Another health care thread.

PJ--I knew you were an elitist, but I didn't know you were such a bigot. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

JB, if he calls me a bigot, can I call him an asshole?

I live in S. Texas. Lots of Docs there who have been trained in India and Mexico. Before they can practice here, they gotta pass the boards just like every other doc. The care I have had from foreign-born docs has been very good. You should be careful. Some of the medical training overseas is some of the best in the world these days.

I never said they weren't qualified. I had a serious sickness a few years ago and a Cuban born Dr. named Juan saved my life. (Of course, he trained at Harvard Medical)

And btw, there will definitely be a more pronounced two-tier system of quality under national health care. Most will get the cafeteria version. The well to do (and the governing class) will have the high quality stuff -- even more so than today.

CaptianMidnight, you oil change analogy is flawed. That might work for routine medical care. Getting checked out when you have a cold. A once a year physical, etc. And there is very effective cost competition for those sorts of medical services. What is driving costs are the low to zero elasticity of demand services like an acquaintance of mine experienced last week. He'd been having chest pains for a few days and his wife talked him into going to the doc. They rushed him from the doc's office to the hospital and he was having quadruple bypass within two or three hours of leaving the doc office.

That's the sort of procedures that are driving costs and the competition model doesn't work there. There is no time to shop, no time to move from place to place, you do what they say, and you pay what they pay and you don't ask questions, at least not before the fact. Same with critical care after a big accident, a heart attack, a stroke, premature kids, end of life care, etc. All the big cost drivers. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't think the analogy is flawed at all.

The example of your friend who had the bypass surgery is equivalent (in this comparison) to one who has an expensive car accident. It's going to happen occasionally, and obviously it's very expensive. But for every major car accident, there are thousands of oil changes, tire replacements, etc.

Likewise, for every major emergency surgery there are thousands of instances of colds, flu, ear infections, and the like. Do we need insurance company involvement for practically every single $50 or $100 doctor visit?

I think not. It comprises a significant portion of insurance company overhead and greatly increases everyone's costs.

I believe insurance should actually be insurance. In other words, a way to lay off bets the average person cannot afford to take -- not an all-encompassing reimbursement plan in which patients have no idea what they should be paying for services and ZERO incentive to control costs in any way.

The John Mackey article to which I linked earlier outlines what I believe would be an effective way to get a handle on costs without depriving patients of needed medical care.

, we're going to have to talk about some limits on the amount of care that our society can provide to everybody. Whether it's end of life care, or telling a family, we're sorry, you can go get pregnant again, but we're not spending a million bucks on these premature babies, hard and unpopular choices need to be made. And Americans, in my judgment, just aren't ready for that and neither party has done much to prepare them for that conversation. (And in fact, the Republicans have, through equating anything approaching rationing to "death panels, made such a discussion nearly impossible.) Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That is the core of the problem.

Everything else is just secondary background static.

I personally think the public is either to stupid of just does not have the time to understand just wtf it is we are talking about.

JB, if he calls me a bigot, can I call him an asshole? Originally Posted by pjorourke

LOL...pj you are not allowed to call him a bigoted asshole.

The insurance company charges one premium for a single employee, male or female. If that male or female employee has dependents, they charge a higher premium because they have more risk. I don't understand what you don't understand about this. Is your insurance structured differently? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Geez, I know it is a hard concept for a wild eyed liberal to conceive, but since I was talking to you I was talking about the things which are in your control. In other words, you don't control what the insurance company charges for single employees or a whole family. You, OTOH, do control how much of that cost you (as the employer) are going to pay on behalf of your employee.

So, it is my guess that you are willing (or at least your actions would say that you do) to pay for more cost attributable a married employee than you pay for a single employee. For instance, if a single employee costs you $400.00 per month in insurance costs, and a married employee costs you $700.00 per month in insurance costs, you are demonstrating that you are willing to pay $300.00 per month more for that married employee than the single employee...all other things being equal.

IMHO, that is discriminatory against a single employee. I'm not saying that I don't do exactly the same thing...as a matter of fact I do. But it does pang my conscience to do so...and in some manner I think it is a screw job. I could agree to give that extra $300.00 to the single employee in pay. I do not. But then, I don't try to hold myself to the lofty goals you would hold me to. And I simply use it to demonstrate that we all...including you...discriminate against others. Once we are all knocked off that pedistal, then it is just a question of how you discriminate versus how I discriminate.

JB, if he calls me a bigot, can I call him an asshole? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Is being called an asshole a bad thing?

