PDA

View Full Version : Health care Summit- what a joke



BonMallari
02-25-2010, 11:28 AM
What a waste of the American taxpayer dollar, this dog and pony show is an insult to my and your intelligence. I think each one of these politicians came with their own "personal story" of a healthcare dilemma ...they must think there are bonus pts for whoever can bring the biggest tear jerker of a story to the table...please, dont insult our intelligence...

I wonder how many of these guys are up for re election this year :rolleyes:

Everything sounds so scripted...still looking for where the teleprompter is hidden :p

Sundown49 aka Otey B
02-25-2010, 01:38 PM
This is the most my intelligence has ever been abused. What a joke. The only way to get anything done is in November send all these clowns to the unemployment line.

Koolaid
02-25-2010, 01:55 PM
I know this means nothing to you guys, but I really love kicking back in my socialist country with my free healthcare. I don't think I'd have it any other way. A lot of things up here are a little messed up (**** off on trying to sell our power utilities to the french), but one thing we never have to worry about is going broke because a family member gets sick.

Cody Covey
02-25-2010, 01:56 PM
including the republicans :)

Koolaid
02-25-2010, 02:07 PM
But don't get me wrong I don't know enough about your system to judge whether you need a change or not. I've heard a lot from your politicians (ugh...) spreading crap about how broken our system is. That's exactly what it is...crap.

Bayou Magic
02-25-2010, 03:11 PM
This is the most my intelligence has ever been abused. What a joke. The only way to get anything done is in November send all these clowns to the unemployment line.

I only saw a few clips of the big show, but let's face it. It doesn't take long to sniff a terd. All, and I mean ALL of the incumbents need to be tossed out on their butts. In fact, it should be illegal for a politician to hold public office!

fp

huntinman
02-25-2010, 05:21 PM
I know this means nothing to you guys, but I really love kicking back in my socialist country with my free healthcare. I don't think I'd have it any other way. A lot of things up here are a little messed up (**** off on trying to sell our power utilities to the french), but one thing we never have to worry about is going broke because a family member gets sick.

Well how come your politicians come down here to get their heart surgeries? If it's so good, why didn't he have it done in good old Canada? You might not go broke, but you may be dead before your number gets called by the surgeon.

dback
02-25-2010, 06:14 PM
I know this means nothing to you guys, but I really love kicking back in my socialist country with my free healthcare. I don't think I'd have it any other way. A lot of things up here are a little messed up (**** off on trying to sell our power utilities to the french), but one thing we never have to worry about is going broke because a family member gets sick.

Must have that free education to go with it.

subroc
02-25-2010, 06:33 PM
...but one thing we never have to worry about is going broke because a family member gets sick.

Why, because he might not survive?

WaterDogRem
02-25-2010, 06:35 PM
But don't get me wrong I don't know enough about your system to judge whether you need a change or not. I've heard a lot from your politicians (ugh...) spreading crap about how broken our system is. That's exactly what it is...crap.

From my personal experience visiting a B.C ER during a snowboarding trip, Canadian medical care is just fine for minor injuries, but lacking when it comes to life threaten or surgeries in comparison to the US.
That's based on the conversation I had with the ER doc while I got my stitches after a late nite stunt gone wrong. The doc straight up said, if I had needed surgery that it would have been in my best interest to fly back to the US because they (Canada) don't have the latest and greatest medical equipment or techniques due to funding restrictions.
And since I was a US citizen, boy they didn't hold back on charging me up the wazoo and making me pay it on the spot.

Koolaid
02-25-2010, 08:22 PM
That's the crap I'm talking about. People aren't dying up here because of 2nd rate service. It's simply not true. You act like there are people here dying in hospitals from easily curable ailments. Where is this coming from?

Koolaid
02-25-2010, 08:25 PM
And that's a question out of true curiosity. Our system obviously isn't perfect, and the idea of 2-tier health care is something that I would take a serious look at. I'm just wondering where this information comes from cause I'm inside the "socialist" web and I'm loving it.

road kill
02-25-2010, 08:41 PM
That's the crap I'm talking about. People aren't dying up here because of 2nd rate service. It's simply not true. You act like there are people here dying in hospitals from easily curable ailments. Where is this coming from?

Here;
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA

Is he lieing??



rk

Koolaid
02-25-2010, 08:46 PM
He wanted the best care, so he went the the 38th ranked health care system in the world?

sinner
02-25-2010, 08:49 PM
Let me share a story of a Canadian senior who has two bone on bone knee joints. This person spends as much time in the US as the individual can because of a hobby. The person is very over weight, can barely walk. The Canadian MD saw the person off and on over the last 12-18 months for the purpose of have a total knee replacement. My friend ask me to investigate having it done down here. The cost between 3 cites with in 250 miles of one another were from a high of $52,000 to a low of $33,000. My friend would pay for the surgery out of pocket (did not include rehab which would be about $250 per treatment and with luck take 4 weeks).
The surgery will be done in Canada in April with little to no cost to my friend and by a surgeon that takes care of one of the CF pro teams.
Any of you that need total knee replacements in the US might want to be insured or wait until you are on Medcare A & B.
Also the average wait down here is about equal to that up north.

dnf777
02-25-2010, 09:14 PM
Here;
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA

Is he lieing??



rk

RK,
If you or I needed minimally invasive valvular heart surgery, and we were lucky enough to have insurance, we would go to the nearest in-network provider your insurance company uses. If you or I wanted the best, cutting-edge surgery one of only a few centers in the world, we would have to PAY for it. Probably easily over $100k. If you happen to live near a large center, you may be lucky, in that many university centers who pioneer new technology accept most insurances, so as to not lose potential cases.

That man was wealthy enough to afford that care. Most of us, be we American or Canadian, aren't.

I'm not sure your link supports your point. I could just as easily link you to articles discussing how many Americans travel to India, Mexico, and Belize for elective surgery, because they can't afford it here. Now that's the ultimate caveat emptor if you ask me, but it is what it is.

I think a two-tiered system is what's coming, like it or not. That way, the "haves" will still have their boutique care, and the "have nots" will at least have something, that is as good, if not better, than most of the world.

