PDA

View Full Version : Damn the People, Full Speed Ahead...



road kill
07-07-2010, 11:49 AM
Another Marxist appointee.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/health/policy/07recess.html?_r=2&hp

Here is a video of him speaking on wealth distribution.
Watch & listen carefully at 1:50!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGHGEs3us98&feature=related

Buzz, could you snopes his words?
Jdogger, are we keeping you up??




rk

subroc
07-07-2010, 12:06 PM
I viewed the vid. I believe the guy is a dirt bag, a real communist, but, elections have consequences. I reveled in the recess appointment of John Bolton. I still believe it was one of the great appointments of all time, a real "right man at the right time for the right job" kind of thing. Too bad the left wing media and the left wing congress destroyed his chance to succeed. He clearly had the United States and her allies at heart and was a cornerstone of his decision making process with a willingness to identify those that would not stand with the United States.

I doubt this guy could ever be a right man for the right job at the right time kind of guy.

BTW, I have no problem with the policy of recess appointments.

YardleyLabs
07-07-2010, 12:46 PM
I viewed the vid. I believe the guy is a dirt bag, a real communist, but, elections have consequences. I reveled in the recess appointment of John Bolton. I still believe it was one of the great appointments of all time, a real "right man at the right time for the right job" kind of thing. Too bad the left wing media and the left wing congress destroyed his chance to succeed. He clearly had the United States and her allies at heart and was a cornerstone of his decision making process with a willingness to identify those that would not stand with the United States.

I doubt this guy could ever be a right man for the right job at the right time kind of guy.

BTW, I have no problem with the policy of recess appointments.
I agree on recess appointments in general even though I detested Bolton and have no real opinion on Berwick, although I agreed with most of his comments in the video.

Franco
07-07-2010, 12:57 PM
I viewed the vid. I believe the guy is a dirt bag, a real communist, but, elections have consequences. I reveled in the recess appointment of John Bolton. I still believe it was one of the great appointments of all time, a real "right man at the right time for the right job" kind of thing. Too bad the left wing media and the left wing congress destroyed his chance to succeed. He clearly had the United States and her allies at heart and was a cornerstone of his decision making process with a willingness to identify those that would not stand with the United States.

.

I agree 100% with you on John Bolton. He is a no nonsense tough negociator. Not like the ass-kissers we have today! Bolton dealt from a position of strength and would never compromise our voice in the world. He was the best U N Ambassador we have ever had. Prior to the Obama Administration, our enemies actually feared USA resolve. Not like today where they know we have little experience on the world stage.

Obama's ass-kissing apology tour still disgust me!

road kill
07-07-2010, 01:40 PM
I agree on recess appointments in general even though I detested Bolton and have no real opinion on Berwick, although I agreed with most of his comments in the video.

Something I knew about you all along.

Wealth redistribution is Marxism, not the tenant of a Representative Republic (which we were founded to be).

It is simply wrong and NOT American in it's very nature.





rk

YardleyLabs
07-07-2010, 02:04 PM
Something I knew about you all along.

Wealth redistribution is Marxism, not the tenant of a Representative Republic (which we were founded to be).

It is simply wrong and NOT American in it's very nature.





rk
Actually, redistribution of wealth is something that has been going on under government auspices for as long as there have been governments. Of course, pre-19th century, the primary direction for redistribution was from the poor to the rich. Kings took from the serfs, slave owners took from their slaves. Maybe it's just the redistribution from wealthy to poor that bothers you. If you listen to what was actually said in the video instead of just reading the titles added by the "editor", you would find that he never advocated redistribution per se. What he stated was that the ill are more likely to be poor than the rich, that any form of health care that provided services based on medical need would necessarily involve income redistribution. That is as true for commercial insurance policies as it is for government sponsored services. More interesting were all of his other comments concerning substantive differences between the British NHS and the US health care system. I would love to hear your point by point discussion of those.

Roger Perry
07-07-2010, 02:38 PM
Recess appointments are common. GW Bush made 171 of them

road kill
07-07-2010, 02:45 PM
Recess appointments are common. GW Bush made 171 of them

I'm realizing that President Bush is the GOLD standard that this administration is based on!!

