Politics

[connor_in]

Nobody even bothers to take into account the malpractice insurance doctors are required to have. I've gone through 5 doctors in the past 4 years. All of the previous ones quit their private practice. They saw the handwriting on the wall and decided to cut their losses.

My Mom's doing great! On the other hand though, I'm going completely bat-sh1t. Her and my wife are driving me to drink.

Is that (alcoholism) covered under Obamacare?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You're wrong. Everyone just does things because they "like too".


LOL

No. Henry Ford saw thousands of people wandering around Michigan one day and said to himself, "Gee, all these people need something to do. What could I do for them"???

 

[johnnycando]

How does our hapless hoard of Americans not understand the ploy to further divide the rich and the poor?

That's all mandatory health and auto insurance is.

Along with taxes at the rates we're seeing it.

And the inflation rates. The federal reserve. Etc.

Monetary slaves.

 

[irishpat183]

Obama: Republicans Making It Difficult To Fix Obamacare Glitches

<script height="360px" width="640px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=b171980b65ae4996bffea4da902c7846&ec=84aDdoaDpSfkLE9zGVaJ7qfSYqXxpqG7"></script>

Ahhhh yes....The guys that voted against it, said it wouldn't work, are at fault.

This ******* is unbelievable.

(but the same guy that blames the former POTUS for everything as well)

 

[BobD]

This is some of the bullshit that pisses me off. He should automatically be fired just like the average American.

Rep. Radel takes leave of absence after cocaine charge

 

[Black Irish]

A subsidy would not help those with pre-exiisting contitions because, in many cases, insurance companies simply refuse to cover them. The amount of money that you would have to pay to get them to change their minds would be enormous. The problem is with the insurance companies, health care providers, and pharm companies who charge outrageous rates for their services in the first place. A better solution would be to cut them (insurance companies) out of the equasion altogether. Then we can start looking at finding ways to control costs of drugs and doctors who have significantly contributed to astronomical health care costs in this country. This has been done all around the world, and we (the greatest nation in the history of the world) cannot figure it out. NOBODY should be profiting from sick people. To me, it is just that simple.

I think a subsidy for people with serious pre-existing conditions could work. The gov't would reimburse whatever insurance company chooses to cover those people, just like Medicare/Medicaid. But instead of making the process a red-tape ***** clusterf*ck, how about some real incentives for insurance companies to cover high risk people? 100% reimbursement? Tax credits? Bourbon and strippers? Just spitballin' here.

Your solution of cutting insurance companies totally out of the equation is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The private insurance system works fine for the great majority of people in this country. And saying that "nobody should be profiting from sick people" is putting it too simply. We would not have many of our modern drugs and medical technology if it wasn't for someone looking to make money. It goes beyond health care. People make money from: outfitting and supplying our military and police, building low cost housing for the poor, publishing school textbooks, etc. And, believe it or not, there are people who can work on the concurrent paths of wanting to both help people and make money. I don't think it will benefit us as a society if the only people who make a profit are those who produce frivolous bullsh*t.

 

[connor_in]

I think a subsidy for people with serious pre-existing conditions could work. The gov't would reimburse whatever insurance company chooses to cover those people, just like Medicare/Medicaid. But instead of making the process a red-tape ***** clusterf*ck, how about some real incentives for insurance companies to cover high risk people? 100% reimbursement? Tax credits? Bourbon and strippers? Just spitballin' here.

Your solution of cutting insurance companies totally out of the equation is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The private insurance system works fine for the great majority of people in this country. And saying that "nobody should be profiting from sick people" is putting it too simply. We would not have many of our modern drugs and medical technology if it wasn't for someone looking to make money. It goes beyond health care. People make money from: outfitting and supplying our military and police, building low cost housing for the poor, publishing school textbooks, etc. And, believe it or not, there are people who can work on the concurrent paths of wanting to both help people and make money. I don't think it will benefit us as a society if the only people who make a profit are those who produce frivolous bullsh*t.

Now THAT'S how gubment WORKS!

 

[irishpat183]

This is some of the bullshit that pisses me off. He should automatically be fired just like the average American.

Rep. Radel takes leave of absence after cocaine charge

Hey...Focus on what matters...your POTUS ****ing up our health care system.

But I know libs will be ALL OVER THIS to distract.



They're all dirtbags. Including this idiot.

 

[irishpat183]

A subsidy would not help those with pre-exiisting contitions because, in many cases, insurance companies simply refuse to cover them. The amount of money that you would have to pay to get them to change their minds would be enormous. The problem is with the insurance companies, health care providers, and pharm companies who charge outrageous rates for their services in the first place. A better solution would be to cut them (insurance companies) out of the equasion altogether. Then we can start looking at finding ways to control costs of drugs and doctors who have significantly contributed to astronomical health care costs in this country. This has been done all around the world, and we (the greatest nation in the history of the world) cannot figure it out. NOBODY should be profiting from sick people. To me, it is just that simple.