YardleyLabs
02-25-2010, 09:58 PM
I have said before and I will say again that anecdotal evidence of bad medical care tells you little about the quality oif health care -- not because the anecdotes are false, but because the quality of medical care is defined by c=broad patters more than individual cases. Om March 18, 2006, I entered the ER of a teaching hospital in Bellevue Washington. I informed the triage nurse thsat I had probably experienced a stroke although there was a small chance that it was a detached retina. My BP was 165/110. I had suddenly gone blind in the lower half of my left eye whle photographing a wedding. I have a family history of both strokes and detached retinas. I was quickly seen by the ER physician who confirmed the blindness. He ordered a carotid artery MRI which was negative. Without either a neurological or ophthalmological consult, he decided that it was probably a detached retina and that there was no reason not to return to PA the following day and follow up with my own physician.

I did as suggested. On returning home, I saw my faily physician immediately. 30 minutes later I was seen by an opthalmologist who took all of five minutes to conclude that my blindness was the result of a neurological event. An hour later I was admitted to the hospital for the next three days for tests and observation with treatment to prevent a second stroke which typically happens in a large percentage of cases such as mine. Unfortunately, because of the delay, there was nothing they could do to treat the blindness, although treatment in the Washington ER would almost certainly have restored complete vision within hours. Fortunately I recovered most of my vision over the next six months.

I had a very comprehensive and expensive health plan, but the Washington hospital was out of network. Under inter-hospital rates, they were reimbursed less than $100 for my visit. Of course, I'm sure that had nothing to do with the care I received. By contrast, the PA hospital, which was in network, was paid more than $30k for my visit there.

In the US we have a health care system that is capable of providing some of the best care in the world. However, it often fails to do so and our methods for financing care are one of the major reasons for that failure. I believe the care I received is an example of that failure.

road kill
02-26-2010, 06:44 AM
RK,
If you or I needed minimally invasive valvular heart surgery, and we were lucky enough to have insurance, we would go to the nearest in-network provider your insurance company uses. If you or I wanted the best, cutting-edge surgery one of only a few centers in the world, we would have to PAY for it. Probably easily over $100k. If you happen to live near a large center, you may be lucky, in that many university centers who pioneer new technology accept most insurances, so as to not lose potential cases.

That man was wealthy enough to afford that care. Most of us, be we American or Canadian, aren't.

I'm not sure your link supports your point. I could just as easily link you to articles discussing how many Americans travel to India, Mexico, and Belize for elective surgery, because they can't afford it here. Now that's the ultimate caveat emptor if you ask me, but it is what it is.

I think a two-tiered system is what's coming, like it or not. That way, the "haves" will still have their boutique care, and the "have nots" will at least have something, that is as good, if not better, than most of the world.

Great......the point here was Canada vs. USA.
The guy came to the USA, not India, Mexico or Belize, he came to the USA for care he could NOT get in Canada.

Show me a link where a USA citizen went to Canada to get healthcare they could not get here!!


I'm waiting...........



rk

Gerry Clinchy
02-26-2010, 08:07 AM
Show me a link where a USA citizen went to Canada to get healthcare they could not get here!!

Might be interesting to see the stats on how many Canadians come to the US, and for what procedures ... and why they choose to use US facilities.

huntinman
02-26-2010, 09:17 AM
Great......the point here was Canada vs. USA.
The guy came to the USA, not India, Mexico or Belize, he came to the USA for care he could NOT get in Canada.

Show me a link where a USA citizen went to Canada to get healthcare they could not get here!!


I'm waiting...........



rk

I'd also like to see the photo of Americans crammed into little boats or running through a desert at night, trying to get to Cuba or Mexico or some other 3rd world country for their "free" healthcare...

Koolaid
02-26-2010, 09:22 AM
Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

It is true that in a population with 1/10th the size of the US, we are often lacking in certain specialties. This is especially true of the previous story where NFLD isn't exactly an attractive spot of highly skilled medical workers, let alone anyone doing any sort of job. The wonderful thing is that if I need that care that can't be provided here...my government will still pay for. You'll note in the previous story that the politician was going to get what refunds he could from the government for paying for his care in the US.

I kind of like it personally...we have our 2 tier system...you guys are just the 2nd tier for the overly rich in a huge hurry for a procedure that is no rush. And that isn't some sort of insult...that's the truth...I like it.

ducknwork
02-26-2010, 09:30 AM
I'm genuinely curious...What kind of amounts to you guys pay in taxes?

Koolaid
02-26-2010, 09:39 AM
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

I'm stealing a chunk of this from http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427.

Things like our post secondary education aren't even comparable in how must it costs. When you get down to things like trades workers, then get payed to get trained in their fields. That may work the same in the US...idk to be honest. Tax credits aren't anything to sneeze at either. My mother is a nurse in a small town and with taxes coming up shortly, she'll get back about 10% of her total yearly salary...in one lump sum.

M&K's Retrievers
02-26-2010, 11:00 AM
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

I'm stealing a chunk of this from http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427.

Things like our post secondary education aren't even comparable in how must it costs. When you get down to things like trades workers, then get payed to get trained in their fields. That may work the same in the US...idk to be honest. Tax credits aren't anything to sneeze at either. My mother is a nurse in a small town and with taxes coming up shortly, she'll get back about 10% of her total yearly salary...in one lump sum.

Man, I'm moving to Canada. Where else can you keep 82% of your earnings, stand in line for treatment, enjoy a lower survival rate for many conditions, have no major military obligations and don't forget there's always hockey and curling.

Koolaid
02-26-2010, 11:15 AM
No military obligations, no, but if you do decide to join you get paid quite well and have amazing benefits including a handsome pension. Bad thing is you get stuck with outdated equipment, but unless you're a combat engineer detonating IEDs you probably not going to die/get injured anyways. If you ever really want to make fun of our military I'll give you some good ammo. Look into our navy. Specifically our "submarine fleet".