It's awesome!!:D


rk

Gerry Clinchy
07-07-2010, 03:01 PM
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/06/obama-to-recess-appoint-radica

Based on the quotes I read here, if they are representative of Mr. Berwick's views and intentions, Jeff, you may feel differently about him when you become a participant in the Medicare system.

Franco
07-07-2010, 03:30 PM
I can hear Dr Berwick and his henchmen now;

No more oxygen for Granny, she's past her quota"!

It is looking like all the concerns that we the people had with Obamacare, the concerns that the Democrats denied, are turning out to be true.

UK style Health Care is unAmerican! We are use to better care and now that Obama wants to add 30 to 50 million freeloaders to Health Care policies, the productive tax payers will now suffer!

YardleyLabs
07-07-2010, 03:47 PM
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/06/obama-to-recess-appoint-radica

Based on the quotes I read here, if they are representative of Mr. Berwick's views and intentions, Jeff, you may feel differently about him when you become a participant in the Medicare system.
I believe in national health care. However, I do not believe that a national health care program should necessarily pay the cost of all health care without regard to cost or benefit. If you want to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars giving, for example, a heart transplant to an 85 year old patient in otherwise poor health, go for it. However, I see no reason why the rest of us should help pay the bill. There are a lot of reasons why we spend 17+% of GDP on health care when other countries achieve better outcomes while spending dramatically less. I don't think that either unhealthy lifestyles or better quality care are the primary reasons. I think that the number one reason is that the recipients of service have almost no economic stake in the cost of service either directly, by paying bills, or indirectly by paying the full cost of insurance. It that environment, we either need to force consumers to pay directly for much more of the cost of care, or we have to rely on other approaches for managing costs. Commercial insurance plans now impose numerous limits on coverage that affect consumer costs. Government paid plans need to do the same.

road kill
07-07-2010, 04:12 PM
I believe in national health care. However, I do not believe that a national health care program should necessarily pay the cost of all health care without regard to cost or benefit. If you want to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars giving, for example, a heart transplant to an 85 year old patient in otherwise poor health, go for it. However, I see no reason why the rest of us should help pay the bill. There are a lot of reasons why we spend 17+% of GDP on health care when other countries achieve better outcomes while spending dramatically less. I don't think that either unhealthy lifestyles or better quality care are the primary reasons. I think that the number one reason is that the recipients of service have almost no economic stake in the cost of service either directly, by paying bills, or indirectly by paying the full cost of insurance. It that environment, we either need to force consumers to pay directly for much more of the cost of care, or we have to rely on other approaches for managing costs. Commercial insurance plans now impose numerous limits on coverage that affect consumer costs. Government paid plans need to do the same.

....or an abortion for a 20 something with no morals.




rk

YardleyLabs
07-07-2010, 04:23 PM
....or an abortion for a 20 something with no morals.




rk
Actually, no Federally financed programs pay for that abortion now. However, if your only concern is to save money, maybe they should.

EDIT: Can I infer from your comment on morals that you remained a virgin until married? I wouldn't be too quick to say someone you don't know has no morals. Walk in their shoes first.

road kill
07-07-2010, 04:28 PM
Actually, no Federally financed programs pay for that abortion now. However, if your only concern is to save money, maybe they should.

EDIT: Can I infer from your comment on morals that you remained a virgin until married? I wouldn't be too quick to say someone you don't know has no morals. Walk in their shoes first.

I didn't make any babys.
See the difference??

I didn't think so.:rolleyes:



rk

Franco
07-07-2010, 04:45 PM
Actually, no Federally financed programs pay for that abortion now. However, if your only concern is to save money, maybe they should.



Abortion funding was the only thing that made any sense in the earlier Obamacare bill.

Many of the same people that cry foul when the government gets too intrusive are the same folks that want to tell a woman what to do with her body!

This is an issue that folks just need to mind thier own buisness!

Never had one and never been involved with one. But, I'll be damned if I am going to tell someone else what they should be doing!

road kill
07-07-2010, 04:48 PM
Abortion funding was the only thing that made any sense in the earlier Obamacare bill.

