PDA

View Full Version : The beginning of the end....



K G
12-17-2009, 12:57 PM
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091214/US.Health.Care.Overhaul/

kg

M&K's Retrievers
12-17-2009, 01:22 PM
I just can't get it through my thick head why these ioiots are so intent on passing a bill the majority of the country opposes. I can only hope they are commiting political suicide.

Richard Halstead
12-17-2009, 01:43 PM
I watched a doumentary last evening about about Teddy Roosevelt he didn't believe in all the welfare but individuals should be given ample opportunity to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

Franco
12-17-2009, 01:55 PM
I'll flat-our say it, Obama is a liar!

Here is his quote from the article....

Obama repeated his demand for action, telling ABC News "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the health care bill fails. He said Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" path if no action is taken.

end quote

Obama is going to use the failure of his Health Care Bill as a diversion to his over-spending. It is all the wasteful spending that Obama is and has signed off on that will cause our bankruptcy! Yes, Pres. Bush over-spent but Obama's spending makes Bush look like Scrooge Jr.

Pete
12-18-2009, 07:41 AM
There is a phycological name applied to this kind of behavior,,,maby Jeff would know

Where you set you words and actions up so if you fail the blame goes to someone else,, Obama spends a large part of his speaches throwing in little inuendo's as to try to make other people responsible for the out come of his actions. he has wove an obvious web of deception for all to see.
he does this constantly and probably doesnt even realize it.
Poor guy I feel sorry for him

Pete

K G
12-18-2009, 07:51 AM
I feel much worse for the country and its people than I do its President...he WANTED the job, now he's got it....

Buy your ticket and take your chances regards,

kg

Pete
12-18-2009, 08:17 AM
Obama states if the health care bill is not passed the feds will go banckrupt,,,,so if this fails it is the fault of all who oppose it and that caused this bankrupcy,,,,,,,not the trillions borrowed and gambled and given away to cronies,,,,

this guys way to transparent,,,who are those that cant see through him

Pete

YardleyLabs
12-18-2009, 09:10 AM
Obama states if the health care bill is not passed the feds will go banckrupt,,,,so if this fails it is the fault of all who oppose it and that caused this bankrupcy,,,,,,,not the trillions borrowed and gambled and given away to cronies,,,,

this guys way to transparent,,,who are those that cant see through him

Pete
I believe that the reality is that unless the rate of growth in health care costs is reduced to a level approaching the rate of growth in the economy as a whole, not only the Federal government but businesses and most consumers will be bankrupted without a major change that reduces the number of people with coverage and withholds medical care from those that cannot pay.

Currently, through Medicare and Medicaid, we guarantee financial access to health care for the elderly, the poor, and certain classes of the disabled. The Federal government, including the military, guarantee financial access to medical services through employee and military health programs. The costs of those service are increasing at 2-3 times the rate of growth in the economy. Businesses have been seeing similar or higher increases. These have been financed in several ways: jobs have been shipped to other countries where employers do not have responsibility for health insurance, costs have been transferred to employees by increasing their share of premiums, increasing deductibles and coinsurance, and by eliminating coverage altogether (the percentage of private sector employees covered by insurance has been drifting lower for several years and is now about 60%).

The typical Republican response has been to argue for "reducing entitlements" which translates into cutbacks in eligibility and coverage under Medicare and Medicaid. To put it crudely, this is a strategy that rations medical care based on age and income so that the aged and poor can die off more quickly and at lower cost to the younger and wealthier taxpayers. In addition, Republicans have argued that the "free market", if left to its own devices, will solve the problem of increasing costs. Personally, I find that strategy of killing off the old and poor morally unacceptable. While the free market might do a good job of regulating costs, we do not have a free market now and will not have one as long as almost all health care costs are paid through insurance programs. The decisions on health care consumption are made in two places: by consumers deciding when to seek care, and by physicians deciding what services to provide to their patients. Neither the consumers nor the physicians have a direct financial interest in the overwhelming bulk of the decisions made. As a result, cost is not a factor in the decisions and the results are economically irrational.

Obama and the Democrats have argued that, as a matter of justice, that essential medical care, including preventive care, should not be rationed based on ability to pay. I agree with that and recognize that many disagree. Obama has also argued that the "cost curve" must be moved as part of any health program extending coverage -- meaning that the program must provide incentives for reducing the cost of care over time.

Of course, the primary losers from such cuts will be the same groups that were the primary beneficiaries of rapid increases in coverage under Medicare with a virtual absence of controls: manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment and supplies, and benefit management companies. While Medicare has been cutting real compensation for physicians constantly over the last 10-20 years, the pharmaceutical and medical supply industries have had a free ride on the shoulders of the taxpayer. Using lofty phrases such as "patients should receive the best medications without regard to cost", pharmaceutical companies have established programs that will refund deductibles charged by insurance companies for non-generic drugs to make the cost to the consumer equal. For a drug such as Lipitor, this is a strategy for survival since 90% of the patients using Lipitor would be equally well served by the generic Simvastatin which costs 70% less.