Koolaid
02-26-2010, 11:18 AM
PS - Canada has a higher life expectancy

YardleyLabs
02-26-2010, 11:19 AM
Most of the studies I have seen suggest that heath status is generally better in Canada than in the US but that health care is generally comparable between the two countries. In Canada, issues of health service access exist because of resource shortages -- some attributable to cost containment by the government and some reflecting geography (services are generally less accessible in low density, rural areas than in more urban areas). In the US, issues of health service access exist primarily because of inability to pay. Ultimately, the biggest difference may be in cost: Canadians spend about 10% of GDP on health care while Americans spend over 16%. A summary of some 38 comparative studies may be seen at http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1.

Koolaid
02-26-2010, 11:19 AM
Total Tax Receipts as % of GDP (2005)


33.4% Can


27.3% US


Canada collects 6.1% more taxes as expressed in % of GDP.

ducknwork
02-26-2010, 11:35 AM
How does Canada compare as far as unemployment (by choice) and govt dependency? I think those are two of the major hangups that a lot of Americans have about the proposed health care reform. Basically, are there as many people (by %, obviously) that are now and will receive something for nothing at the expense of the taxpayers?

I don't think that there are many people that are actually opposed to reforming health care. I think the majority of people are opposed to reforming it as it has been proposed.

badbullgator
02-26-2010, 11:37 AM
You see there is the point. you don;t work you still get everything. Make more pay more for bums who either do not want to work, can't work, or are too stupid to get a good job
Canada has 1/10 the population and WANTS to be socialist........
Good for them. I don't and we were not founded as a socialist nation. Canada taxes middle and upper class higher. I DO NOT want to pay for anyone else. I got mine you get yours......

Koolaid
02-26-2010, 11:46 AM
Unemployment Rate (2006)


6.3% Can


4.6% US


Canada has a 1.4 times higher unemployment rate.

That's for 2006 though. With the current "situation" we weren't hit quite as hard so to say. I think we hover around 8.3 and you guys are somewhere over 10...but those are from memory so they could be wrong.

The problem with freeloaders in our system has nothing to do with health care. Our problem is our EI system. Some of the less educated younger generation has fallen into the habit of working for 6 months and then exploiting EI to sit around and collect EI benefits for 6 months.

Koolaid
02-26-2010, 11:50 AM
Obvoiusly I'm not saying our system is perfect bbg, but I personally believe that that people have the right to free basic care. Whether you are a freeloader on the system or homeless or in some bad situation I like the idea that they can walk into an emergency room and have a cast put on a broken leg free of charge. The real things that get me are things like smokers and lung cancer, but I guess when you're paying 10$ for a pack of cigarettes you're just slowing saving up for that eventual health cost.

ducknwork
02-26-2010, 11:56 AM
they can walk into an emergency room and have a cast put on a broken leg free of charge.

The same thing can be done here. They just pass the cost along to the other people who can pay.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and I don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's lunch everyday.

M&K's Retrievers
02-26-2010, 12:33 PM
Obvoiusly I'm not saying our system is perfect bbg, but I personally believe that that people have the right to free basic care. Whether you are a freeloader on the system or homeless or in some bad situation I like the idea that they can walk into an emergency room and have a cast put on a broken leg free of charge. The real things that get me are things like smokers and lung cancer, but I guess when you're paying 10$ for a pack of cigarettes you're just slowing saving up for that eventual health cost.

That's what some people don't seem to understand. We have free healthcare in America now. Last Sunday my wife had to be taken to the ER with a broken leg (labrador retriever inflicted :( ) While waiting for the Doc, I couldn't help but notice the place was full on a Sunday afternoon with individuals waiting for treatment for conditions that did not appear to be emergencies (primarily coughing and hacking). That fact was verified by the staff. They also said it was like that every night and weekends with people coming in for non emergency conditions for their free treatment. Free treatment paid for by higher hospital costs, higher premiums and higher taxes. True they had to wait to be seen but they received excellent care and were not turned away. I have no way of knowing their financial status but my guess is the majority could not afford insurance however there were a few who were suspect.

badbullgator
02-26-2010, 12:53 PM
Unemployment Rate (2006)


6.3% Can


4.6% US


Canada has a 1.4 times higher unemployment rate.

That's for 2006 though. With the current "situation" we weren't hit quite as hard so to say. I think we hover around 8.3 and you guys are somewhere over 10...but those are from memory so they could be wrong.

The problem with freeloaders in our system has nothing to do with health care. Our problem is our EI system. Some of the less educated younger generation has fallen into the habit of working for 6 months and then exploiting EI to sit around and collect EI benefits for 6 months.

Canada is 9.2% for 2009

badbullgator
02-26-2010, 12:59 PM
Obvoiusly I'm not saying our system is perfect bbg, but I personally believe that that people have the right to free basic care. Whether you are a freeloader on the system or homeless or in some bad situation I like the idea that they can walk into an emergency room and have a cast put on a broken leg free of charge. The real things that get me are things like smokers and lung cancer, but I guess when you're paying 10$ for a pack of cigarettes you're just slowing saving up for that eventual health cost.

As pointed out above you CAN walk inot a hospital and get free care. You might get billed for it but it will be written off and they will not turn you down nor force you to pay before more services are done. It is a lie that people go without because they have no money for it. You are expected to pay your way, but if you can't it will get done. Now that may not be the case with elective proceduers but if you need it you will get it.
I do not believe that people have the "right" to free health care. I do not believe that people have a right to anything on my dime. If I don't have it I will work for it and if I still can't get something I will do without it. I don't want someone else paying for me.
I am not knocking you or Canada. You folks want to be socialist and that is what Canada works as. We were not founded as a socalist country and I don;t want it nor do most people here except the ones who want a hand out and there are many of those who feel that people like me who have worked for everything they have should also give to them even though they have done nothing.