Many of the same people that cry foul when the government gets too intrusive are the same folks that want to tell a woman what to do with her body!

This is an issue that folks just need to mind thier own buisness!

Never had one and never been involved with one. But, I'll be damned if I am going to tell someone else what they should be doing!

Should we be paying for it??

And what if the "old man" wants to live??
He doesn't count??
Who decides that??



rk

Franco
07-07-2010, 04:55 PM
Should we be paying for it??
Pay now or pay a lot more later.

And what if the "old man" wants to live??
What old man?
He doesn't count??
?
Who decides that??
Decides what?



rk



..............

road kill
07-07-2010, 04:59 PM
..............

You didn't see Yardleys post I was initially responding to.

This old man;
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
"I believe in national health care. However, I do not believe that a national health care program should necessarily pay the cost of all health care without regard to cost or benefit. If you want to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars giving, for example, a heart transplant to an 85 year old patient in otherwise poor health, go for it. However, I see no reason why the rest of us should help pay the bill. "



rk

Franco
07-07-2010, 05:07 PM
You must have missed my post;
I can hear Dr Berwick and his henchmen now;

No more oxygen for Granny, she's past her quota"!

------------------

A heart transplant for an 85 year old sounds too stressful and doesn't make sense. However, why should people that have been paying for Health Insurance most of their lives now be subjected to health care rationing?

Health Care rationing is Socialist to the core! Because we now have to pay for others to have Health Insurance, we have to accept less care. I call BS on this!

david gibson
07-08-2010, 09:12 PM
You must have missed my post;
I can hear Dr Berwick and his henchmen now;

No more oxygen for Granny, she's past her quota"!

------------------

A heart transplant for an 85 year old sounds too stressful and doesn't make sense. However, why should people that have been paying for Health Insurance most of their lives now be subjected to health care rationing?

Health Care rationing is Socialist to the core! Because we now have to pay for others to have Health Insurance, we have to accept less care. I call BS on this!


"its not a matter of if we ration, if its if we do it with our eyes open or not"

and obama ridiculed palin and others for saying there would be rationing, and he appoints this guy.

no wonder he recessed him in.

scumbag

dnf777
07-08-2010, 09:34 PM
You didn't see Yardleys post I was initially responding to.

This old man;
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
"I believe in national health care. However, I do not believe that a national health care program should necessarily pay the cost of all health care without regard to cost or benefit. If you want to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars giving, for example, a heart transplant to an 85 year old patient in otherwise poor health, go for it. However, I see no reason why the rest of us should help pay the bill. "
rk

How 'bout liver transplants for folks to tip the bottle?
CABG or stents for folks who ate at the Golden Arches?
How bout knee replacements for folks who carried a little too much excess?
How bout medical care period for those who did something stupid to themselves?
Lung surgery for smokers?

I'm not so much concerned about the answers to those questions....but rather WHO will be answering them for us! There are many anti-government positions here on this forum, but gov-ran medicare pays for all the above. Yes, its expensive, but what's the alternative? Letting corporate conference rooms filled with bean counters construct payment guidelines? Where do you strike the balance between letting free markets and private industry run things and make obscene profits at the cost of care to clients......versus gov't control and spending to provide the same? Obviously, neither extreme is acceptable, but both sides seem to have exclusive domain attitudes.

Gerry Clinchy
07-08-2010, 10:07 PM
There are many anti-government positions here on this forum, but gov-ran medicare pays for all the above.

I think the point is, Dave, that we have learned from Medicare that we may not be able to sustain paying for these expensive treatments for everyone. Making those decisions in corporate boardrooms wouldn't be much different from making them in bureaucratic cubicles.

When we get to the point of discussing whether an individual should be penalized with taking away treatment because they led "health-immoral" lives to end up with needing stents or knee replacements we are getting onto a slippery slope as to how much govt can interfere with personal freedoms.

When a drunk driver kills an innocent, they rarely receive a death penalty. In fact, there are a lot of people who oppose capital punishment for ANY crime. Yet ... would these same people deny treatment to the former (or current) alcoholic who needs a liver transplant? Wouldn't that be a form of capital punishment for the crime of being careless with one's personal habits? (even if they didn't kill somebody else in the process!)