The $50 billion/year savings anticipated in Medicare are simply predicated on allowing Medicare to negotiate the prices paid (reversing restrictions imposed by Republicans when the Medicare drug plan was adopted) and reversing a multi-billion dollar subsidy included in Medicare for benefit management companies by the Bush administration.

I actually believe that the health care proposals on the table do not go far enough. They need to provide virtually universal coverage. They need to get the employer out of the business of financing health insurance so that American businesses can be competitive without moving all jobs out of our country. And they need to incorporate even more actions to control not just the amount spent by the programs, but the actual cost of health care.

I believe any program adopted now that provides for greatly expanded coverage will ultimately evolve to eliminate coverage gaps and that our reluctance to increase taxes will ultimately result in more cost controls focused on the cost of care rather than on rationing who gets care. As a consequence, I am not too worried about having a "perfect" plan at the beginning. There is no such thing. I do believe that if we do nothing, that this issue will not be addressed again in any substantive form for at least a decade because of the political costs involved. For that reason, I hope that Democrats do whatever is needed to adopt a plan, including overriding Senate rules to permit a simple majority vote.

road kill
12-18-2009, 09:33 AM
I believe that the reality is that unless the rate of growth in health care costs is reduced to a level approaching the rate of growth in the economy as a whole, not only the Federal government but businesses and most consumers will be bankrupted without a major change that reduces the number of people with coverage and withholds medical care from those that cannot pay.

Currently, through Medicare and Medicaid, we guarantee financial access to health care for the elderly, the poor, and certain classes of the disabled. The Federal government, including the military, guarantee financial access to medical services through employee and military health programs. The costs of those service are increasing at 2-3 times the rate of growth in the economy. Businesses have been seeing similar or higher increases. These have been financed in several ways: jobs have been shipped to other countries where employers do not have responsibility for health insurance, costs have been transferred to employees by increasing their share of premiums, increasing deductibles and coinsurance, and by eliminating coverage altogether (the percentage of private sector employees covered by insurance has been drifting lower for several years and is now about 60%).

The typical Republican response has been to argue for "reducing entitlements" which translates into cutbacks in eligibility and coverage under Medicare and Medicaid. To put it crudely, this is a strategy that rations medical care based on age and income so that the aged and poor can die off more quickly and at lower cost to the younger and wealthier taxpayers. In addition, Republicans have argued that the "free market", if left to its own devices, will solve the problem of increasing costs. Personally, I find that strategy of killing off the old and poor morally unacceptable. While the free market might do a good job of regulating costs, we do not have a free market now and will not have one as long as almost all health care costs are paid through insurance programs. The decisions on health care consumption are made in two places: by consumers deciding when to seek care, and by physicians deciding what services to provide to their patients. Neither the consumers nor the physicians have a direct financial interest in the overwhelming bulk of the decisions made. As a result, cost is not a factor in the decisions and the results are economically irrational.

Obama and the Democrats have argued that, as a matter of justice, that essential medical care, including preventive care, should not be rationed based on ability to pay. I agree with that and recognize that many disagree. Obama has also argued that the "cost curve" must be moved as part of any health program extending coverage -- meaning that the program must provide incentives for reducing the cost of care over time.

Of course, the primary losers from such cuts will be the same groups that were the primary beneficiaries of rapid increases in coverage under Medicare with a virtual absence of controls: manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment and supplies, and benefit management companies. While Medicare has been cutting real compensation for physicians constantly over the last 10-20 years, the pharmaceutical and medical supply industries have had a free ride on the shoulders of the taxpayer. Using lofty phrases such as "patients should receive the best medications without regard to cost", pharmaceutical companies have established programs that will refund deductibles charged by insurance companies for non-generic drugs to make the cost to the consumer equal. For a drug such as Lipitor, this is a strategy for survival since 90% of the patients using Lipitor would be equally well served by the generic Simvastatin which costs 70% less.

The $50 billion/year savings anticipated in Medicare are simply predicated on allowing Medicare to negotiate the prices paid (reversing restrictions imposed by Republicans when the Medicare drug plan was adopted) and reversing a multi-billion dollar subsidy included in Medicare for benefit management companies by the Bush administration.

I actually believe that the health care proposals on the table do not go far enough. They need to provide virtually universal coverage. They need to get the employer out of the business of financing health insurance so that American businesses can be competitive without moving all jobs out of our country. And they need to incorporate even more actions to control not just the amount spent by the programs, but the actual cost of health care.