Koolaid
02-26-2010, 01:34 PM
What do you think about extending coverage to say children, or even to an age where younger adults would still be enrolled full time with high tuition costs? Kind of like once you should be able to take care of yourself, you're on your own, but until then they would have some help?

badbullgator
02-26-2010, 01:52 PM
Don;t have kids if you can't take care of them. that is a HUGE problem. Maybe it is just me, but I paid my own tuition (a couple of scolarships and 2 pell grants aside, but I earned the scolarships and the grants came to about 1K each). I also paid my own insurance by working full time while I went to school full time. (BTW I am a scientist and a full time college load was by no means loaded with "easy" course work). It took me close to two decades to pay off my loans but I did it. I paid my childs tuition and healthcare and actually continue to help her with grad school as needed, but she works as attends school at night so she has her own insurance.
Note that I can from a single parent home, my father died when I was 6. My mother worked her butt off to keep us going and I never knew we we poorish... she went back to college at night to better our lives, but between working all day and scholl at night I spent a lot of time fending for myself. Maybe that made me more independant than a lot of people, but that is a good thing in my book.
Nobody helped me and I never asked. I don't mind helping folks IF I decide to do so, but I do not need the government taking my money and helping others that sit on their asses and don't help themselves.
You can be what ever you want to be in this country regardless of what you have to start with, but you have to work for it and you have to earn it.

ducknwork
02-26-2010, 02:23 PM
Bend over...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100226/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

YardleyLabs
02-26-2010, 02:50 PM
In their opening statements, Republicans made it clear that they would not support any comprehensive health care bill not matter how is was structured since they believed the government does not do comprehensive well and that a piecemeal approach was better. They also made it clear that providing coverage for the uninsured and underinsured is not a strong priority. Given those positions, Democrats either accept the Republican limitation, or move forward anyway.

Personally, I believe that substantive health care reform cannot work without virtually universal coverage. Without that there is no legitimate way to curb pre-existing condition exclusions or efforts to segment the market in a manner that will leave those with the greatest risk of medical problems uninsured either through outright exclusion or through exorbitant premiums. Further, I believe that it would be better for governemnt to dramatically reduce its support for employer health plans if it is not prepared to move toward universal coverage. As they are now structured, these plans are a major part of the problem, not the solution. Let everyone buy their own coverage with after tax dollars so we can finally begin to see some price based decision making. But my preference would be to see universal coverage and I believe that the administration, if it is serious, should propose this as part of the budget and use budget reconciliation to force an up or down vote..

M&K's Retrievers
02-26-2010, 03:00 PM
What do you think about extending coverage to say children, or even to an age where younger adults would still be enrolled full time with high tuition costs? Kind of like once you should be able to take care of yourself, you're on your own, but until then they would have some help?

There are two areas that should be adressed by any government: (1.) those who cannot afford insurance and (2.) those who are uninsurable because of existing conditions. Both situations are already taken care of due to the fact that no one can be refused treatment including the uninsurable. Most states have uninsureable risk pools which allows those who are uninsurable to purchase coverage. As it stands today in America, everyone, including illegal aliens cannot be refused treatment. They need to stop trying to fix something that isn't broken.

YardleyLabs
02-26-2010, 03:12 PM
There are two areas that should be adressed by any government: (1.) those who cannot afford insurance and (2.) those who are uninsurable because of existing conditions. Both situations are already taken care of due to the fact that no one can be refused treatment including the uninsurable. Most states have uninsureable risk pools which allows those who are uninsurable to purchase coverage. As it stands today in America, everyone, including illegal aliens cannot be refused treatment. They need to stop trying to fix something that isn't broken.
They are actually only required to be provided life saving treatment. There is no requirement that they be provided non-urgent care. Chemo and radiation treatment, for example, would not need to be provided even though the patient is likely to die without them. Estimates are that more people die each year because they lack health insurance than die in traffic accidents.

Hoosier
02-26-2010, 05:41 PM
They are actually only required to be provided life saving treatment. There is no requirement that they be provided non-urgent care. Chemo and radiation treatment, for example, would not need to be provided even though the patient is likely to die without them. Estimates are that more people die each year because they lack health insurance than die in traffic accidents.

Jeff, I'm curious as to how they can estimate something like that. It would seem to me that a higher percentage of the people who engage in risky behavior (dysfunctional alcoholics, drug addicts ect.) would not be buying health insurance, or have a job to provide it. In these cases, which I think would be a large number, wouldn't it be lifestyle rather then lack of medical coverage that causes death. Just seems like a statistic that would be easy to twist to support your position. I haven't had a statistics class though.

YardleyLabs
02-26-2010, 06:08 PM
To be fair, I think any such studies are necessarily speculative. The fundamental logic, however, is sound.

First, people tend to forget that the uninsured are typically not the poor. The poor are covered by Medicaid, just as the aged are covered by Medicare. The uninsured are typically people who have lost their jobs or are working full or more than full time time in jobs paying enough to make the rent, but not enough to pay the premiums for private insurance.

The care the unisinured fail to get is preventative care, such as vaccinations or early detection services (colonoscopies, mammograms, etc), care for chronic ailments such as asthma, and services following an emergency medical intervention such as post operative care, care following a heart attack or stroke, or even chemo or radiation therapy. Many of these services used to be provided by public health clinics or free clinics, but these have largely closed.

None of these services qualify as urgent care that must be provided for free. However, all of these services have been proven effective over and over again at reducing mortality and morbidity dramatically. Instead of seeking preventative care or early treatment, the uninsured wait until small problems have grown into medical emergencies. In some cases this is a matter of pride. In others a simple matter of economics.

The most recent study estimated deaths that were largely attributable to lack of insurance at 45,000 people per year (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/ (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/). Also see http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/). This was largely a repeat of a study done by the National Institutes of Health in 1993 which estimated deaths at 18,000 per year. The difference is largely attributable to the growth in the number of the uninsured.

EDIT: Following a 42% increase in premiums charged for the health insurance I offered employees through my company, many of my staff dropped coverage because they could not afford the cost. Unfortunately, I could not afford to pay the cost for them. One young woman with two small children was then diagnosed with a brain tumor. She was lucky. The tumor was removed at the expense of the Maryland Medicaid program. She received the care she needed and returned to work afterward. However, she was no longer eligible for health insurance because of her pre-existing condition.

Hoosier
02-27-2010, 10:20 AM
Profits drive innovation. How is this bill going to affect R&D for medical devices, and pharmaceuticals? I know they are proposing a fee on medical devices, but is the government going to just tell these industries how much they are going to pay for devices?