It appears that the UK has reduced the problem to numbers ... because they have found they cannot provide all treatments to all people on a sustainable basis.

YardleyLabs
07-08-2010, 10:17 PM
"its not a matter of if we ration, if its if we do it with our eyes open or not"

and obama ridiculed palin and others for saying there would be rationing, and he appoints this guy.

no wonder he recessed him in.

scumbag
We ration health care now. Those few who can afford to pay for themselves get the best care. They are followed by those who have insurance paid (usually) primarily by their employer. Next are those who are covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Finally, the uninsured get whatever is left over -- decent emergency care and almost nothing else.

RK,

Once you choose to have sex, you are betting on birth control methods that are not completely effective. Pregnancy is always possible if neither party is sterile and their genders are different. You may be able to stack the deck, but you don't own it and mother Nature has her own ways of throwing a monkey wrench, or baby, into the oven.:rolleyes:

BTW, I believe that all Federal insurance programs should cover abortions. The cost, both direct and indirect, is less than not having an abortion, so economic issues are irrelevant. A large percentage of medical care results from lifestyle decisions. I believe that the only reasons for limiting coverage are because of opposition to abortion under any circumstances. However, if that is the issue, make them illegal (I wish bad luck for all such efforts). As long as it is legal, I see no reason for refusing coverage.

kb27_99
07-08-2010, 11:11 PM
I agree on recess appointments in general even though I detested Bolton and have no real opinion on Berwick, although I agreed with most of his comments in the video.

What is your gross worth Jeff $$$?

M&K's Retrievers
07-09-2010, 12:19 AM
....

BTW, I believe that all Federal insurance programs should cover abortions. The cost, both direct and indirect, is less than not having an abortion, so economic issues are irrelevant. A large percentage of medical care results from lifestyle decisions. I believe that the only reasons for limiting coverage are because of opposition to abortion under any circumstances. However, if that is the issue, make them illegal (I wish bad luck for all such efforts). As long as it is legal, I see no reason for refusing coverage.

Yep, your a socialist. How many litters have you aborted because of a "oops" lock up?

david gibson
07-09-2010, 12:40 AM
We ration health care now. Those few who can afford to pay for themselves get the best care. They are followed by those who have insurance paid (usually) primarily by their employer. Next are those who are covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Finally, the uninsured get whatever is left over -- decent emergency care and almost nothing else.

RK,

Once you choose to have sex, you are betting on birth control methods that are not completely effective. Pregnancy is always possible if neither party is sterile and their genders are different. You may be able to stack the deck, but you don't own it and mother Nature has her own ways of throwing a monkey wrench, or baby, into the oven.:rolleyes:

BTW, I believe that all Federal insurance programs should cover abortions. The cost, both direct and indirect, is less than not having an abortion, so economic issues are irrelevant. A large percentage of medical care results from lifestyle decisions. I believe that the only reasons for limiting coverage are because of opposition to abortion under any circumstances. However, if that is the issue, make them illegal (I wish bad luck for all such efforts). As long as it is legal, I see no reason for refusing coverage.

not the same comparison and you know it is totally irrelevant. please, please put me on your ignore list.

cotts135
07-09-2010, 07:51 AM
I viewed the vid. I believe the guy is a dirt bag, a real communist, but, elections have consequences. I reveled in the recess appointment of John Bolton. I still believe it was one of the great appointments of all time, a real "right man at the right time for the right job" kind of thing. Too bad the left wing media and the left wing congress destroyed his chance to succeed. He clearly had the United States and her allies at heart and was a cornerstone of his decision making process with a willingness to identify those that would not stand with the United States.

I doubt this guy could ever be a right man for the right job at the right time kind of guy.

BTW, I have no problem with the policy of recess appointments.


