|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Well if anyone would be the one to know about being bitter, hate-filled and non-bipartisan ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
Mac,
I think you are missing the point, or not caring about it.
Despite the GOP using these tactics before, the talk about implementing them now is just as, if not more so, cowardly by the dems. With midterms coming up, voter anger at its highest ever, less than 10 percent of polled voters approve of Congress--you have a sneaky way to avoid having to answer at the polls come November.
Even the dems are hand-wringing and uneasy about this bill and all its other incarnations past and future (I'm sure)
As for my personal opinion, the only universal health care I want to see is for kids. I hate to see parents hold fund raisers, sell off their belongings, and go for broke to take care of sick kids (leukemia for instance) To me, that's wrong.
Once an adult you need to make your own bed and prepare properly for retirement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
No, you are not paying attention (now, that's a real shocker there  ). Try to follow along.. .I'll type slowly so that you can keep up >>> I said I generally agree with it and I would answer "Yes". I do not, however, fully agree with the entire statement. That is the beginning, end and be-all of it. You, "sir", do NOT get to alter my answer. You do not get to interpret it. You do not get to do anything with it, except to accept it at face value. And I am not sitting the fence, I am in agreement that things need to be done, I am just not in complete agreement with what needs to be done and I certainly do not even come close to agreeing with HOW they propose to do it. I'll stop there lest I have to ban myself from my own site.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
JC
Of the dozen or so people I have actually had discussions with that are for universal health care, only 2 currently pay for their own insurance. 7 or 8 never considered how it would be paid for, just assumed the government would have money to cover it, never even considered it would probably mean raising taxes to pay for it.
My assumption would be that many people only see it as "free" and don't contemplate that nothing is free, we will pay for it one way or another, but to cover it, we will be paying for our own coverage through taxes, plus a little more to cover all the people that don't pay taxes.
I have no problem with a system that provides kids with health care, I'm not even totally against a government health program, but FIRST and I before they even consider consider providing health care to everyone, they need to help control and lower costs.
If the government gets in before cost controls are put in, you know they will find a way to benefit from exorbitant costs and just leave them be.
I still think if you took care of the malpractice concerns and costs, and provided a tax benefit to health care workers that volunteer time, that free clinics would open and be able to provide health care to those without insurance.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
Two simple moves would solve quite a bit:
1. Open things up for operating inter-state... If you can, REQUIRE it. If you sell insurance anywhere, anyone in the US can buy from you. This is the digital age, you don't have to have an office in every city and state to accomplish this.
2. Define a requirement for a "Bare Minimum Coverage" plan that covers emergencies, perhaps include Dental as well (Dental is stupid cheap -- because it isn't abused). The plan should also allow for coverage of one checkup per year per immediate family member, 3 visits per year for children under 10. Every company selling insurance in this country MUST offer this plan. It will be the exact same from every single carrier. Let the market shake out the pricing, but with everyone offering the same thing, the price will be kept low naturally due to normal market forces.
Those two things alone will go a LONG way toward solving problems and guess what? The Gov't doesn't have to get involved, taxes don't have to get raised and millions of people will be able to afford coverage.
It isn't that hard and I can't think of how you could mount any realistic opposition to it. It would be a very simple piece of legislation that would accomplish a LOT.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
I still think if you took care of the malpractice concerns and costs, and provided a tax benefit to health care workers that volunteer time, that free clinics would open and be able to provide health care to those without insurance.
I was watching the news as "0" was railing in Strongsville citing a lady with cancer and no insurance as his muse for being there. The news interviewed her from her hospital bed in the Cleveland Clinic. PART of the cynic in me was thinking, "wow... if this lady is as screwed over as Obama is telling me, how is she getting 28 days of treatment in the nation's 12th ranked Cancer treatment facilities without insurance?"
Now, I don't know all the details with her, but I thought there was a tick of irony there as she listened to him using her saying she can't get the treatment she desperately needs.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
I'll stop there lest I have to ban myself from my own site.