M&K's Retrievers
02-27-2010, 12:35 PM
Profits drive innovation. How is this bill going to affect R&D for medical devices, and pharmaceuticals? I know they are proposing a fee on medical devices, but is the government going to just tell these industries how much they are going to pay for devices?

You got it. The best health care system in the world is about to take major steps back ( a nice way of saying going down the sh!tter).

YardleyLabs
02-27-2010, 02:07 PM
Both the pharmaceutical companies and the medical device manufacturers are comfortable that their profits will rise with a bill the provides universal coverage. Their fear is a bill that allows the government to begin negotiating prices aggressively.

BonMallari
02-27-2010, 02:27 PM
Both the pharmaceutical companies and the medical device manufacturers are comfortable that their profits will rise with a bill the provides universal coverage. Their fear is a bill that allows the government to begin negotiating prices aggressively.

I agree wholeheartedly....but wont certain insurance carriers reap enormous profits if insurance is mandated and they are the designated insurer of choice by the govt

YardleyLabs
02-27-2010, 03:20 PM
I agree wholeheartedly....but wont certain insurance carriers reap enormous profits if insurance is mandated and they are the designated insurer of choice by the govt
I suspect that will depend more on the details. The plans being discussed do not have any "designated" providers. Rather they provide exchanges where any company can put forward a plan meeting minimum service standards and then compete for a broad market through the "exchanges". For companies that now profit from selling "fine print" policies (meaning those that give benefits in large type but take them back in small type), this approach will cut into their business by removing much of their ability to fool unsuspecting customers. While not one of the big abusers, Aetna, for example, may lose business since they have developed a specialty practice of selling policies with low premiums and even lower benefits (high deductibles, 40% co-pays, and low life time maximums). However, the major companies still believe they will benefit from the increase in population served as long as coverage is virtually universal and there is no public plan.

If coverage is not universal, insurance companies stand to lose a lot if there are any real controls on recessions and exclusions for pre-existing conditions. So far, of course, proposals concerning these items have only been window dressing, with the creation of high risk pools with premiums several times those of people outside of the pools, and therefore totally unaffordable. At least some of the Republican proposals have followed this approach, adding billions in subsidies for these pools, which should provide a massive profit opportunity. A similar strategy was followed with New Jersey auto insurance at one time. The insurance companies managed to get the majority of NJ drivers classified into the high risk pool and made huge profits from the public subsidies. It is this kind of problem that leads me to oppose any plan that is not virtually universal. There is too much money to be made in abusing the margins that define who is in and who is out with any non-universal plans.

Hoosier
02-27-2010, 03:23 PM
Both the pharmaceutical companies and the medical device manufacturers are comfortable that their profits will rise with a bill the provides universal coverage. Their fear is a bill that allows the government to begin negotiating prices aggressively.

I don't know how you can say they are comfortable that profits will rise. When the reality is that the government will impose pricing pressure that will drive down profits and limit R&D spending. As new products are released the average selling price begins to erode over time and it is only through the release of new products that the average selling price is maintained over time. If the cost to develop, provide clinical evidence, gain approval and market those products can not be recouped by the uplift in selling price the companies will not pursue those new products. Innovation, that is the result of research that is developed into a marketable product is only there through many failed attempts in the R&D cycle. The cost of developing new technologies that provide a better quality of life and extend life comes at a cost.
I don't know about you but I don't want medical advancements and available technologies to become equivalent to the Christmas season price wars between Walmart and Kmart.

-- Mrs. Hoosier

YardleyLabs
02-27-2010, 03:38 PM
I don't know how you can say they are comfortable that profits will rise. When the reality is that the government will impose pricing pressure that will drive down profits and limit R&D spending. As new products are released the average selling price begins to erode over time and it is only through the release of new products that the average selling price is maintained over time. If the cost to develop, provide clinical evidence, gain approval and market those products can not be recouped by the uplift in selling price the companies will not pursue those new products. Innovation, that is the result of research that is developed into a marketable product is only there through many failed attempts in the R&D cycle. The cost of developing new technologies that provide a better quality of life and extend life comes at a cost.
I don't know about you but I don't want medical advancements and available technologies to become equivalent to the Christmas season price wars between Walmart and Kmart.

-- Mrs. Hoosier
I suspect that there is a fair amount of truth to claims that a deal was negotiated between PhARMA and tyhe administration at the beginning of efforts to pass ahealth care bill (See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html). In any event, all the major bills have avoided any of the types of cost control programs opposed by the industry. In addition, the pharmaceutical industry committed amounts rumored to total $150-200 million to promote health reform (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030403938.html and http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/08/drug-industry-helping-obama-overhaul-health-care/).

Uncle Bill
02-28-2010, 02:18 PM
And at what point do you, most erudite one, believe the cost of cigarettes will reduce the amount of lung cancer? Why are we not running the price of Big Macs into the sky due to all the fat kids we have in this nation, or is that what's coming next?

There really is no room in a socialists mind for individual responsibility is there? Not until this nation succumbs to the government ubber alles...complete reliance on the leadership of the Obamaites and their cronies, and those that will follow that form of oligarchy...not only cradle to grave reliance by the people...but erection to resurrection....is that what you see happening and desire?

Your condescending story of your entry into a Washington hospital that wouldn't accept your insurance is a case of "Hey..I'm not at fault...it's the problem of everyone else!"

While I wouldn't wish loss of any part of eyesight on anyone, that's not the point. If you accept employment in parts of the country that won't abide by the insurance coverage you get at home, wouldn't it be YOUR responsibility to get coverage that is national?

Eventually the loss of freedoms that socialism places on it's citizens will get your ox gored. THEN it will be a source of concern, but far too late for YOU to do anything about it.

If you can't connect the dots and see how this administration is steering the SFNC towards a global government, you've got blinders on. Once we have lost our sovereignty, we are a crumbled nation. Almost daily we see those companies that were part of the Atlas group shrugging, and leaving their responsibilities to the 'inmates'. (Kinda like what happened in South Africa.) How long do you think the 'inmates' will need before the entire company is driven into the ground? Does the example of Greece come to mind? Do you think those people will be able to patch up Humpty Dumpty?