I believe any program adopted now that provides for greatly expanded coverage will ultimately evolve to eliminate coverage gaps and that our reluctance to increase taxes will ultimately result in more cost controls focused on the cost of care rather than on rationing who gets care. As a consequence, I am not too worried about having a "perfect" plan at the beginning. There is no such thing. I do believe that if we do nothing, that this issue will not be addressed again in any substantive form for at least a decade because of the political costs involved. For that reason, I hope that Democrats do whatever is needed to adopt a plan, including overriding Senate rules to permit a simple majority vote.

Amazing, what you just posted to SUPPORT your position is exactly what I would use to support my position.

This bill is a disaster and a BOONDOGGLE for the very reasons you listed.
(not to mention we can't afford it)

This is about political power and nothing else.

Hoax & Chains regards....

rk

dnf777
12-18-2009, 09:51 AM
I actually believe that the health care proposals on the table do not go far enough. They need to provide virtually universal coverage. They need to get the employer out of the business of financing health insurance so that American businesses can be competitive without moving all jobs out of our country. And they need to incorporate even more actions to control not just the amount spent by the programs, but the actual cost of health care.

So true. Jeff, I just perused your linked website, and looked at the "face the homeless". That is a very touching documentary, that brings this problem into the realm of the living, and not just 5 o'clock news statistics. These are also the very people that are not forgotten, but deliberately swept out of the minds of many who oppose efforts to help these people. Thankyou for posting, and sharing those amazing photographs. It could also be noted that many of our homeless in this land of opportunity are veterans, and the families of veterans.

Franco
12-18-2009, 10:01 AM
Yet, Obama failed to act strongly by signing the 1st Porkulus Bill at nearly a TRILLION dollars and now he is promoting Porkulus II. Then there is the UAW bailout that was not needed. Add the fact that he won;t secure out boarders which is bankrupting California and a huge burden on many other states and all tax payers.

China and our other lenders will just string us along and then shut down our credit when they think it will hurt us the most. Yes, we import trillions of thier mfg junk but hitting us economically is more to thier interest.

What we need to do is reduce the money we are spending so that we can get back to a pay as we go budget. Cut all the money we send overseas, stop wasting money on the Global Warming hoax, get out of Iraq and drastically cut most domestic spending. Obama should lead by example by cutting his wife's staff, and quit taking all of these useless trips abroad since he is clueless about National Foreign Policy.

Any idiot can spend money but, it takes a real leader that can solve problems without over-spending.

YardleyLabs
12-18-2009, 10:14 AM
So true. Jeff, I just perused your linked website, and looked at the "face the homeless". That is a very touching documentary, that brings this problem into the realm of the living, and not just 5 o'clock news statistics. These are also the very people that are not forgotten, but deliberately swept out of the minds of many who oppose efforts to help these people. Thankyou for posting, and sharing those amazing photographs. It could also be noted that many of our homeless in this land of opportunity are veterans, and the families of veterans.
Thank you Dave. I've been working with children from homeless and formerly homeless families for the last seven years on a volunteer basis. I also manage the web site for HomeFront of New Jersey (http://www.homefrontnj.org (http://www.homefrontnj.org/)), a program that helps homeless families and families in transition to become self sufficient. My work with these families, and particularly with the kids, has definitely shifted my perspective on those who are not making it in our economy. Almost all the families that I encountered have at least one full time (or full time plus) workers but are never more than a few days or a single illness from eviction and hunger. With the financial collapse, workload is up 34% over last year and one volunteer at the front desk was recently faced with a neighbor coming in to get a free bag of groceries to feed his family after losing his job and now facing foreclosure on his house. There are clearly a number of welfare cheats and poverty pimps, just as there are crooked businessmen and politicians, and sexually deviant priests and ministers. But the overwhelming bulk of families in distress are honest and hard working, but despite hard work and honesty are still having problems paying the rent and buying food for their kids.

Roger Perry
12-18-2009, 11:03 AM
Thank you Dave. I've been working with children from homeless and formerly homeless families for the last seven years on a volunteer basis. I also manage the web site for HomeFront of New Jersey (http://www.homefrontnj.org (http://www.homefrontnj.org/)), a program that helps homeless families and families in transition to become self sufficient. My work with these families, and particularly with the kids, has definitely shifted my perspective on those who are not making it in our economy. Almost all the families that I encountered have at least one full time (or full time plus) workers but are never more than a few days or a single illness from eviction and hunger. With the financial collapse, workload is up 34% over last year and one volunteer at the front desk was recently faced with a neighbor coming in to get a free bag of groceries to feed his family after losing his job and now facing foreclosure on his house. There are clearly a number of welfare cheats and poverty pimps, just as there are crooked businessmen and politicians, and sexually deviant priests and ministers. But the overwhelming bulk of families in distress are honest and hard working, but despite hard work and honesty are still having problems paying the rent and buying food for their kids.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