I hear that's illigal in some countries 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850 |
They could also regulate perscriptions. There is no reason the exact same drugs sold in the USA are sold in other countries at a fraction of the cost.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
mac, allow me to address a few things... Quote:
The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill.
People have asked you several times to please cite some of the legislation the GOP passed under this rule.. and this is why. It's one thing to use this rule to declare February as National Avacado Month.. it's something entirely different to use this rule to change 25% of our economy... but you won't answer them...
Quote:
It's a familiar pattern -- Republicans open doors, and then whine incessantly when Democrats walk through them.
One.. Republicans didn't open the door.. see here...
Quote:
Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party's bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.
The democrats were in complete control of the House all through the 70s and 80s.. so they would be the ones who expanded the use of this and similar tactics.... republicans may have followed but dems opened the door...
So in conclusion I'd like to ask one question... what is the single biggest piece of legislation ever passed under this rule prior to this? by either side.
and I'd like to make one comment... this administration ran on a platform of changing the climate in Washington, being transparent, being above board, being held to a higher standard... yet every time they do some of the shifty stuff they do... all you can say is, "Well the republicans did it too." So is this the kind of change you voted for mac? The kind that you have to keep defending because it's remarkably like every other administration... is that the change we can believe in?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Maybe not specific enough for you? Damn good reasons in my book.
No, not specific enough to make an argument, or even a point to support the argument, that the reform is poor in it's current state. As I pointed out previously, the specifics you laid out before to support your "bill is a disaster" opinion are either already biased opinion or outdated information.
Quote:
Read the 1100+ pages of the bill if you want the minute details of how the government will manage your healthcare.
Wait, you want me to go read the thing to substantiate your claims? The burden of evidence lies with the claimant in any discussion. Tjrs laid out a decent number of good things in this bill and he asked you to backup your assertion that you "could go on and on about why this bill is a disaster." You said it, now prove it.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 194
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 194 |
Quote:
W.Bush simply lied like hell and took advantage of the American people after this country had suffered it's worst attack ever on our homeland. Bush simply made up his own rules, in the name of terrorism.
Sounds like something LBJ did to sell us into getting into Vietnam 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256 |
Quote:
Wait, you want me to go read the thing to substantiate your claims? The burden of evidence lies with the claimant in any discussion.
No, I want you to read the thing because you said: "Please do. I haven't made up my mind one way or another yet as to how i feel about this bill." My response didn't meet your standards, so I pointed out where the details you're looking for are. Your thinly disguised ruse of wanting assistance with your decision isn't working....otherwise you'd be looking for the information yourself rather than arguing that mine isn't good enough.
Google "WSJ obamacare" ..... those articles cover a lot of the problems with the bill that I've found so disturbing since the beginning.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Those two things alone will go a LONG way toward solving problems and guess what? The Gov't doesn't have to get involved, taxes don't have to get raised and millions of people will be able to afford coverage.
It isn't that hard and I can't think of how you could mount any realistic opposition to it. It would be a very simple piece of legislation that would accomplish a LOT.
I don't disagree that these would help. Both things are in the current bill in some form. Exchanges would be able to operate in any state, but each state must be served by at least one exchange (with at least two insurers). Any insurer that offers plans in the exchanges will be required to offer a "catastrophic" plan very similar to the one you describe.
The problem is that no amount of competition or number of stripped down policies helps deal with the underlying rise in cost in health care that is ongoing. As health care costs rise, premiums will rise. This rise in cost is largely driven by medical technology. Newer, more expensive technologies are adopted without thorough testing of whether they actually improve outcomes over older, cheaper techs. Thus, insurers have no quantitative measures of what treatments are cost appropriate for the same level of outcome.
This is why the part of the bill that creates and fosters comparative treatment effectiveness research is so important; it has great potential to slow underlying rising costs.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/19/1885
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Quote:
No, you are not paying attention (now, that's a real shocker there ).