John Bolton tough guy.................. :rolleyes: another one of the fanatical right wing hero's. Here is what he had to say when he really had a chance to step to the plate. "Though Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard, but did not serve in Vietnam. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." Taken from Wikipedia
It is hard for me to respect these guys in any context when clearly when it was their turn they weren't so cavalier in the convictions. A clear comparison comes to mind.........Pat Tillman or John Bolton.

road kill
07-09-2010, 07:54 AM
We ration health care now. Those few who can afford to pay for themselves get the best care. They are followed by those who have insurance paid (usually) primarily by their employer. Next are those who are covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Finally, the uninsured get whatever is left over -- decent emergency care and almost nothing else.

RK,

Once you choose to have sex, you are betting on birth control methods that are not completely effective. Pregnancy is always possible if neither party is sterile and their genders are different. You may be able to stack the deck, but you don't own it and mother Nature has her own ways of throwing a monkey wrench, or baby, into the oven.:rolleyes:

BTW, I believe that all Federal insurance programs should cover abortions. The cost, both direct and indirect, is less than not having an abortion, so economic issues are irrelevant. A large percentage of medical care results from lifestyle decisions. I believe that the only reasons for limiting coverage are because of opposition to abortion under any circumstances. However, if that is the issue, make them illegal (I wish bad luck for all such efforts). As long as it is legal, I see no reason for refusing coverage.


Again, pompous verbose one, that would be my problem would it have occurred (which it did not) not the governments.
See what I'm sayin'??

Of course not!!



rk

YardleyLabs
07-09-2010, 08:11 AM
Again, pompous verbose one, that would be my problem would it have occurred (which it did not) not the governments.
See what I'm sayin'??

Of course not!!



rk
Not really since, if the baby is born we get to pay the bills for child birth anyway if the mom is covered by insurance. I actually have no problem with tha, but you were the one complaining that you would be paying the bill if the mom had an abortion instead.

subroc
07-09-2010, 08:14 AM
John Bolton tough guy.................. :rolleyes: another one of the fanatical right wing hero's. Here is what he had to say when he really had a chance to step to the plate. "Though Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard, but did not serve in Vietnam. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." Taken from Wikipedia
It is hard for me to respect these guys in any context when clearly when it was their turn they weren't so cavalier in the convictions. A clear comparison comes to mind.........Pat Tillman or John Bolton.

and your point? If he had said, I wish I had died in a southeast Asia rice paddy, would that have made you happy?

This guy clearly had and has the interest of the United States front and center in his thinking when he was representing the United States at the UN.

road kill
07-09-2010, 08:43 AM
How 'bout liver transplants for folks to tip the bottle?
CABG or stents for folks who ate at the Golden Arches?
How bout knee replacements for folks who carried a little too much excess?
How bout medical care period for those who did something stupid to themselves?
Lung surgery for smokers?

I'm not so much concerned about the answers to those questions....but rather WHO will be answering them for us! There are many anti-government positions here on this forum, but gov-ran medicare pays for all the above. Yes, its expensive, but what's the alternative? Letting corporate conference rooms filled with bean counters construct payment guidelines? Where do you strike the balance between letting free markets and private industry run things and make obscene profits at the cost of care to clients......versus gov't control and spending to provide the same? Obviously, neither extreme is acceptable, but both sides seem to have exclusive domain attitudes.

Sinced we are using "strawman" arguments something you Yardley disciples detest so, I'll play.

My wife had pancreatic cancer.
The results of birth control pills in the 70's combined with smoking.
She was diagnosed terminal and placed in a Pallative Care status.

We had "Cadillac" insurance.

Who should have paid?




I did.


Many of the treatments insurance companies don't want to pay remain "experimental," not yet approved by the Gov't organizations charged with that responsibility.
So, even though the treatments worked to a degree, I made the decision to BUY them.
Not your responsibility, mine.
But then when you argue there will be no rationing or "death panels" I say they already exist to a degree.


Just part of the story, but stop thinking we are all stupid.
Many people have lived real ives and experienced real things.
Not everything is as you guys read it in a book.






rk

YardleyLabs
07-09-2010, 08:56 AM
Sinced we are using "strawman" arguments something you Yardley disciples detest so, I'll play.

My wife had pancreatic cancer.
The results of birth control pills in the 70's combined with smoking.
She was diagnosed terminal and placed in a Pallative Care status.