Oh, and one more thing....They aren't "profiting from sick people". They are profiting from the service they provide sick people in order for them to get well.

 

[phgreek]

This is some of the bullshit that pisses me off. He should automatically be fired just like the average American.

Rep. Radel takes leave of absence after cocaine charge

I say throw his *** out...NOW.

This illustrates my heartburn w/ government folks understanding what they are in the larger scheme of things...

Every single person in DC = window washers...an expense with nothing more than a superficial impact to the plus side of the national ledger. I know if someone I employ is washing windows, and they do something that wastes money or endangers my business...I freak the hell out. Same holds true here. Fvck that stupid idiot...I hope a mob with torches and pitch forks bum rush DC and run his a$$ out...but not before a good ole tar and feather.

When you do not generate profit/revenue in a direct way, you better understand...like I said that's the problem with DC...they see themselves more royalty than servant/window washer...and we let 'em.

 

[irishpat183]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[irishpat183]

I say throw his *** out...NOW.

This illustrates my heartburn w/ government folks understanding what they are in the larger scheme of things...

Every single person in DC = window washers...an expense with nothing more than a superficial impact to the plus side of the national ledger. I know if someone I employ is washing windows, and they do something that wastes money or endangers my business...I freak the hell out. Same holds true here. Fvck that stupid idiot...I hope a mob with torches and pitch forks bum rush DC and run his a$$ out...but not before a good ole tar and feather.

When you do not generate profit/revenue in a direct way, you better understand...like I said that's the problem with DC...they see themselves more royalty than servant/window washer...and we let 'em.

What's amazing is how anyone can be "Big government" and then chastise guys like this.

Hypocrites.

 

[phgreek]

Oh, and one more thing....They aren't "profiting from sick people". They are profiting from the service they provide sick people in order for them to get well.

I agree with this for the most part...If the argument is that sick people get ejected...and poor people have no money to pay anyone...wtf...where is the profit there pre, post, or during Obamacare???

I thought the issue was providing healthcare to MORE people who get subsidized...ie more people from whom there is no profit to be made...again who ever has, or will profit from the sick or poor???? Those whom they elect I guess...

Anyway, to me, the real point here is...how many breakthroughs in pharmacology and medical hardware have been provided to the world by socialized medicine...thus the closer you get to it, the fewer and less frequent breakthroughs in technology, methods, and chemistry...rather anyone wants to admit it or not...our system accelerated the practice of medicine across the board....Obamacare trades that, at least to a degree, along with service to seniors, overall services, and raises costs (premiums and out of pocket) to the vast majority of people, as well as adds billions in costs to add government personnel, infrastructure and oversight. I don't agree with the need for the tradeoffs, much less the actual tradeoffs...its just dumb to me when you understand who we are and how we got here.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I agree with this for the most part...If the argument is that sick people get ejected...and poor people have no money to pay anyone...wtf...where is the profit there pre, post, or during Obamacare???

I thought the issue was providing healthcare to MORE people who get subsidized...ie more people from whom there is no profit to be made...again who ever has, or will profit from the sick or poor???? Those whom they elect I guess...

Anyway, to me, the real point here is...how many breakthroughs in pharmacology and medical hardware have been provided to the world by socialized medicine...thus the closer you get to it, the fewer and less frequent breakthroughs in technology, methods, and chemistry...rather anyone wants to admit it or not...our system accelerated the practice of medicine across the board....Obamacare trades that, at least to a degree, along with service to seniors, overall services, and raises costs (premiums and out of pocket) to the vast majority of people, as well as adds billions in costs to add government personnel, infrastructure and oversight. I don't agree with the need for the tradeoffs, much less the actual tradeoffs...its just dumb to me when you understand who we are and how we got here.

And let's not forget something else vitally important.

The motive of profit promotes high level of efficiencies in the actions they are undertaking. Nobody can convince me that the government can administer insurance at the same efficiency of the private sector.

Now, if you want to argue that the role of insurance and the costs associated with administering it (insurers and doctors alike) are driving up costs, I won't disagree with that.
But the mere existence of profit isn't the problem.

 

[enrico514]

No matter your affiliation... one thing is clear... you are all being lied to...

 

[magogian]

So, Reid went nuclear. No more filibusters for non-Supreme Court judicial nominees and presidential appointments.

Dems will rue the day.

 

[ACamp1900]

So, Reid went nuclear. No more filibusters for non-Supreme Court judicial nominees and presidential appointments.

Dems will rue the day.

I saw that, after promising otherwise... and yeah, the first time a non-democrat Senate uses that it'll be some unprecedented scandal...