Try to follow along.. .I'll type slowly so that you can keep up >>>
I said I generally agree with it and I would answer "Yes".
I do not, however, fully agree with the entire statement. That is the beginning, end and be-all of it.
prpl...I could swear, IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION,
"does this country need to do something about the unaffordable premiums, skyrocketing healthcare costs and the growing number of "uninsured" in the USA?"
THAT PRPL RESPONDED WITH THIS...
And if you ask me that same question, my answer will be generally be "Yes" (I don't think we need to do anything about the uninsured - I believe that that is their own job).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PRPL...I hope you realize, you said "YES" before you said "NO" to the same question?  .. .. 
The reason the Dems ignore most of what the GOP is saying now, is because they are talking just like some on this message board who admit we need to do something, but then say, to hell with the "uninsured".
Most Americans are smart enough to realize that the "unaffordable premiums" and "skyrocketing healthcare costs" lead to, the growing number of "uninsured" in the USA?...
....thererfore, all three issues must be addressed if this country is going to solve the Health Care crisis in this country.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,850 |
I see your still to afraid to answer people's questions on here Mac. It's really a shame that you have no spine 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 974
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 974 |
Quote:
I cannot believe that with something as big as this, rather than working together to come up with something that is actually Good, they are just going to resort to crap tricks to ramrod through legislation that not even they want.
It's beyond asinine at this point. These people have GOT to be stopped!
Nobody wants the bill in it's current form, except for the folks who won't have to pay for or use it.
We're trying to throw the ball downfield and he checked the ball down to Trent Richardson and the Indians on the choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 974
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 974 |
Quote:
 Agreed that we need to do something....but this bill isn't it. Not even close.
YES
Think about it MAC, If it needs this kind of BS to pass, isn't there something amiss? Tell me why something this large and important has to be treated like this.
We're trying to throw the ball downfield and he checked the ball down to Trent Richardson and the Indians on the choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
americans need to "fight for health care"  at one time america was the best place on earth
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
Exchanges are an overly (and extremely unnecessarily so) complicated way of accomplishing what should simply allowing (ney, forcing) them to do business across state lines. Opening the markets simply flat out negates the need for exchanges, and simplifies the whole mess. It also removes one layer of Govt., which also means one layer of spending. It is win-win-win all around. The other reason that I like my approach is that it negates the "need" for a gov't plan... which means no tax increases, and everyone is in charge of their own spending.... which means that Gov't is NOT in charge of the spending - which is why this will never happen. Quote:
The problem is that no amount of competition or number of stripped down policies helps deal with the underlying rise in cost in health care that is ongoing.
No, the ONLY thing that will truly reverse the growth in costs is reverting to Health INSURANCE, and abandoning Health Coverage (or simply accepting the fact that extra coverage comes with extra costs - as it should be). This should NOT be covering all manner of routine visits and such. You don't use your car insurance to get an oil change - which is why it is relatively cheap. If it paid for tire changes, rotations, chassis lubes, wiper blades and oil changes with just a small flat rate co-pay -- don't ya think car insurance costs might be a little out of hand??
Quote:
the bill that creates and fosters comparative treatment effectiveness research
This sort of thing is needed, but I am inherently, extremely, untrusting of it. Way too easily, it will devolve into the Gov't being in charge of treatments, and that is NOT a good thing in any way, shape of form. The absolute LAST place decisions like this should be made is in a bureaucratic process. If there is any place even less distasteful, it is somewhere where the occupants are beholden to campaign donations from large companies. Perhaps NIH, or have the CDC grow a new arm.... or perhaps we foster an outreach to the WHO and we adopt the same medical standards that Europe, Asia and the rest of the world uses.
What also is needed is regulation of the Pharmaceuticals, and a ban on the advertising of any and all prescription meds. If it isn't OTC, it should be getting advertised/marketed anywhere but specific medical outlets/journals. It should NOT be viewable on prime time TV.