BrianW
12-18-2009, 11:18 AM
When it was proposed in the past to just cut "the rate of growth" in Medicare, not actual spending 'cuts", the Democrats in power screamed and yelled about 'genocide" and killing the elderly. As a result nothing was done and costs/deficits grew because too much was promised to too many for too long with too little to support it. Waste and fraud were not only recognized, but institutionalized as part of the program with allowances to cover the known abuses

Now, as a result of the inaction, the Democrats are actually having to face the reality & consequences of their efforts over the years, and are admittedly having to cut Medicare spending, while yet paradoxically proposing to cover more people under the plan. ?!? The only way that you can spend less for more people is to cut the amount/force providers to accept less for the services they offer. If a doctor/hospital has to accept 80% of his/her costs for payment now, how long do we think they will stay in practice at, say, 40% and being unable to refuse patients?

In addition, there is a whole new program proposed. As the Medicare employees can barely do their jobs now, they can't be expected to handle to new influx of work from the new "Fedicare" program. That will require yet more bureaucrats, boards, panels and administrators to be added to the Federal payroll. These people will not provide "care" to anybody, they will just be more overhead to encumber the system, process yet more paperwork, monitor coding, oversee/audit providers, ad nauseum. The taxes their "jobs" will generate will in no way come close to the expenditures of salaries, benefits and facilities costs needed to employ them. This is addition to more people that will HAVE to be hired at the STATE level to handle the increase in Medicaid processing. So yet more net losses in addition to the higher taxes to everyone. And yet BHO continues to lie to everyone that we can save money while doing more under this concept? :rolleyes:


The people that have created AND exacerbated the problems are the ones we're supposed to trust to provide the solutions? And on top of that, they exempt themselves from the system that their employers will be forced to accept or pay fines/go to jail. Is it any wonder so many people are so disgusted with the whole fiasco?

Marvin S
12-18-2009, 12:00 PM
Every time that Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity go off on an unfounded rumor it sure gets the right wing wacko's feathers ruffled though, doesn't it? The reporters and entertainers who post and or "report" these lies should be taken to task.

You tell 'em, Woger. :cool: Who would you suggest as someone with all the facts? Breathlessly awaiting your shot at brilliance - ;-)

Roger Perry
12-18-2009, 12:07 PM
I'll flat-our say it, Obama is a liar!

Here is his quote from the article....

Obama repeated his demand for action, telling ABC News "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the health care bill fails. He said Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" path if no action is taken.

end quote

Obama is going to use the failure of his Health Care Bill as a diversion to his over-spending. It is all the wasteful spending that Obama is and has signed off on that will cause our bankruptcy! Yes, Pres. Bush over-spent but Obama's spending makes Bush look like Scrooge Jr.

Here is what former President Bill Clinton said:

Former President Bill Clinton came to the defense of the Senate bill. Clinton, whose ambitions were humbled by the collapse of his own health care remake, reminded Democrats that political pros don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

"Take it from someone who knows: These chances don't come around every day," Clinton said in a statement. "Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder — both politically for our party, and far more important, for the physical, fiscal and economic health of our country."

dnf777
12-18-2009, 12:10 PM
If a doctor/hospital has to accept 80% of his/her costs for payment now, how long do we think they will stay in practice at, say, 40% and being unable to refuse patients?



Where are you??!! Our practice collects 28 cents on the dollar billed! 80 cents would be a windfall!

code3retrievers
12-18-2009, 01:05 PM
Where are you??!! Our practice collects 28 cents on the dollar billed! 80 cents would be a windfall!

Sounds like your collections department should be fired.

Why don't you try a better business model and stop trying to get the government to pay your bills for you.

Franco
12-18-2009, 01:31 PM
"Take it from someone who knows: These chances don't come around every day," Clinton said in a statement. "Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder — both politically for our party, and far more important, for the physical, fiscal and economic health of our country."

And we are suppose to believe what Clinton says is accurate? I'm not that gullable and besides, it was Clinton's policy that led to the mortgage meltdown!

Roger Perry
12-18-2009, 02:52 PM
And we are suppose to believe what Clinton says is accurate? I'm not that gullable and besides, it was Clinton's policy that led to the mortgage meltdown!

Yea, yea, yea, 7 years down the road and it is Clinton's fault, right. Whats the matter didn't Bush appoint his own people to HUD? After all Bush was in office for 7 years before the people he was supposed to look after went into foreclosure. I don't suppose $4.00 to $5.00 for gasoline had anything to do with it or people losing their jobs, companies going out of business had anything to do with it either?

Steve Amrein
12-18-2009, 03:53 PM
Where are you??!! Our practice collects 28 cents on the dollar billed! 80 cents would be a windfall!