 

[ACamp1900]

No matter your affiliation... one thing is clear... you are all being lied to...

Agreed... my question is why do otherwise free thinking intelligent poeople continue to want to give more and more power to these dipshits...

 

[GoIrish41]

And let's not forget something else vitally important.

The motive of profit promotes high level of efficiencies in the actions they are undertaking. Nobody can convince me that the government can administer insurance at the same efficiency of the private sector.

Now, if you want to argue that the role of insurance and the costs associated with administering it (insurers and doctors alike) are driving up costs, I won't disagree with that.
But the mere existence of profit isn't the problem.

I thought that was what I was arguing

 

[Ndaccountant]

I thought that was what I was arguing

If it was, then I misunderstood and I apologize.

I took it to say that you were implying the insurance companies trying to profit was a bad thing and driving up costs. Not that insurance all together needs to abolished (i.e., cash payments to doctors only).

 

[GoIrish41]

If it was, then I misunderstood and I apologize.

I took it to say that you were implying the insurance companies trying to profit was a bad thing and driving up costs. Not that insurance all together needs to abolished (i.e., cash payments to doctors only).

Insurance companiies trying to profit does drive up the costs, so I was saying cut them out of the picture. I think that businesses might grow to like not having to provide health insurance to their employees, which would likely create growth, especially if the average Joe had more money in his pocket. That could happen if we simply got healthcare as citizens, like in most of the western world. Would taxes go up? ... sure. But would a huge personal expense be lifted from most Americans? ... absolutely, and my guess is the amount of new taxes would be a lower amount than the costs we currently pay collectively in premiums.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Insurance companiies trying to profit does drive up the costs, so I was saying cut them out of the picture. I think that businesses might grow to like not having to provide health insurance to their employees, which would likely create growth, especially if the average Joe had more money in his pocket. That could happen if we simply got healthcare as citizens, like in most of the western world. Would taxes go up? ... sure. But would a huge personal expense be lifted from most Americans? ... absolutely, and my guess is the amount of new taxes would be a lower amount than the costs we currently pay collectively in premiums.

so, what your are saying is you believe the government can administer healthcare more cheaply than the insurance companies and the hospitals/Doctors do today?

I personally do not share the view but would like to know how costs would be driven down? The money has to come from somewhere (taxes, employers, etc) but the question is how much money does it take. I just don't see how the government could reduce the costs (as you guessed above) overall without rationing care and reducing research and development. If that is what it takes, then so be it, but I think everyone just needs to be honest and say that will be the end result. Now, could the government lift regulations to reduce costs? Absolutely. But they could do that today and still have the more efficient and motivated private sector implement the change.

 

[GoIrish41]

so, what your are saying is you believe the government can administer healthcare more cheaply than the insurance companies and the hospitals/Doctors do today?

I personally do not share the view but would like to know how costs would be driven down? The money has to come from somewhere (taxes, employers, etc) but the question is how much money does it take. I just don't see how the government could reduce the costs (as you guessed above) overall without rationing care and reducing research and development. If that is what it takes, then so be it, but I think everyone just needs to be honest and say that will be the end result. Now, could the government lift regulations to reduce costs? Absolutely. But they could do that today and still have the more efficient and motivated private sector implement the change.

Socialized medicine is working in countries all over the world. I'm no accountant like you, so I'm not going to argue numbers, but it seems to me that if it can work everywhere else, there should be no reason why it can work here. In the United States, it seems like the road block is political will and affinity for big business that is keeping us from finally catching up to the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Socialized medicine is working in countries all over the world. I'm no accountant like you, so I'm not going to argue numbers, but it seems to me that if it can work everywhere else, there should be no reason why it can work here. In the United States, it seems like the road block is political will and affinity for big business that is keeping us from finally catching up to the rest of the civilized world.

I understand you point and respect it.

There was a McKinsey study done a few years back looking at why the US spends more. One of the interesting facts coming from that report was the consumer only pays out of pocket for about 16% of the heath care they consume, compared to 47% in 1960. The government's share went from about 25% to 50%.

Another thing they found was that private insurance rates reacted inversely to Medicare reimbursement growth. So, as Medicare reimbursements slow, private plans pick up that slack. This is due to multiple things, but a big reason was that inflation attributable to technology needs passed along and the private plans can be adjusted whereas government payments cannot.

If I recall correctly, their other major conclusion was that supply was too high, especially for out-patient care, when compared to the rest of the world. Personally, I am okay with this as it offers up more availability, but that comes with a premium. So, you can reduce availability to shrink costs (i.e., rationing).

I know the US's health metrics do not stack up well compared to other nations. However, I am not convinced that it is due in large part to high costs of medical care. I think we live a different lifestyle, which is unhealthy, and largely ignore our bodies. The libertarian in me believes that those who take care of themselves physically will have the same, or better, psychical life than someone else in a socialized country.