We had "Cadillac" insurance.

Who should have paid?




I did.


Many of the treatments insurance companies don't want to pay remain "experimental," not yet approved by the Gov't organizations charged with that responsibility.
So, even though the treatments worked to a degree, I made the decision to BUY them.
Not your responsibility, mine.
But then when you argue there will be no rationing or "death panels" I say they already exist to a degree.


Just part of the story, but stop thinking we are all stupid.
Many people have lived real ives and experienced real things.
Not everything is as you guys read it in a book.






rk
I agree, and have often stated, that insurance companies have been rationing care since health insurance first became widespread. For your wife that took the form of denying payment for services that were unproven. For my mother that took the form of halting payments once the costs of her care exceeded the $500,000 lifetime maximum established by the "Cadillac" plan that my father had through his job. That was a "bit" of an issue since her actual care cost more then $1 million between her stroke in 1969 and her death in 1995.

david gibson
07-09-2010, 09:11 AM
I agree, and have often stated, that insurance companies have been rationing care since health insurance first became widespread. For your wife that took the form of denying payment for services that were unproven. For my mother that took the form of halting payments once the costs of her care exceeded the $500,000 lifetime maximum established by the "Cadillac" plan that my father had through his job. That was a "bit" of an issue since her actual care cost more then $1 million between her stroke in 1969 and her death in 1995.

the whole argument you seem to be making is that its fine if Government rations health care in Obamacare because the insurance companies have been doing all along anyway.

apples and oranges regards. same old argument from you - bush did so we can too.

cotts135
07-09-2010, 09:23 AM
and your point? If he had said, I wish I had died in a southeast Asia rice paddy, would that have made you happy?

This guy clearly had and has the interest of the United States front and center in his thinking when he was representing the United States at the UN.

My point???? Please tell me your kidding me.

You are the one who made this guy a messiah, I am just pointing out that it is very easy to be a tough guy from a back of desk when there none of your skin in the game. He had his chance he pu@$%* out.

subroc
07-09-2010, 09:32 AM
since you appear to put quite a bit of stock in those that represented the United States in uniform, I expect the current president must fall short even when compared to someone that was/is a reservist in the National Guard. I await your vilification.

david gibson
07-09-2010, 09:58 AM
since you appear to put quite a bit of stock in those that represented the United States in uniform, I expect the current president must fall short even when compared to someone that was/is a reservist in the National Guard. I await your vilification.

hopeless argument. remember who you are debating - these guys vilified bush for serving in the guard, but gave clinton a pass for dodging with tons of preferential treatment. in clintons own words:

"First, I want to thank you, not only for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been.............From my work, I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war, which in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation. The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake.
Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their country and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above."


so they have an issue with bolton and bush, but its its fine for clinton and obama toserve as CIC.

you cant win with these guys, they shut off all reality.

cotts135
07-09-2010, 09:58 AM
since you appear to put quite a bit of stock in those that represented the United States in uniform, I expect the current president must fall short even when compared to someone that was/is a reservist in the National Guard. I await your vilification.


What I think of Obama is completely irrelevant to this issue. You brought up Bolton, I seen the hypocrisy in his stances, I pointed that out to you. This is not a left right issue both sides are guilty here.

YardleyLabs
07-09-2010, 10:02 AM
the whole argument you seem to be making is that its fine if Government rations health care in Obamacare because the insurance companies have been doing all along anyway.

apples and oranges regards. same old argument from you - bush did so we can too.
I'm not sure I understand the difference. "Rationing" in an insurance plan, occurs when there are limitations in coverage: denial of coverage based on the type of problem (e.d. "cosmetic" procedures or lifestyle based problems), denial of coverage based on type of treatment or provider (e.g., non-coverage of "experimental" treatment, refusal of coverage for certain types of transplants, coverage for only x treatments by mental health providers, etc.), limitations on coverage based on cost (e.g., payment of arbitrary, below market prices, or limitations based on average fees by other providers), and procedural limitations (e.g., prior approvals for designated laboratory procedures, requirements that services be provided by designated providers, requirements for primary care referrals, etc.). These restrictions may or may not make sense from a medical perspective. However, the effect of all of these limitations is to leave the patient with the choice of conforming with the defined limits or paying the uncovered charges out of pocket.