I only went to public school and community college but I can balance a check book and run my little compamny. Either at .28 per dollar you are over charging or you business model suggests you are going to be broke soon. Maybe you hit the lotto and like helping people. I dont make enough off paying customer to take 28 cents on the saw buck and plan on being here next year.

dnf777
12-18-2009, 04:11 PM
I only went to public school and community college but I can balance a check book and run my little compamny. Either at .28 per dollar you are over charging or you business model suggests you are going to be broke soon. Maybe you hit the lotto and like helping people. I dont make enough off paying customer to take 28 cents on the saw buck and plan on being here next year.

The average is around .32 on the dollar. 28 cents isn't bad for rural areas. What should I do? Demand cash up front, or tell patients to hit the road?? I know that's the normal business practice, but I can't do that and look at myself in the mirror. I thought with republican in control of the house, senate and whitehouse, I could at least get a tax write-off for all the charity work I do...but it didn't happen. Most doctors are horrible businessmen...and we should all be thankful for that!

twall
12-18-2009, 04:28 PM
I believe that the reality is that unless the rate of growth in health care costs is reduced to a level approaching the rate of growth in the economy as a whole, .....

Here is the crux of the problem. Cost of healthcare. This bill does not address all the costs that make up healthcare. It will actually drive up costs but increasing the number of insured. Then, decrease costs by restricting coverage. Look at the recent mamogram and Pap test recommendations. This will reduced survival rates but, reduce costs too. Nothing is being done to address tort reform, the cost of new drug development, etc.

The models being used, British, Canadien, etc. do not provide better healthcare than the US system. They might spend less money overall but, they have reduced life expectancies.

I work for in the urgent care division of a private healthcare company. The patients that we treat who seek the best care for the least cost are the ones with the highest co-pays/deductables. They come in when they truly need to be treated and cannot get in to their PCP. They do not request unneccesary procedures and exams. And, they only want the medications they truly need.

It is not uncommon to see a patient who has no out-of-pocket healthcare costs come in and tell us this is the 5th, 6th, 7th,.....visit to a doctor, er, urgent care, clinic, etc. for the same thing! It is not because their problem wasn't treated by the first doctor. It is because they didn't like the diagnosis or treatment and are going to someone else to see if they can get what they want. I'm am not talking about seeking out a second opinion.

This whole mess is not about "fixing" healthcare or providing healthcare to everyone. It is about political paybacks and buying future votes with handouts!

Tom

Steve Amrein
12-18-2009, 04:33 PM
The average is around .32 on the dollar. 28 cents isn't bad for rural areas. What should I do? Demand cash up front, or tell patients to hit the road?? I know that's the normal business practice, but I can't do that and look at myself in the mirror. I thought with republican in control of the house, senate and whitehouse, I could at least get a tax write-off for all the charity work I do...but it didn't happen. Most doctors are horrible businessmen...and we should all be thankful for that!

I just delivered 4 signs to a dentist who just built what I guess to be about a million buck for bldg plus equipment. I went with the wife to a doc yesterday and he had a picture of a vintage cobra. He said it was his and he goes to 3-4 races a year and I am thinking a real vintage cobra prolly set him back over 500 K I guess he is doing OK and I know he aint making it on the 10 dollar co-pay. I assume you can still make a living as a doctor otherwise my cousin wasted a bunch of time and money. I really do hope you are making a living at it.

badbullgator
12-18-2009, 04:59 PM
Sounds like your collections department should be fired.

Why don't you try a better business model and stop trying to get the government to pay your bills for you.


NOt really. That is about the avg. We do better because only 30% have insurance for infertility.

dnf777
12-18-2009, 05:26 PM
NOt really. That is about the avg. We do better because only 30% have insurance for infertility.

Thanks for chiming in BBG. Most people have NO IDEA of the medical profession. They see docs from previous generations double parking Mercedes or Cobras, and think we're all rich! Those were the days of Ronald Reagan, and excesses, and materialism! We're now paying for those extravagances, unfortunately.

Steve, I make a comfortable living on my 28% recovery...and you're welcome to come visit our abode, and you can see my GMC pickup and my wife's Toyota minivan. Again, I'm not complaining at all. In this economy, I count my blessings, and don't ever want to screw my fellow man out of his hard earned benefits, just for the other 72 cents. Sure, I would have to hide the Ferrari if you came to visit, but for now, I'm satisfied with my truck and taking care of the good folks of my town! If I took the conservative advice and attitude of many on this list, I WOULD tell people to pay up front or take a hike....I'd get rich, and pass judgement on those who can't afford to play. Tell 'em to pull themselves up by their bootstraps or else they don't deserve health care. Like I said, lucky for all of us that docs are poor businessmen! (I say "us" because I'm in the same boat too. For Christmas, I helped pay my Mom's $5000 medical expense she incurred by daring to have non-cardiac chest pain and visiting an ER. My parents have "full coverage" by the way.) :confused:

Oh, one more small point. My collection department is UPMC...one of the most profitable health care entities in the world. In Pittsburgh, they are second only to BNY-Mellon in total investment holdings. Not bad for a non-profit! You just can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

dnf777
12-18-2009, 05:31 PM
I assume you can still make a living as a doctor otherwise my cousin wasted a bunch of time and money. I really do hope you are making a living at it.