We can better serve our country, IMO, by allowing consumers to see costs of what they are consuming as well as taking an active part in their health. There are ways to incentivize consumers and change behavior without taking away the things that most people enjoy about their healthcare today.

 

[phgreek]

I understand you point and respect it.

There was a McKinsey study done a few years back looking at why the US spends more. One of the interesting facts coming from that report was the consumer only pays out of pocket for about 16% of the heath care they consume, compared to 47% in 1960. The government's share went from about 25% to 50%.

Another thing they found was that private insurance rates reacted inversely to Medicare reimbursement growth. So, as Medicare reimbursements slow, private plans pick up that slack. This is due to multiple things, but a big reason was that inflation attributable to technology needs passed along and the private plans can be adjusted whereas government payments cannot.

If I recall correctly, their other major conclusion was that supply was too high, especially for out-patient care, when compared to the rest of the world. Personally, I am okay with this as it offers up more availability, but that comes with a premium. So, you can reduce availability to shrink costs (i.e., rationing).

I know the US's health metrics do not stack up well compared to other nations. However, I am not convinced that it is due in large part to high costs of medical care. I think we live a different lifestyle, which is unhealthy, and largely ignore our bodies. The libertarian in me believes that those who take care of themselves physically will have the same, or better, psychical life than someone else in a socialized country.

We can better serve our country, IMO, by allowing consumers to see costs of what they are consuming as well as taking an active part in their health. There are ways to incentivize consumers and change behavior without taking away the things that most people enjoy about their healthcare today.

Amen. I will not ever nod approvingly for a system where it takes a year to get care...nor will I marvel at comparatively low relative costs in other countries, because the system we WANT is one where when I gotta have a knee replaced, it happens in 3-6 weeks, not 24 months. When I gotta have a skin issue looked at, it happens in 48 hours, when I gotta have a stint, it can happen in 48 hours...THATS the healthcare everyone wants...

Finally the difference between incentives and subsidies...Incentives encourage NEW beneficial behavior...subsidies encourage people to change nothing.

 

[ACamp1900]

In fairness I think "working in other countries" in regards to socialized medicine is as debatable as "our system was working just fine before the dems rammed this bill down our throats."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Socialized medicine is working in countries all over the world. I'm no accountant like you, so I'm not going to argue numbers, but it seems to me that if it can work everywhere else, there should be no reason why it can work here. In the United States, it seems like the road block is political will and affinity for big business that is keeping us from finally catching up to the rest of the civilized world.

Respectfully, it's far more than politics.

1) It's a healthcare qaulity disaster. More patients, fewer doctors, longer waits, etc. We're adding millions more in number of patients but not adding doctors. That's a big problem.

2) Other countries don't have 11-15 illegial immigrants to account for like the US does. This is not racist. Doesn't matter if they're from Latin America or Norway. If you aren't a US citizen and you're getting benefits, someone is paying for it.

3) It's already a financial nightmare, especially for the middle class. The past two months have shown this to be inarguably true.

I applaud your effort and will to help those in need, but so far the results are doing the opposite.

 

[irishpat183]

Respectfully, it's far more than politics.

1) It's a healthcare qaulity disaster. More patients, fewer doctors, longer waits, etc. We're adding millions more in number of patients but not adding doctors. That's a big problem.

2) Other countries don't have 11-15 illegial immigrants to account for like the US does. This is not racist. Doesn't matter if they're from Latin America or Norway. If you aren't a US citizen and you're getting benefits, someone is paying for it.

3) It's already a financial nightmare, especially for the middle class. The past two months have shown this to be inarguably true.

I applaud your effort and will to help those in need, but so far the results are doing the opposite.

Liberals do not care about this!!! You have to know that. It's not about care. Its about people in the system!

"LOOK!! WE GAVE YOU HEALTH CARE AND THE NASTY GOP WANTED YOU TO DIE IN THE STREETS....thank you for your lifetime support of the democratic party"

 

[irishpat183]

So, Reid went nuclear. No more filibusters for non-Supreme Court judicial nominees and presidential appointments.

Dems will rue the day.

I saw that, after promising otherwise... and yeah, the first time a non-democrat Senate uses that it'll be some unprecedented scandal...

Insane...but this will come back to bite them in the ass one day. 10 fold.

Laugh now, Reid. Because if there is one thing that's certain in politics, it's grudges.

 

[ACamp1900]

Liberals do not care about this!!! You have to know that. It's not about care. Its about people in the system!

"LOOK!! WE GAVE YOU HEALTH CARE AND THE NASTY GOP WANTED YOU TO DIE IN THE STREETS....thank you for your lifetime support of the democratic party"

As I have said from day one... none of these people care if you or I live or die... they want power, that's all anything they do is about.