As health care costs have risen, the coverage restrictions incorporated have become more and more restrictive and more and more arbitrary. The most popular components of the health reform proposals were provisions attacking some of the bigger abuses: lifetime limits on coverage, denial of care for pre-existing conditions, limitations on coverage recissions, etc. However, there is no question that it will cost insurance companies more money and result in premium increases to conform with these reforms.

Having the government as a provider of insurance does not change the nature of coverage limitations or the motivation to save money. I do not see how that is comparing apples to oranges. There is a big difference between the US approach, which uses an insurance model, and the Canadian and British approaches. In the British and Canadian plans, the government actually imposes budget that limits how much providers can spend for different types of service regardless of demand. That is a much more direct form of rationing that is not part of the adopted US proposals.

subroc
07-09-2010, 10:12 AM
What I think of Obama is completely irrelevant to this issue. You brought up Bolton, I seen the hypocrisy in his stances, I pointed that out to you. This is not a left right issue both sides are guilty here.

you didn't point anything out to me. You used an anecdote to try vilify the guy for something unrelated to his performance at the UN. In the same vein as your refusal to answer my obama question, Pat Tilman has nothing to do with Bolton. Now, back to our originally schedued program.

Bolton was the right man for the right job at the right time...

david gibson
07-09-2010, 10:14 AM
Recess appointments are common. GW Bush made 171 of them

can you verify that number??

recess appointments are a way of life, understood. they are most often done due to extenuating circumstances, not outright avoidance of discussion of the merits of the appointment. but when you do it strategically, biding your time, then slipping him in when congress is on a short holiday break is pretty cheesy - but totally par for the course for a thug like O.

subroc
07-09-2010, 10:22 AM
hopeless argument. remember who you are debating - these guys vilified bush for serving in the guard, but gave clinton a pass for dodging with tons of preferential treatment. in clintons own words:

...

so they have an issue with bolton and bush, but its its fine for clinton and obama toserve as CIC.

you cant win with these guys, they shut off all reality.

David

I realize that. The reality meter is off. The hypocrite meter is on high. If he doesn't like the guy for his decisions or the way he executes his job, so be it. But the need of the left, to attack the guys' character when they "never" hold thier own politicians to something even close to the same standard is a bit silly.

dnf777
07-09-2010, 05:35 PM
can you verify that number??

recess appointments are a way of life, understood. they are most often done due to extenuating circumstances, not outright avoidance of discussion of the merits of the appointment. but when you do it strategically, biding your time, then slipping him in when congress is on a short holiday break is pretty cheesy - but totally par for the course for a thug like O.


How 'bout John Bolton??? If you trust wikipedia isn't a communist web site, check out his story there! Talk about avoiding discussion!

dnf777
07-09-2010, 05:44 PM
Just part of the story, but stop thinking we are all stupid.
Many people have lived real ives and experienced real things.
Not everything is as you guys read it in a book.


rk

Your post illustrates what I've been saying all along. Unless everything we want is free and in unlimited quantities, rationing will occur. AS you pointed out , it already is!

My father-in-law never smoked, never took BCPs, and recently died from a rare form of pancreatic cancer. Medicare paid for his treatments. That was my only point--who do you trust to decide on what gets paid for, and who gets to make up exclusionary rules to deny payment and increase profits?

Scary things began to happen when hospitals were turned over from being doctor-run, with patient's needs in mind.......to bean-counters in suits, with shareholders' needs in mind. Sure, profits and bonuses for execs went up...but so did denials for payments to patients.

Us guys (and gals) reading things in books are NOT the ones deciding to deny payment to our patients, I assure you of that!

david gibson
07-09-2010, 05:47 PM
How 'bout John Bolton??? If you trust wikipedia isn't a communist web site, check out his story there! Talk about avoiding discussion!


i asked you to verify the numbers to claim. i never doubted bush and every other president uses recess appts.

there you go avoiding the question once again, because you cant support your statement. buh-bye

road kill
07-09-2010, 05:49 PM
Your post illustrates what I've been saying all along. Unless everything we want is free and in unlimited quantities, rationing will occur. AS you pointed out , it already is!