Sorry to double post here, but yes, you can still make a good living, if you like taking care of people, even if they can't afford to pay.

If your cousin wants to get rich, I suggest he quit medical school and become an elected official in Washington for either the republican or democratic party. Or a lobbyist for Tom Delay. Off hand I can name Ron Paul, Bill Frist, Howard Dean who all left medicine to become politicians. Can't think of any politicians who quit office to go to medical school! (how was that for including both parties and an independent?)

K G
12-18-2009, 09:54 PM
Yea, yea, yea, 7 years down the road and it is Clinton's fault, right. Whats the matter didn't Bush appoint his own people to HUD? After all Bush was in office for 7 years before the people he was supposed to look after went into foreclosure. I don't suppose $4.00 to $5.00 for gasoline had anything to do with it or people losing their jobs, companies going out of business had anything to do with it either?

Companies are still going out of business, Roger...is that Bush 43's fault almost 2 years into BHO's presidency?

The price of oil is controlled by OPEC and speculators, not any President past, present, or future.

kg

Roger Perry
12-19-2009, 12:53 PM
Companies are still going out of business, Roger...is that Bush 43's fault almost 2 years into BHO's presidency?

The price of oil is controlled by OPEC and speculators, not any President past, present, or future.

kg

I was talking about 7 years into Bush's presidentcy. Either Bush and his crony's agreed with Clinton's HUD policy or they were too stupid to change it. Pick one.

K G
12-19-2009, 02:14 PM
Oh...okay...so we're not going to consider the monetary, lending, and credit policies that have been instituted since BHO took office and THEIR effect on business losses....shoulda known that....:rolleyes:

And FYI, Roger...if you want to delete a post you've made, you can DELETE the whole post rather than putting xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx where the post was....just a thought...

kg

Uncle Bill
12-19-2009, 02:29 PM
I'll flat-our say it, Obama is a liar!

Here is his quote from the article....

Obama repeated his demand for action, telling ABC News "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the health care bill fails. He said Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" path if no action is taken.

end quote

Obama is going to use the failure of his Health Care Bill as a diversion to his over-spending. It is all the wasteful spending that Obama is and has signed off on that will cause our bankruptcy! Yes, Pres. Bush over-spent but Obama's spending makes Bush look like Scrooge Jr.


Awe...but...Mr. Bootay...have you forgotten that this was what we heard from the Messiah just a short time ago???




http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow (http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow)



Furthermore...

CAN ANYONE TELL ME JUST WHAT THE HAYEL IS THE BILL WE ARE ARGUING OVER????

UB

road kill
12-19-2009, 02:38 PM
Awe...but...Mr. Bootay...have you forgotten that this was what we heard from the Messiah just a short time ago???




http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow (http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow)



Furthermore...

CAN ANYONE TELL ME JUST WHAT THE HAYEL IS THE BILL WE ARE ARGUING OVER????

UB


No sir, we can't.
You see Senator Reid has it in hiding.
Has anyone heard of the "Managers Bill??"


I'm sure Yardley has read it though!!:D

Uncle Bill
12-19-2009, 03:58 PM
I'm sure Yardley has read it though!!:D





It's doubtful he will ever read it, but that will not deter him from regaling us with its' contents, via beaucoup superfluous jargon. It will be typical phoney sycophantic GDG, as only the Pennsylvania leftists are want to do. Even some of their so-called independants frequently jump into that gob of garbage, and later complain we are bigoted by calling them liberal. Hey! That's a compliment for what you socialists are backing.

Does it ever occur to you libs how little respect you display for this nation we conservatives revere as America? Why are you so willing to have your freedoms legislated away? How long have you despised our Constitution, and have actively worked for the downfall of this country? How socialistic will we need to become, before you 'feel' that is enough?

UB

Gerry Clinchy
12-21-2009, 09:24 AM
From the NY Times today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/health/policy/21healthcare.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
Deep in Health Bill, Very Specific Beneficiaries

Some highlights:


Buried in the deal-clinching health care package that Senate Democrats unveiled over the weekend is an inconspicuous proposal expanding Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) to cover certain victims of “environmental health hazards.”

The intended beneficiaries are identified in a cryptic, mysterious way: individuals exposed to environmental health hazards recognized as a public health emergency in a declaration issued by the federal government on June 17.