. And I simply use it to demonstrate that we all...including you...discriminate against others. Once we are all knocked off that pedistal, then it is just a question of how you discriminate versus how I discriminate. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Finally....I knew you could make that point make sense in less than ten posts!

He has a point there TTH.

Is being called an asshole a bad thing? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I never gave it a second thought. I guess it could depend on who calls you that.....I always figured a intestine calling me an asshole was nothing butt ironic.

You must be watching the MSM, the most conservative and lazy organization in our society. They couldn't scratch their ass if they had a hand full of fishhooks.

The public, especially the Democrats and Independents, are not against this bill. Properly polled, it has a broad majority of support.

Look at this quote from a news story (from someone who isn't lazy and conservative) on the very recent McClatchy/Ipsos poll.

Comes now (Feb. 26-28) a McClatchy/Ipsos poll of 1,076 people that on first glance offers rocks to sling at Obama. The lead question asks, “As of right now, do you favor or oppose the health care reform proposals presently being discussed?” Forty-one percent said they favored them, 47 percent said they were opposed, and the rest said they were unsure. Those are numbers the Republican leaders could work with.

But the pollsters went a step further, asking those opposed – 509 people in all – if they were against the proposals because they “don’t go far enough to reform health care” or because they go too far. Thirty-seven percent said it was because the proposals don’t go far enough. Thus – are you ready for this? – the addition of an obvious, simple follow-up question completely turns the tables. The overall numbers switch to 59 percent in favor of health care reform, 30 percent against. Putting aside those with no opinion, it becomes 66 percent in favor of health care reform, 34 percent against. Some would call that a consensus, or these days, a super majority.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....groundid=00435

See also: http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
The lazy will only see 41/47 against the bill. But when you ask the next question, why are you against it, over a third 37%, said they are against it because it doesn't go far enough in it's changes. They are like me -- they want either single payer or at least the public option. So you add those back into your initial group, 59 percent favor health care reform at least as significant as this bill. Throw out the no opinion folks, and it gets even stronger -- 66 percent in favor.

You also overlook one important issue. Democrats want a bill passed badly. Independent are split almost down the middle, but prefer this bill by a narrow margin. It's the Republicans who don't want it and they're not going to vote for Obama or Democratic Congressional candidates in any event. Fuck them, they don't count in the political calculus of what to do. They're going to vote against anything Obama or the Democrats do and their voters will vote against Democratic candidates no matter what. They lost the election and elections have consequences. Can you imagine Bush worrying about what the other side thought? Hell no, he'd just go do what he was elected to do -- fuck the Democrats.

CaptianMidnight, you oil change analogy is flawed. That might work for routine medical care. Getting checked out when you have a cold. A once a year physical, etc. And there is very effective cost competition for those sorts of medical services. What is driving costs are the low to zero elasticity of demand services like an acquaintance of mine experienced last week. He'd been having chest pains for a few days and his wife talked him into going to the doc. They rushed him from the doc's office to the hospital and he was having quadruple bypass within two or three hours of leaving the doc office.

That's the sort of procedures that are driving costs and the competition model doesn't work there. There is no time to shop, no time to move from place to place, you do what they say, and you pay what they pay and you don't ask questions, at least not before the fact. Same with critical care after a big accident, a heart attack, a stroke, premature kids, end of life care, etc. All the big cost drivers. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I have to correct myself but the poll came from the NEJM where I was off by .7%. And the independants I know are dropping the BO administration like a hot potato. You haven't been listening, I don't listen to the MSM. I understand polling, anyone can make a poll and skew it to the pollsters perspective by polling specific groups. Polling sometimes isn't even used to give a true measurement, it's used to nudge people in a specific direction. If you see a poll where 60% of the polled lean in one direction, you may me more likely to change your opinion. Statistics are still a hypothesis and subject to the whim of the statistician and inturpretation of the reviewer.

Democrats don't want the bill either, it's the Saul Alinsky progressives that want the bill. If they were so sure it would pass, then do the vote right now. They have the majority, it should pass, right? Actually, they've held the majority in both the house and senate, why then if they really want this crap haven't they passed it? It's not the Reps in congress that are stopping these crap bills from going through, it's the infighting within the Dem party.

The polls shown below are just a sample and we can banter back and forth with sites that lean to either side of the aisle. The data will always favor the side they want to promote. As the vote comes closer and the tactics being deployed by the left are in full swing there is one poll that should be a key indicator to what they are trying to do to the American people. The congressional approval rating is now at an all time low of 16% down 2% from last month.