What is not needed, is the bill getting rammed through. It may have some good things in it, but it has enough bad that they just won't give up that it should not be permitted to pass. The thought that passing a bad bill is good because at least you passed something is pathetically stupid.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 294
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 294 |
Have you ever thought of running for office. You got my vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Exchanges are an overly (and extremely unnecessarily so) complicated way of accomplishing what should simply allowing (ney, forcing) them to do business across state lines.
Injecting competition by allowing business across state lines would be a good thing. I agree that exchanges would be more complex, but I think that complexity is necessary. The exchanges would be oversight bodies as well as in charge of implementing the subsidy programs. Oversight bodies are needed; competition isn't enough to deal with current problems such as "cherry picking," dropping people when they are sick, etc.
Quote:
No, the ONLY thing that will truly reverse the growth in costs is reverting to Health INSURANCE, and abandoning Health Coverage (or simply accepting the fact that extra coverage comes with extra costs - as it should be).
This is true; cost sharing plays some role here. But medical technology plays the biggest role.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm030807oth.cfm
Two studies are listed at the bottom of the page that say 60-70% of rising costs are driven by adopting less cost effective medical technology. I can't find it right now, but there is a CBO study with three other graphs that put the number anywhere from 50-60%. Those same three studies said (lack of) cost sharing accounted for roughly 10% of increasing costs.
Quote:
This sort of thing is needed, but I am inherently, extremely, untrusting of it.
That is why there is strong language in the bill that says that in no way can the findings be construed as a mandate or guidelines. It will simply be information that insurance companies/consumers can use to find the best value for their money. This is an example of exactly what the government is supposed to do; provide transparency and a fair marketplace so that consumers can make informed decisions. I'm willing to bet it will go through existing structure like NIH or CDC, where much of the necessary infrastructure is already in place.
This type of information, because it is government generated, will be publicly available. If it were generated by insurance companies, they wouldn't have to share it, and thus, its benefits would be limited.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
The more we dig into the pile of propaganda, the more we learn...
As was pointed out concerning the possible use of House Rules (Slaughters Solution) to pass a Health Care bill, we found out that the outraged RW convienently forgot, they used the same rule to pass the Patriot Act, the Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the Deficit Control Conference Report...just to name a few of the times the GOP used the same rules.
We learned that the Slaughters Solution had been used by both parties in the past 25 yrs, 30/40/50 times per House session. The fake ourtage from the RW is based on "selective memory".
Today, I found another interesting bit of "misinformation" ...
New England Journal of Medicine says it didn't publish or produce health care "survey"
March 17, 2010
web page
Right-wing media have seized on a dubious, three-month old email "survey" that purports to show that physicians are concerned about health care reform and that 46 percent of the primary care doctors surveyed "indicated that they would leave medicine - or try to leave medicine - as a result of health reform." Many media figures have falsely attributed this survey to the New England Journal of Medicine. For example, on Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "The New England Journal of Medicine has published a report and did a survey, and they said the impact of reform on primary care physicians, 46 percent, they say, feel reform will force them out or make them want to leave medicine."
This is false.
Media Matters for America contacted the New England Journal of Medicine, which confirmed it neither conducted nor published the "survey."
NEJM spokesperson Jennifer Zeis told Media Matters that the study had "nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine's original research." She also made clear that the study "was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine," and said that "we are taking steps to clarify the source of the survey."
The "report" that right-wing media are citing actually appeared in Recruiting Physicians Today, which is an employment newsletter produced by "the publishers of the New England Journal of Medicine." According to Zeis, that report actually "was written by the Medicus Firm," the medical recruitment firm that conducted the "survey."
