]

So no one actually looked at the first table with Metric 12 in that PDF? The issue of claims is a confusing one as revealed when various execs were in front of Congress a few weeks ago. The insurance companies consider "claims" to be legitimate medical procedures, so the denial rate figures you see are actually much LOWER than what takes place in the industry.

Page 2 of the PDF says the following:

"Denials (Payer allows the physician's billed charge, but payment is $0)"

The executives told Congress that they all approved claims in the upper 90% range, which baffled almost everyone because the day before they had heard much worse numbers from former employees and physicians.

[Serpico1103]

No, it does not make your point. If there is no claim, there is no denial for lack of coverage. And the way that companies deny for coverage is when a claim is submitted by someone without coverage.

So your point that this fact distorts the stat is wrong. The stat would cover denials made based on lack of coverage.

It's a fair statistic.



I think you misunderstand me. Maybe my fault. Aetna can drop high risk people. Than those people will not submit a claim to Aetna because they are no longer covered. So, there is no denial of claim.

Regardless, one stat is meaningless, and I would be in over my head analyzing all the stats.

[TheMojoPin]

All those examples are terrible.

How so? I was just busting his balls, but those are all examples of things we expect the government to "run" for us. It's ridiculous to act like wanting a government health care option is some kind of tipping point that suddenly means we expect the government to run or do everything for us.