Polls:

ABC News: 51% Oppose

Rasmussen: 53% Oppose

Gallup: 47% Oppose - 7% No Opinion

Democrats don't want the bill either, it's the Saul Alinsky progressives that want the bill. If they were so sure it would pass, then do the vote right now. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

The bill is going to pass....you can take that to the bank. Post all the polls you want. The GOP could have fixed this problem had they wanted. They did nothing. So blame who you want, in fact bury your head in the sand and take no blame. But the reality is that we are going to be stuck with this bill. You sound like the Sunnies who were bitching about not being part of a political process that they boycotted! I see they got on board this time, purple finger and all.

The bill is going to pass....you can take that to the bank. Post all the polls you want. The GOP could have fixed this problem had they wanted. They did nothing. So blame who you want, in fact bury your head in the sand and take no blame. But the reality is that we are going to be stuck with this bill. You sound like the Sunnies who were bitching about not being part of a political process that they boycotted! I see they got on board this time, purple finger and all. Originally Posted by WTF

So the way I read your response, you think I haven't been involved and you are comparing me to a Sunni Muslim. Because I haven't posted prior to the last few weeks do you honestly believe I haven't been involved? Out of site out of mind, huh? Isn't that also a Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, tactic to attack the opposition? Yes, I've read it; Sun Tzu, The Art of War, know your enemy. You assume too much!

BTW a Fact Check was just published by the AP stating that insurance premiums will go up, not down as suggested by the White House and Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/...aul_fact_check

The bill is going to pass....you can take that to the bank. Post all the polls you want. The GOP could have fixed this problem had they wanted. They did nothing. So blame who you want, in fact bury your head in the sand and take no blame. But the reality is that we are going to be stuck with this bill. You sound like the Sunnies who were bitching about not being part of a political process that they boycotted! I see they got on board this time, purple finger and all. Originally Posted by WTF

Geez, I almost coughed up a lung laughing so hard. You're bitch'n at someone about repetitive bitch'n regarding the same subject? Have I got that right?

Geez, I almost coughed up a lung laughing so hard. You're bitch'n at someone about repetitive bitch'n regarding the same subject? Have I got that right? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

You better hope that lung is covered under your current plan!


I am not bitching. I just told him that the train has left the station.

He can bitch all he wants.

Next I told him to look in the mirror if he wants to figure out where some of the blame belongs. We , I realize, could all do that. Of course it would not be near as much fun as blaming the so called assholes!

So the way I read your response, you think I haven't been involved and you are comparing me to a Sunni Muslim. Because I haven't posted prior to the last few weeks do you honestly believe I haven't been involved? Out of site out of mind, huh? Isn't that also a Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, tactic to attack the opposition? Yes, I've read it; Sun Tzu, The Art of War, know your enemy. You assume too much! Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

No...if you in fact knew your enemy , you would know that I am not your enemy. Everybody attacks the opposition, why would you assign that to Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals?

I do believe the the GOP has not given a flippen fuc about fixing health care problem. Why? Because they did not lift a finger while they were in power to fix the problem. Had McCain gotten elected , my guess is you would still be crying about eliminating or taxing Cadillac health care polices. Why? Because you seem to fall for this crap that YOU (or your party ) knows best how to spend MY tax dollars. Yet YOU cry bloody murder if I think I know how to spend your tax dollars. I could be wrong but that is why we have these elections.

Had McCain gotten elected , my guess is you would still be crying about eliminating or taxing Cadillac health care polices. Why? Because you seem to fall for this crap that YOU (or your party ) knows best how to spend MY tax dollars. Yet YOU cry bloody murder if I think I know how to spend your tax dollars. I could be wrong but that is why we have these elections. Originally Posted by WTF

i love twisted minds who came up with the thinking that if something isnt taxed its the spending of tax dollars


but of course if you're in a union...your cadillac health plan is still ok because you vote for me

i love twisted minds who came up with the thinking that if something isnt taxed its the spending of tax dollars


but of course if you're in a union...your cadillac health plan is still ok because you vote for me Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You seem not to understand the 'fairness' in the proposed tax.

Tax all benifits as income or tax none. I have no problem with either. Yes that means that unions health care benifits must be taxed the same as others.

I hate it when I speak with someone and all they know is a slanted twist and are unwilling to look at the bigger picture.


I hate it that some want government services , yet do not want to pay for them. This includes war AND health care.

We need a healty debate on just what we can afford as a nation. We already have free health care. It is breaking us. We need to do something different. Anything. What they are trying to do is to get the freeloaders to actually pay something. That point is missed by the right.