Here's how The Medicus Firm describes the "survey" methodology:
"The survey sample was randomly selected from a physician database of thousands. The database has been built over the past eight years by The Medicus Firm (formerly Medicus Partners and The MD Firm) from a variety of sources including, but not limited to, public directories, purchased lists, practice inquiries, training programs, and direct mail responses. The survey was conducted via emails sent directly to physicians."
The Medicus Firm's clients include hospitals and physician groups.
More to come...
UPDATE:
Following inquiries from Media Matters, the "NEJM CareerCenter" website has now posted the following statement, making clear that Recruiting Physicians Today is a "free advertiser newsletter" whose content is "produced by physician recruiting firms and other independent groups involved in physician employment" and that Medicus was responsible for conducting and publishing the "survey" in question. (NEJM tells Media Matters that The Medicus Firm "did not pay" to run the report.) From the statement posted on the NEJM CareerCenter website:
Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter published by the Worldwide Advertising Sales and Marketing Department in the publishing division of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Each issue of the newsletter features research and content produced by physician recruiting firms and other independent groups involved in physician employment.
On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform. To read their survey results at The Medicus Firm website, click here.
The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.
Indeed, The Medicus Firm's write-up of their "survey" touted the supposed importance of physician recruitment firms "[a]fter health reform is passed and implemented":
What does this mean for physician recruiting? It's difficult to predict with absolute certainty, but one consequence is inevitable. After health reform is passed and implemented, physicians will be more in demand than ever before. Shortages could be exacerbated further beyond the predictions of industry analysts. Therefore, the strongest physician recruiters and firms will be in demand. Additionally, hospitals and practices may be forced to rely on unprecedented recruitment methods to attract and retain physicians. "Health reform, even if it's passed in a most diluted form, could be a game-changer for physician recruitment," said Bob Collins, managing partner of The Medicus Firm in Texas. "As competitive as the market is now, we may not even be able to comprehend how challenging it will become after health reform takes effect."
So, in sum, the right-wing media has seized upon what appears to be essentially a promotional document from a physician recruitment firm in order to argue that health care reform will cause physician recruitment and retention problems in the future.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Your thinly disguised ruse of wanting assistance with your decision isn't working....otherwise you'd be looking for the information yourself rather than arguing that mine isn't good enough.
Ahh yes. Totally a ruse 
Quote:
My response didn't meet your standards, so I pointed out where the details you're looking for are.
Because you painted yourself as an expert that "could go on and on about why this bill is a disaster," I asked you for a better elaboration that contained an alternate viewpoint of the bill. Tjs asked you for evidence that this bill was bad that you still haven't answered properly, in a way that is conducive to reasoned, rather than emotional, thought. Since I'm a laymen when it comes to law, I'm not qualified to understand the legal ramifications of everything in the bill if I read it cover to cover, so I have to rely on those that work in the field and/or who understand law in order to get my information. Imagine someone asking me about the implications of irreducible complexity and the vertebrate eye and instead of teaching them about it, I point to a book by Richard Dawkins entitled "Climbing mount improbable" with the instructions to read it, digest it, and come to a conclusion without any help. It's a failure in the making. You are squandering any pretense of credibility by not acknowledging the legitimate points Tjs made in response to your opinion about the bill and missing out on the opportunity to sway others to your side by squandering what could be a very good teaching experience. He fired a salvo of "It will actually do some good" and you came back with "the government is bad."
Also googling "Obamacare" is sure to give unbiased results.
Anyways, don't worry about it, Purp and Tjs's discussion is giving me good information to think on. However, if you come up with some good unemotional, factually-based info, please post it 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
What is not needed, is the bill getting rammed through. It may have some good things in it, but it has enough bad that they just won't give up that it should not be permitted to pass. The thought that passing a bad bill is good because at least you passed something is pathetically stupid.
Yep.
If the state of health care was an actual health care patient, the government would be sued for malpractice due to throwing any and everything at the patient without even knowing what all they are throwing at it.
Absolutely NO REASON to not have a good bill.