As this country continues into the abyss, I couldn't give a FRA who opened the barn door, the horses are all out and need to be rounded up. But all you and Roger and DNF and the rest of your lefties can do is continue to bitch and moan about who left the barn door open!

Like a batch of Nagins you have no clue how to round up those horses, or even help calling them back...you are instead hellbent on burning down the barn. Is there any wonder how the folks that recognize what you are doing to this country are up in arms? Joining TEA parties and anything else that will bring down the incomprehensible fools that are spending our sovereign nation into oblivion?

How long will it take for you and the others to realize you are crapping in your own messkit? When will the spending become so bloated and fraudulent that you will admit enough is enough?

Let me admit to you, I should be in the catbirds seat. But I'm scared as hell. I "think" a few hundred ounces of gold and several bags of silver should tide me over, but I see inflation coming like a ten mile wide line of Rommel Panzers, and it's frightening.

But being a socialist thinker, you no doubt live by the anti-Lincolnism of everybody becoming equal...making short people tall by cutting the legs off the tall people. If none of us can afford a loaf of bread, then we can all be miserable together. What a shining light of despotism.

It would be nice to be able to believe this 'recession/depression' will be over soon, and all things will return to normal quickly. I'm sorry to say, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but that's subject matter for another time.

UB

ducknwork
03-01-2010, 07:50 AM
As this country continues into the abyss, I couldn't give a FRA who opened the barn door, the horses are all out and need to be rounded up.

THIS is the best sentence in your entire post.

Who's gonna do the rounding up and who's gonna just let the horses roam free?

YardleyLabs
03-01-2010, 08:06 AM
....

Your condescending story of your entry into a Washington hospital that wouldn't accept your insurance is a case of "Hey..I'm not at fault...it's the problem of everyone else!"

While I wouldn't wish loss of any part of eyesight on anyone, that's not the point. If you accept employment in parts of the country that won't abide by the insurance coverage you get at home, wouldn't it be YOUR responsibility to get coverage that is national?
...
Strictly from the perspective of factual accuracy, the hospital did accept my insurance happily. The rate it was paid was the rate it accepts from all policies providing in-network and out of network coverage where it is not part of the network. The point of the post was, first, that nothing about the system we have now guarantees or even necessarily promotes good medical care. Had I chosen to sue -- which I saw no reason to do -- they would probably have been found guilty of malpractice. Second, the coverage I had -- provided by CIGNA and HealthNet -- was deliberately national in scope but still required each beneficiary to select a local area primary network. That is the case with virtually every insurance policy offered through employers anywhere in the country.

The insurance reimbursement system that we have today is broken from both the perspective of health service providers and patients.

Hoosier
03-01-2010, 08:47 AM
Strictly from the perspective of factual accuracy, the hospital did accept my insurance happily. The rate it was paid was the rate it accepts from all policies providing in-network and out of network coverage where it is not part of the network. The point of the post was, first, that nothing about the system we have now guarantees or even necessarily promotes good medical care. Had I chosen to sue -- which I saw no reason to do -- they would probably have been found guilty of malpractice. Second, the coverage I had -- provided by CIGNA and HealthNet -- was deliberately national in scope but still required each beneficiary to select a local area primary network. That is the case with virtually every insurance policy offered through employers anywhere in the country.

The insurance reimbursement system that we have today is broken from both the perspective of health service providers and patients.

It's broken because Americans want Cadillac care for beat up Chevy prices.

Henry V
03-01-2010, 08:55 AM
Warren Buffett says current US health care system is an 'economic tape worm' hindering US
http://www.startribune.com/business/85805412.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

There was a good health care piece yesterday at:http://www.startribune.com/opinion/85715647.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc :aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
With a link to a great page of facts at: http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1OpEdhealth0228.gr_online.pdf

It is great to see that we now spend an average of $7,290 per person on health care, and won’t it be great when we get to 20% of GDP? With the Wellpoint premium increases of 39% this year, maybe we can get there even sooner.

YardleyLabs
03-01-2010, 09:10 AM
It's broken because Americans want Cadillac care for beat up Chevy prices.
I think that is a big part of it. And having employers helping to conceal the true cost through premium subsidies and low or no co-pay programs helps to insulate the consumer/patient even more from the true cost. That is why normal economic analysis does not work in the health field. I would love to see a true health care market, but that would require eliminating all insurance, which would fail by almost every measure. Short of that, I would like to see families paying the full cost of health insurance premiums directly, without tax deductions or employer involvement. Unfortunately, experience indicates that most people would simply not buy insurance at all unless their medical needs were so great they were uninsurable. The system we have now subsidizes the excesses of health providers, impairs the competitiveness of American businesses in the global market, and prevents a large part of the population from receiving needed care, actually charging the uninsured more for service than it charges those with insurance coverage. I do not believe there is any good solution for this problem. However, I believe that what we have now is worse by most measures than many of the alternatives used in other countries.

"Socialism" vs. "Conservatism" is not relevant since the approaches being suggested on both sides of the ideological fence are "socialist".-- no insurance company or corporate health care provider wants to see consumers paying (or not paying) from their own pockets. However, I think the debate is fueled by tension between the "have's" and the "have not's". On one hand, those with coverage are fearful that extending benefits to the uninsured might reduce their own benefits. That fear is mitigated a little by the fact that many, if not most, "have's" know that they could easily join the ranks of the uninsured. More importantly, those providers benefiting most from the current structure of benefits and services fear that any change might damage their profits. Unfortunately, I think these are the interests actually driving the debate, clothed in volumes of disinformation.

Buzz
03-01-2010, 09:32 AM
Warren Buffett says current US health care system is an 'economic tape worm' hindering US
http://www.startribune.com/business/85805412.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

There was a good health care piece yesterday at:http://www.startribune.com/opinion/85715647.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc :aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
With a link to a great page of facts at: http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1OpEdhealth0228.gr_online.pdf

It is great to see that we now spend an average of $7,290 per person on health care, and won’t it be great when we get to 20% of GDP? With the Wellpoint premium increases of 39% this year, maybe we can get there even sooner.


Henry, didn't you know that Buffett is a liberal. Can't trust anything those liberals say...;-) Whatever Buffett says, you'd be better off to do the opposite.