And who might those individuals be? It turns out they are people exposed to asbestos from a vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont.

For a decade, Senator Max Baucus (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/max_baucus/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of Montana, has been trying to get the government to help them. He is in a position to deliver now because he is chairman of the Finance Committee and a principal author of the health care bill.



“Every senator uses whatever leverage they have to help their states,” Mr. Axelrod said on the CNN program “State of the Union.” “That’s the way it has been. That’s the way it will always be.”

So much for change we can believe in.


“This process is not legislation,” said Senator Tom Coburn (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/tom_coburn/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Oklahoma, referring to a variety of special-interest provisions. “This process is corruption. It’s a shame the only way we can come to a consensus in this country is to buy votes.”


Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, was the critical final Democrat to endorse the bill. He obtained tighter restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/surgery/abortion/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier), and additional Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) money and other benefits for his state.


Another provision would give $100 million to an unnamed “health care facility” affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state where there is only one public medical and dental school.


The Senate health bill, like one passed by the House last month, would impose tough new restrictions on referrals of Medicare patients by doctors to hospitals in which the doctors have financial interests. The package assembled by Mr. Reid would provide exemptions to a small number of such hospitals, including one in Nebraska.


“Senator Nelson has always been a friend to our industry,” she said. “But doctor-owned hospitals in other states were not so fortunate. They would not meet the Aug. 1 deadline.”


Another item in Mr. Reid’s package specifies the data that Medicare officials should use in adjusting payments to hospitals to reflect local wage levels. The officials can use certain new data only if it produces a higher index and therefore higher Medicare payments for these hospitals.

What good is an index if you only use it when it dictates higher prices?



Mr. Reid’s proposal also provides additional money to several states to help pay for the expansion of Medicaid to cover many childless adults and parents who did not previously qualify.

Senate Democrats said Saturday that the cost would probably be less than $100 million over 10 years. But the Congressional Budget Office said Sunday that the cost of this provision, benefiting Massachusetts, Nebraska and Vermont, “is approximately $1.2 billion over the 2010-2019 period.” Massachusetts and Vermont have been leaders in providing health insurance to their residents.
(Already a disagreement between Mr. Reid's statements and CBO estimate).

Nebraska, with help from Mr. Nelson, won a particularly generous arrangement under which the federal government would indefinitely pay the full cost of covering certain low-income people added to the Medicaid rolls under the bill.



Republicans derided this provision as the “Cornhusker kickback.” And they said it was typical of the favors Democrats had given to Mr. Nelson and a handful of other senators.

“You’ve got to compliment Ben Nelson for playing ‘The Price is Right,’ ” said Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina. “He negotiated a Medicaid agreement for Nebraska that puts the federal government on the hook forever. Not for six years, not for 10 years. This isn’t the Louisiana Purchase; this is the Nebraska windfall.”

What a hodge-podge this bill has turned out to be.

Steve Amrein
12-21-2009, 12:37 PM
Isnt Blogo being prosecuted for similar bribery tactics ?

blind ambition
12-21-2009, 03:47 PM
Here is the crux of the problem. Cost of healthcare. This bill does not address all the costs that make up healthcare. It will actually drive up costs but increasing the number of insured. Then, decrease costs by restricting coverage. Look at the recent mamogram and Pap test recommendations. This will reduced survival rates but, reduce costs too. Nothing is being done to address tort reform, the cost of new drug development, etc.

The models being used, British, Canadien, etc. do not provide better healthcare than the US system. They might spend less money overall but, they have reduced life expectancies.

I work for in the urgent care division of a private healthcare company. The patients that we treat who seek the best care for the least cost are the ones with the highest co-pays/deductables. They come in when they truly need to be treated and cannot get in to their PCP. They do not request unneccesary procedures and exams. And, they only want the medications they truly need.


This whole mess is not about "fixing" healthcare or providing healthcare to everyone. It is about political paybacks and buying future votes with handouts!

Tom

I just had to check this life expectancy claim out, there were plenty of sources I could have chosen but I thought you my give the CIA more credence than something from the U.N. Please read the list than ask yourself why are you ranked 50th in order of life expectancy...?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Hoosier
12-21-2009, 04:04 PM
I just had to check this life expectancy claim out, there were plenty of sources I could have chosen but I thought you my give the CIA more credence than something from the U.N. Please read the list than ask yourself why are you ranked 50th in order of life expectancy...?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Can you find a list of the average weight per citizen. I suspect were doing a lot worse then number 50 in that category, and that could have a lot more to do with where we rank in life expectancy then quality of health care.