NO REASON that changes can't start out small like allowing INS companies to sell across state lines, tort reform and let free markets work.
NO REASON this can't be "fixed" with a conservative and systematic approach.
NO REASON for back room deals, parliamentary tricks and broken campaign promises of "Washington as usual will no longer happen" and dividing this country even more.
I can't believe Dennis Kucinich became a lap dog to Obama. Love or hate his policies, the man used to have a spine. Now he supports a bill that 2 weeks ago he said he could never support while admitting he doesn't know everything that's in it. They pulled Dennis onto Air Force One and neutered him.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
we found out that the outraged RW convienently forgot, they used the same rule to pass the Patriot Act,
Prove it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8948/01-31-HealthTestimony.pdfFound the other source. Table 1 shows that changes in third party payment (coverage of more services) accounted for roughly 10% of rising cost, while less cost effective medical tech accounted for 50-60%.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
they used the same rule to pass the Patriot Act
Oh, NO they did NOT.
It went to a full vote each time it was passed:
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
2001: Senate: 98-1-1 -- House: 357-66-9
2006: Senate: 89-10-1 -- House: 280-138-14
But let me guess ... "Republicans have lied in the past to make political points ... so that makes it okay for me to do it."
Quote:
The more we dig into the pile of propaganda, the more we learn..
Maybe if you would stop digging through piles of propaganda, you might be able to learn something for a change. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
It went to a full vote each time it was passed:
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
2001: Senate: 98-1-1 -- House: 357-66-9
2006: Senate: 89-10-1 -- House: 280-138-14
This is one of my biggest pet peeves in that the media constantly cries to the Patriot Act being a purely evil George W. Bush invention.
That vote makes it look pretty bi-partisan. Even in 2006, which was well after 9/11.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
2001: Senate: 98-1-1 -- House: 357-66-9
2006: Senate: 89-10-1 -- House: 280-138-14
The chirping sound of crickets is deafening.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Echo...echo......echoooo.........echoooooooooo..............echooooooooooooooo
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256 |
Quote:
Because you painted yourself as an expert that "could go on and on about why this bill is a disaster," I asked you for a better elaboration that contained an alternate viewpoint of the bill.
How did I paint myself as an expert? I believe I said I could go on and on about why "I think this bill is a disaster". I did elaborate, gave my reasons and they weren't good enough for you.
Quote:
Tjs asked you for evidence that this bill was bad that you still haven't answered properly, in a way that is conducive to reasoned, rather than emotional, thought.
Damn skippy I'm emotional....I work in the healthcare field and this fiasco of a bill will directly affect my family and my career. I haven't answered properly? LMAO!!! Sorry I didn't meet your standards.
Quote:
Since I'm a laymen when it comes to law, I'm not qualified to understand the legal ramifications of everything in the bill if I read it cover to cover, so I have to rely on those that work in the field and/or who understand law in order to get my information.
I work in the field, but I do not understand this 1100 page pile of garbage....neither do most in congress. As a matter of fact, most haven't even read the thing. That alone should be alarming to you.
Quote:
Imagine someone asking me about the implications of irreducible complexity and the vertebrate eye and instead of teaching them about it, I point to a book by Richard Dawkins entitled "Climbing mount improbable" with the instructions to read it, digest it, and come to a conclusion without any help. It's a failure in the making.
As is trying to get me to explain the bill to you or trusting the federal government to manage the healthcare monster.
Quote:
You are squandering any pretense of credibility by not acknowledging the legitimate points Tjs made in response to your opinion about the bill and missing out on the opportunity to sway others to your side by squandering what could be a very good teaching experience. He fired a salvo of "It will actually do some good" and you came back with "the government is bad."
LMAO again! What opportunity? I would say that not one poster here has ever had a political leaning swayed by something they've read in the Tailgate. BTW....I responded with more than "the government is bad", but we both know when it comes to managing their money they most certainly are.
Quote:
Also googling "Obamacare" is sure to give unbiased results.