M&K's Retrievers
03-01-2010, 10:06 AM
It's broken because Americans want Cadillac care for beat up Chevy prices.

Well said! Insurance companies have been developing "low cost" plans for years only to have consumers turn their noses up. Consumers would rather be uninsured if they can't have the cadilac. The low cost plan should be the only option.

"Managed Care" came on the scene to lower costs. How? by adding low Docter Co-pays, Drug Cards with low co-pays and other first dollar coverage assuming this preventative coverage would keep the major claims lower. The system is trying to combine health care with health insurance. Health insurance is meant to protect people from catistrophic loss not protect them from themselves or encourage them to go to the doc at the drop of a hat. If you want to lower the cost, a good start would be to increase the insureds out of pocket in the form of higher deductibles and coinsurance. Get rid of PPO discounts. If the provider can do it lower for one, it can do it lower for all enforced by reasonable and customary charge limitations. Tort reform to help reduce the defensive medicine costs we "enjoy" today in the form of unnecessary testing.

Something has to be done about drugs. I don't know what that something is but it is out of control. I suspect you could start with the FDA. At one time, out patient drugs accounted for 30% of all health care costs. I don't know if that's still the case but it might explain why you can find three drug stores on the same intersection. They can't be making a profit selling paper towels and developing film.

Now, if I can get off this soap box without breaking my leg....

Hoosier
03-01-2010, 01:22 PM
PS - Canada has a higher life expectancy

I believe the US ranks 9th in the world in obesity, where does Canada rank?

Gerry Clinchy
03-01-2010, 03:22 PM
I got a chuckle out of this NY Times headline in the Op-Ed today:
Financial Reform Endgame (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01krugman.html?th&emc=th)By PAUL KRUGMAN
No financial reform is better than a weak reform that would only create a false sense of security then fail in the clinch.

If no financial reform is better than poor financial reform, why would poor health care reform be better than no reform? I've heard the latter espoused as a reason to pass the current legislation, even though it may not be good legislation.

YardleyLabs
03-01-2010, 03:33 PM
I got a chuckle out of this NY Times headline in the Op-Ed today:
Financial Reform Endgame (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01krugman.html?th&emc=th)By PAUL KRUGMAN
No financial reform is better than a weak reform that would only create a false sense of security then fail in the clinch.

If no financial reform is better than poor financial reform, why would poor health care reform be better than no reform? I've heard the latter espoused as a reason to pass the current legislation, even though it may not be good legislation.
It depends on your definition of poor. I believe that any change that provides less than virtually universal coverage for hospitalization, preventive services, and prescription drugs. I believe pretenses at reform that do not provide this level will be more damaging than doing nothing. Republicans have said that they do not believe that any comprehensive program can be done well and that only marginal changes should be attempted. That is a pretty irreconcilable difference, which is why I would favor using reconciliation to pass what can be passed with a simple majority.

road kill
03-01-2010, 03:41 PM
It depends on your definition of poor. I believe that any change that provides less than virtually universal coverage for hospitalization, preventive services, and prescription drugs. I believe pretenses at reform that do not provide this level will be more damaging than doing nothing. Republicans have said that they do not believe that any comprehensive program can be done well and that only marginal changes should be attempted. That is a pretty irreconcilable difference, which is why I would favor using reconciliation to pass what can be passed with a simple majority.


That's why it will NOT pass, your side does not have the votes!!:D


rk

Gerry Clinchy
03-01-2010, 08:42 PM
It depends on your definition of poor. I believe that any change that provides less than virtually universal coverage for hospitalization, preventive services, and prescription drugs. I believe pretenses at reform that do not provide this level will be more damaging than doing nothing. Republicans have said that they do not believe that any comprehensive program can be done well and that only marginal changes should be attempted. That is a pretty irreconcilable difference, which is why I would favor using reconciliation to pass what can be passed with a simple majority.

I'm really confused here. So you think this is a good plan, based on the act that you think it should be passed.

Do we know what plan it is anymore? The reconciliation concept was to have the House pass the Senate bill, and then have the Senate add stuf that had been in the House bill, but not in the Senate bill. Now, it seems we also have things that the White House wants to include, Presumably, then, the Senate will also add those items?

There is some not-good stuff in there, that, even with near-universal coverage will end up costing more than their estimates (like the White House version that entails extending the Nebraska "favor" to more states. Anybody willing to bet it's not going to end up costing more than we're told it will cost?

I keep thinking of LBJ's comment on Medicare, "If they know what this is really going to cost, it will never pass." I also keep thinking of how SS, which might have been self-sustaining, was messed up by Congress not being able to control its use of the surpluses that would have provided the sustainability. Imagine what the geniuses can do with this one.

duckheads
03-02-2010, 10:39 AM
It depends on your definition of poor. I believe that any change that provides less than virtually universal coverage for hospitalization, preventive services, and prescription drugs. I believe pretenses at reform that do not provide this level will be more damaging than doing nothing. Republicans have said that they do not believe that any comprehensive program can be done well and that only marginal changes should be attempted. That is a pretty irreconcilable difference, which is why I would favor using reconciliation to pass what can be passed with a simple majority.

and how would you pay for this universal coverage?

The post office is going broke and you think the goberment can run health care. I really can't think of anything the goberment runs efficiently. Please enlighten me if you know of an efficient goberment entity.

JDogger
03-02-2010, 10:58 AM
and how would you pay for this universal coverage?

The post office is going broke and you think the goberment can run health care. I really can't think of anything the goberment runs efficiently. Please enlighten me if you know of an efficient goberment entity.

There's going to be a lot of shocked servicemen and women to find out they're inefficient.

M&K's Retrievers
03-02-2010, 11:06 AM
There's going to be a lot of shocked servicemen and women to find out they're inefficient.

The armed services are the only exception and a lot of their expenditures are certainly questionable.

Hoosier
03-02-2010, 11:12 AM
There's going to be a lot of shocked servicemen and women to find out they're inefficient.

Nicely played, do you really think they get the most bang for their buck? I'd like to supply the armed forces with floor wax and paint.