My father-in-law never smoked, never took BCPs, and recently died from a rare form of pancreatic cancer. Medicare paid for his treatments. That was my only point--who do you trust to decide on what gets paid for, and who gets to make up exclusionary rules to deny payment and increase profits?

Scary things began to happen when hospitals were turned over from being doctor-run, with patient's needs in mind.......to bean-counters in suits, with shareholders' needs in mind. Sure, profits and bonuses for execs went up...but so did denials for payments to patients.

Us guys (and gals) reading things in books are NOT the ones deciding to deny payment to our patients, I assure you of that!

I can tell you who I don't trust to decide!!



rk

dnf777
07-09-2010, 08:17 PM
i asked you to verify the numbers to claim. i never doubted bush and every other president uses recess appts.

there you go avoiding the question once again, because you cant support your statement. buh-bye

You asked Roger, who originally posted the number to verify. Not me. Please try to limit the "misrepresentations of the truth" in your comments. See how civil I can be, even in the face of lies?

I commented on the use of recess appointments by your wonder messiah, who we all know, would never do such a thing!

But, for your reading pleasure, here is a link and excerpt substantiating the 171 claim.


How Often Have Recent Presidents Made Recess Appointments?
President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions.2 On March 27, 2010, President Barack Obama announced his intention to make 15 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.3

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A

dnf777
07-09-2010, 08:21 PM
I can tell you who I don't trust to decide!!



rk

I sincerely hope you had a doctor, who you knew in your heart, was there for YOU and yours....and not the hospital's board of trustees. That all decisions were made out of medical necessity, and compassion for the sick. Everyone deserves that in their time of need, and nothing less. Ever. EVER.

gman0046
07-09-2010, 09:16 PM
More dnf nonsense. He just won't quit.

road kill
07-09-2010, 09:47 PM
I sincerely hope you had a doctor, who you knew in your heart, was there for YOU and yours....and not the hospital's board of trustees. That all decisions were made out of medical necessity, and compassion for the sick. Everyone deserves that in their time of need, and nothing less. Ever. EVER.


The Nurse Practitioner was as good a man as I have ever met.
He was 100% about the patient and 100% honest with me as I had some very difficult decisions to make.
Those decisions were between he and I.
Had I chosen another direction no one would have ever known.
I chose to fight, just whats in me.



But I decided, not some Governmental bureaucracy
.
No rationing, just different costs.



rk

david gibson
07-09-2010, 09:55 PM
More dnf nonsense. He just won't quit.

he must have been one of those doctors that O handed white coats to.

every doctor i know is glad they are mid- to late 50's and have saved all they need for retirement. dnf - well, i think he is short and shaking in fear a bit... ;-)

dnf777
07-10-2010, 08:00 AM
More dnf nonsense. He just won't quit.


What? That I hoped that someone had a caring compassionate doctor in their time of need? That I hoped a doc, and not a bureaucrat called the shots?

Please elaborate, rather than just hurl empty insults. Or is that all you got?
At least Gibson challenges and makes one think. You're like the pesky little chihuahua yipping at the bulldog's haunches. Bwahahahahaha!!!!

BrianW
07-10-2010, 10:21 AM
This probably belongs on the "list" thread but I say 'Yea, PBO!" for this recess appointment.
Baucus had the opportunity to bring the guy up for hearings etc but put it off.
So we didn't have to listen to a bunch of mealy mouthed coached talking points from someone pretending to be something he not.

Good job, Barack, get this guy Berwick out there and let him say exactly what he believes in his statist, socialist heart, that this health care plan must include "redistribution". Let the people see & hear what the people who are going to enact this legislation intend to do.
Show that your intent is to keep bleeding the successsful and prosperous among us with more & more taxes until you remove all incentive to achieve a better life for yourself and your family.
By the way, keep that guy out there reiterating that we're going to pay more & more for less & less care just like the Brits. That's the sure way to get more votes for the dems in Nov!