Why would it? I also had WSJ in there, but it must have been an oversight on your part. OK, google Obama healthcare WSJ and you'll get the same articles. 
Quote:
Anyways, don't worry about it, Purp and Tjs's discussion is giving me good information to think on. However, if you come up with some good unemotional, factually-based info, please post it
I'm an emotional guy, I can't help it.  I'm glad the others could help you in your quest for information. Anyway, whether you support it or not, it will pass because of political manipulation....not because of what you think. Have you actually asked yourself why all of these shenanigans, bribes and coercement are required to get members of the supporting party to vote for this bill?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Maybe if you would stop digging through piles of propaganda, you might be able to learn something for a change.
Amen.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
How did I paint myself as an expert? I believe I said I could go on and on about why "I think this bill is a disaster".
True, I guess I mischaracterized the statement, and as a result you. I apologize!
Quote:
Sorry I didn't meet your standards.
Not mine, just those used to convince people through debate. What I'm hoping see or find is closer to that seen in courts of law and review articles in journals. Point then counter-point. Fact vs fact.
Seriously though. I'm at wits end here. I have no idea what to think about this behemoth of a bill. I don't like the standards they're using to pass it. However, due to all the bipartisanship that's been going on (and only getting worse IMO) for the past two decades, I refuse to believe it's poor reform just because it goes against one idea of how the government should be run and the role it should play in our lives. I also don't agree with the idea of boom-or-bust that the democrats have. I like the idea of starting small and conservative, but if that doesn't work, have provisions for stepping up reform. Because maybe in the end that's what is needed.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
What I'm hoping see or find is closer to that seen in courts of law and review articles in journals. Point then counter-point. Fact vs fact.
you haven't clicked on any of the QB threads on here have you? 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256 |
Quote:
What I'm hoping see or find is closer to that seen in courts of law and review articles in journals. Point then counter-point. Fact vs fact.
I don't think you're going to find that, given that those in charge can't even explain this bill to the public. The fact that as a concerned citizen you're having such a hard time finding reliable info is enough to make someone really question whether this bill is something that will change things for the better.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Damn skippy I'm emotional....I work in the healthcare field and this fiasco of a bill will directly affect my family and my career.
This is exactly why I want your input. I don't work directly in the field. How will it affect your career positively/negatively? How will it affect patients you work with? Doctors?
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf
You said you don't understand all 1100 pages. Neither do I. You don't have to read the whole bill to get a sense. I read this synopsis from the link that sums most everything up. It took me 20 minutes to scan through and get a sense of the bill. I know you probably can't do this right now, but if you ever get a chance, I'm really interested to hear your opinion on the points that are in the bill.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
Quote:
Injecting competition by allowing business across state lines would be a good thing. I agree that exchanges would be more complex, but I think that complexity is necessary. The exchanges would be oversight bodies as well as in charge of implementing the subsidy programs. Oversight bodies are needed; competition isn't enough to deal with current problems such as "cherry picking," dropping people when they are sick, etc.
1. Complexity is never necessary, and it is very often the primary indicator of poor design (and usually results from after-the-fact adoption of compromises).
2. Dropping, etc.... simple: Make it illegal to drop a currently covered patient as long as they remain current on their premiums.
3. I don't totally disagree that some oversight may be helpful and probably required, but no moreso than normal anti-trust, anti-collusion oversight. If my guides above were implemented, competition itself WILL be enough to deal with costs.
p.s. Reword your first sentence from "allowing business across state lines" to "requiring them to conduct business across state lines". Then think about the scope and ramifications of that.
Quote:
This is true; cost sharing plays some role here. But medical technology plays the biggest role.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm030807oth.cfm
Two studies are listed at the bottom of the page that say 60-70% of rising costs are driven by adopting less cost effective medical technology. I can't find it right now, but there is a CBO study with three other graphs that put the number anywhere from 50-60%. Those same three studies said (lack of) cost sharing accounted for roughly 10% of increasing costs.