JDogger
03-02-2010, 11:14 AM
The armed services are the only exception and a lot of their expenditures are certainly questionable.

What about air traffic control?

YardleyLabs
03-02-2010, 11:29 AM
I'm really confused here. So you think this is a good plan, based on the act that you think it should be passed.

Do we know what plan it is anymore? The reconciliation concept was to have the House pass the Senate bill, and then have the Senate add stuf that had been in the House bill, but not in the Senate bill. Now, it seems we also have things that the White House wants to include, Presumably, then, the Senate will also add those items?

There is some not-good stuff in there, that, even with near-universal coverage will end up costing more than their estimates (like the White House version that entails extending the Nebraska "favor" to more states. Anybody willing to bet it's not going to end up costing more than we're told it will cost?

I keep thinking of LBJ's comment on Medicare, "If they know what this is really going to cost, it will never pass." I also keep thinking of how SS, which might have been self-sustaining, was messed up by Congress not being able to control its use of the surpluses that would have provided the sustainability. Imagine what the geniuses can do with this one.The reconciliation process is not tied to the Senate bill. The Senate bill strategy called for the House to pass the bill previously adopted by the Senate, with no change, so that no additional vote would be needed in the Senate and the filibuster would be irrelevant. However, objections to the Senate bill are strong enough -- particularly with the Nebraska and Florida deals -- that a majority of the House would not vote in favor, although that could theoretically change. The reconciliation process would begin with a new bill developed jointly by the Senate and House and presumably based on the White House proposal with the addition of some of the modifications suggested by Republicans during the summit. This would be incorporated into a a budget bill passed through House Ways & Means. Assuming it is supported by a simple majority in the House, it would then only need 50+1 (a senator or Biden) votes in the Senate to be adopted. That is exactly how the Republicans passed the 2003 tax cuts and the Medicare prescription plan during the last administration. However, while Republicans have used the reconciliation process to pass 17 bills, including several that were not truly budget bills, Democrats have only used the process six times for budget bills and have proven reluctant to adopt the Republican strategy. A number of Democratic Senators have voiced opposition to using the reconciliation process even though they favor passing the health care legislation. In fact, it is not clear that Democrats can overcome reluctance for this strategy sufficiently to get a majority in either house.

Hoosier
03-02-2010, 11:34 AM
I have another question about this health care bill. Is the government going to negotiate pricing of drugs and medical devices? If so I would imagine it would go something like this. They agree to buy x number of basic model pacemakers for x dollars each. The profit for the medical device company will be in the quantity of pacemakers sold, not the in developing new technology. The basic models (shock boxes) will not have the features needed to to customize it for people who are out of the norm (very young people, runners, ect.) but will be what is pushed on them.

I don't have a link to back it up, but I believe Germany buys a certain number from each manufacturer, but giving an advantage to German companies.

K G
03-03-2010, 06:39 PM
Now that BHO doesn't have the votes in Congress to pass the new bill, he's going on the road to "sell" it...:rolleyes:....against the will of the same majority that elected him....:cool:

What a sad time we live in.....

k g

subroc
03-03-2010, 07:03 PM
trading judgeships for votes on healthcare?

real or much ado about nothing?

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes

Gerry Clinchy
03-03-2010, 07:20 PM
Michael Medved today speaking on reconciliation for passing a bill like health care.

He aired a clip of an Obama speech while campaigning in the primary, stating uncategorically that a 50+1 vote was not what a health care reform bill should have to get passed, it should have a super majority of at least 60% for passing ... and he was the one (v Hillary or Edwards) that could get the job done. I would interpret that to mean that such reform should be strikingly superior to whatever it would be replacing so that it would have strong support from a large majority.

It would seem that some things have changed.

BonMallari
03-03-2010, 08:01 PM
Now that BHO doesn't have the votes in Congress to pass the new bill, he's going on the road to "sell" it...:rolleyes:....against the will of the same majority that elected him....:cool:

What a sad time we live in.....

k g

Thats what makes this "game" so dangerous to the American public...deals will be struck, political markers called in, Congresspersons will be threatened,harassed,and extorted to follow along...as we have seen with Landreaux and Nelson, they all have a price...a lot will come down to how many want to back BHO's double down bet on their political futures and careers and gamble with the administrations ability to pull the ace out of the deck....

M&K's Retrievers
03-04-2010, 01:47 PM
He is dangerous, very dangerous.

road kill
03-04-2010, 03:50 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/84969-howard-dean-health-bill-hangs-dem-incumbents-and-obama-out-to-dry-in-elections

I especially like this quote;

"The plan, as it comes from the Senate, hangs out every Democrat who's running for office to dry -- including the president, in 2012, because it makes him defend a plan that isn't in effect essentially yet,"

Have a beer everyone!!


rk

Gerry Clinchy
03-09-2010, 12:20 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/opinion/09brooks.html?th&emc=th

NY Times Op Ed

Not exactly what I'm used to reading in the Times



The Democrats have not been completely irresponsible. It’s just that as the health fight has gone on, their passion for coverage has swamped their less visceral commitment to reducing debt. The result is a bill that is fundamentally imbalanced.

This past year, we’ve seen how hard it is to even pass legislation that expands benefits. To actually reduce benefits and raise taxes, we’re going to need legislators who wake up in the morning passionate about fiscal sanity. The ones we have now are just making things worse.

Gerry Clinchy
03-09-2010, 12:26 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/opinion/09herbert.html?th&emc=th

Another op-ed from the Times

Is this a new trend?


But the fact that the Republicans are pathetic and destructive is no reason for the Democrats to shirk their obligation to fight powerfully and relentlessly for the economic well-being of all Americans. There are now six people in the employment market for every available job. There is a staggering backlog of discouraged workers who would show up tomorrow if there were a job to be had.


The many millions of new jobs needed to make a real dent in the employment crisis are not going to materialize by themselves. Mr. Obama and the Democrats don’t seem to understand that.

M&K's Retrievers
03-09-2010, 12:56 PM
I think it's going to blow. It has to.

T. Mac
03-11-2010, 05:24 PM
kind of off topic but still an interesting and related read.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234710

T. Mac