Now where did I put those chicken wings

Hoosier
12-21-2009, 04:13 PM
According to Forbes we rank 9th in the world, and I didn't see any of the fatter countries ranked above us in life expectancy.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_2.html

blind ambition
12-21-2009, 04:38 PM
Can you find a list of the average weight per citizen. I suspect were doing a lot worse then number 50 in that category, and that could have a lot more to do with where we rank in life expectancy then quality of health care.


Now where did I put those chicken wings

These are very interesting points you raise and a scintillating topic for discussion especially as we count down to the Christmas Holidays but they don't address the fallacy of Twall's statement viz British and Canadian life expectancy being less than those in the U.S.A.

If you can find fault with the CIA data get back to me, eh

Hoosier
12-21-2009, 04:54 PM
These are very interesting points you raise and a scintillating topic for discussion especially as we count down to the Christmas Holidays but they don't address the fallacy of Twall's statement viz British and Canadian life expectancy being less than those in the U.S.A.

If you can find fault with the CIA data get back to me, eh

I think Twall's statement was probably wrong. I was just attempting an explanation for why we are 50th in life expectancy, and to make a point that it's due to unhealthy lifestyle.

dnf777
12-21-2009, 04:55 PM
Can you find a list of the average weight per citizen. I suspect were doing a lot worse then number 50 in that category, and that could have a lot more to do with where we rank in life expectancy then quality of health care.


Now where did I put those chicken wings


Good point, life expectancy by itself is not a good measure of health care quality. I don't know if the link will come through, but this has much more to do with our life exp. numbers than health care.

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6301.jpg

There's a Foxworthy joke somewhere in there.

Hoosier
12-21-2009, 05:01 PM
Good point, life expectancy by itself is not a good measure of health care quality. I don't know if the link will come through, but this has much more to do with our life exp. numbers than health care.

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6301.jpg

There's a Foxworthy joke somewhere in there.

Don't you have to cover those up in public?

dnf777
12-22-2009, 08:34 AM
Don't you have to cover those up in public?

If your bra has 4 cups......you might be a redneck!!

ducknwork
12-22-2009, 09:21 AM
Good point, life expectancy by itself is not a good measure of health care quality. I don't know if the link will come through, but this has much more to do with our life exp. numbers than health care.

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6301.jpg

There's a Foxworthy joke somewhere in there.

I have never seen boobs without nipples before.:confused:

Gerry Clinchy
12-31-2009, 10:20 AM
As a matter of justice we provide essential legal representation free to anyone that does not have the ability to pay. Without this long standing practice it is my opinion we would have a total police state in short order. Does anyone really disagree with that?????


Police states provide legal representation ... though the whole legal process is still a sham. The presence or absence of lawyers, in and of itself, is not as important as the mindset of the populace and those in control of the govt.


The time to do something about healthcare is now..........if neither side gets exactly what it wants then that will probably be a good starting point that can be refined as we move forward..............

I would tend to disagree. Reform is for improvement. If the replacement is as bad as the original, it is just as hard to "fix". Govt bureaucracy is one of the most durable entities to get rid of.


I believe any program adopted now that provides for greatly expanded coverage will ultimately evolve to eliminate coverage gaps and that our reluctance to increase taxes will ultimately result in more cost controls focused on the cost of care rather than on rationing who gets care.

As I understand it, UK, Canada and even Sweden, are all suffering from insufficiency of benefits. I believe it's Sweden (maybe Finland?) that is facing serious problems with its generous retirement programs as well. We have heard far too little about the failures of universal coverage.

If new wealth is not created to pay the bills, the bills can't be paid.

I'm sure that all of us would like to see care available to everyone, regardless of economic status. But that only is truly possible when the wealth is available to pay the bill. Otherwise the govt/bureaucrats will make the decisions how limited funds/services are distributed.

This control of distribution has already been the case with insurors, but there has been litigation when an insuror goes outrageous.

I would predict that with the bill prepared the rates will be a lot higher than people expect; and that taxes will be imposed to offset the (foolishly) unanticipated costs of this "improvement." And we all are aware of the Congress's cowardice in failing to address cost-control issues by pandering to the special interest groups.


unless the rate of growth in health care costs is reduced to a level approaching the rate of growth in the economy as a whole,

I see no significant measures in the proposed legislation that will do that very well.

not only the Federal government but businesses and most consumers will be bankrupted without a major change that reduces the number of people with coverage and withholds medical care from those that cannot pay.

The more likely result is that the available services will be distributed "equitably" by a bureaucrat. Some who have, indeed, paid will get less benefit for what they have paid ... to balance those that will get care but who have not paid (have been subsidized).


This still does not mean that I have no empathy for those who are at the low end of the food chain. The most beneficial thing would be to find policies that would raise that portion of the population into a higher socio-economic level. To do that will take many good minds, creativity, innovation and the will to resist the bribery of special interest groups who buy the votes of legislators.