There's got to be (significantly) more to it than that. Hospitals and medicine are businesses, they won't just voluntarily constantly adopt things that are less cost-effective. I think the definition of "cost effective" for this may be cast a little wide.
Cost sharing - a.k.a. "requiring everyone to take part" will also serve to greatly increase the pool of people that are going to the doctor for every sniffle, and making use of their "coverage" (that should merely be insurance). Also, once borders are opened for direct competition, there will be no pressing need for cost sharing as simple market pressures will drop the prices.
Lastly, the ONLY reason that "shared costs" (aka everyone required) is included is because it is specifically a result of an agreement between the Insurance industry and thie Administration. It is why they are publicly in support of this bill, because in order to not throw their weight into blocking it and to have them go along with the "can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions" aspect, they were awarded with what they've sought for decades - requiring everyone in the nation to purchase their product. It just helps that it can be spun as "cost sharing".
Quote:
Quote:
This sort of thing is needed, but I am inherently, extremely, untrusting of it.
That is why there is strong language in the bill that says that in no way can the findings be construed as a mandate or guidelines. It will simply be information that insurance companies/consumers can use to find the best value for their money. This is an example of exactly what the government is supposed to do; provide transparency and a fair marketplace so that consumers can make informed decisions. I'm willing to bet it will go through existing structure like NIH or CDC, where much of the necessary infrastructure is already in place.
This type of information, because it is government generated, will be publicly available. If it were generated by insurance companies, they wouldn't have to share it, and thus, its benefits would be limited.
That is reassuring (somewhat). If it as you describe and is run through NIH, CDC or WHO, I'd be amenable to it. The further it is out of the control and influence of our Gov't and the private industries it affects, the better.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
The fact that as a concerned citizen you're having such a hard time finding reliable info is enough to make someone really question whether this bill is something that will change things for the better.
Well, there's always two sides (or more) to a story. When both sides are pushing an agenda it makes it difficult to separate the wheat from the chafe. Both sides are to blame for muddying the waters.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Quote:
Quote:
they used the same rule to pass the Patriot Act
Oh, NO they did NOT.
Maybe if you would stop digging through piles of propaganda, you might be able to learn something for a change.
Republicans Have Used "Slaughter Solution" Many Times
March 17, 2010
web page
Republicans have been railing against the proposed move by House Democrats to combine a vote on the Senate version of the health care bill with a vote on a bill to make changes to that bill under budget reconciliation -- a tactic they are calling the "Slaughter Solution," after House Rules Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter.
"The 'Slaughter Solution' is the ultimate in Washington power grabs, a legislative ploy that lets Democrats defy the will of the American people while attempting to eliminate any trace of actually doing so," House Republican Leader John Boehner (pictured) said.
But it's worth noting that this "Washington power grab" was used 36 times by House Republicans in 2005 and 2006, when they last controlled Congress, according to the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann.
" The reauthorization of the Patriot Act , the Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the Deficit Control Conference Report; all kinds of major measures have been approved through self-executing rules, which means the House votes indirectly rather than separately on these measures," Mann told NPR. He also noted that Democrats used the maneuver 49 times in the following Congress, which they controlled.
The American Enterprise Institute's Norman J. Ornstein echoed Mann's comments in a blog post Tuesday, noting the use of the move in the last GOP Congress by then-Republican Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier.
"That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by [Wall Street Journal] editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld)," he wrote. "Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration."
Hotsheet asked Boehner spokesman Michael Steel about Republican use of a maneuver Steel is now deeming a power grab.
"Nothing - nothing - approaches the sheer scale of this trillion-dollar government takeover of health care," Steel responded. "The Democrats simply can't hide from the American people using this procedural sleight-of-hand."
Last edited by mac; 03/18/10 05:16 PM.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Health care "bill"
|
|
