Health Care reform part of Stimulus?

[ArlJim78]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This one makes my blood boil. I guess we need to look at the fine print. among many other things it does, the giant Porkulus spending plan being rammed down our throats has some rather alarming health care provisions that will effect "every individual in the United States.

Some highlights;

"A new bureaucracy is created, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis (http://www.amazon.com/Critical-What-About-Health-Care-Crisis/dp/0312383010/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234118804&sr=8-1).” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

also fines for doctors who don't comply;

"Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS (http://www.hhs.gov/) secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541) "

and if this one doesn't curl your hair;

"and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system."

so morons like Tom Daschle will decide if you get care or not. perhaps you'll be deemed too old. but how much you want to bet that the old fossils like we have in the senate will NEVER be subject to any health care rationing or recieve a "hopeless diagnosis".

I urge everyone to read and take seriously what in in this bill, it will change our country in a radical way, and they are trying to shove it down our throats before anyone can even understand what is in it.

[ddog]

don't care how they do it.
100% favor the clear stating of limits to heroic efforts if the client can't pay for those same efforts.

Those costs are and will bankrupt the whole system.

[ArlJim78]

one more observation, all of the new positions and councils and what have you that are in the stimulus, are not going to dry up and blow away when the original funding runs out. Any new bureauracracy they start up now is just going to inflate federal spending year after year because they'll have to get future funding through the regular budget process. This whole package is simply a way to circumvent the normal process and pass all their pet projects in one fell swoop by decrying "EMERGENCY! pass this NOW or else". but several of them are going to live on and require funding each and every year.

[ArlJim78]

don't care how they do it.
100% favor the clear stating of limits to heroic efforts if the client can't pay for those same efforts.

Those costs are and will bankrupt the whole system.
feel free to volunteer then for a "hopeless diagnosis". That would likely qualify you as a patriot with this bunch.
Personally I'd like to have some options and not have my care dictated in Washington.

its not about whether you can pay, its that if you're old you should just not expect as much care because, YOU"RE OLD.

"Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."

[ddog]

no, you are wrong.

You can not expect to have millions of dollars in care to keep something "alive" for the last 3-6 months.

That is EXACTLY the issue.

If you or your insurance can not pay , well then I am sorry, but you have no claim on a 100 other people to pay for every desire/want you could ever dream up.

That's tough , but that's life.

Even a cursory attempt by you at research will show that the vast bulk of costs are in the last 3-6 months.

I don't know where the attitude came from that you have a right to extraordinary care once reasonable attempts have been exhausted.

you see, that's what gvt is for, society has to come to a consensus and then inform all of that and then you can make your plans.

I don't understand the cry/claim for welfare in this area by many.
Seems they endorse the very gvt/socialized medicine they decry.

[Bubba X]

feel free to volunteer then for a "hopeless diagnosis". That would likely qualify you as a patriot with this bunch.
Personally I'd like to have some options and not have my care dictated in Washington.

its not about whether you can pay, its that if you're old you should just not expect as much care because, YOU"RE OLD.

"Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."

Nonsense.

You need to read up on cost-benefit HC spending in the US vs other Western nations.

We spend by FAR the most and we are by FAR the least healthy.

[dutchboy]

Line item that was inserted in to the stimulus bill designates 4 BILLION PLUS for "community organizers" of which Acorn will receive the bulk of the money.


You just can't make us this bullXXXX. Too bad the Republicans picked such a dumb broad to run for V.P.

[JustRalph]

You just can't make us this bullXXXX. Too bad the Republicans picked such a dumb broad to run for V.P.

She was the best of the candidates.........too bad the Repubs picked McCain

[boxcar]

Here's Betsy McCaughey take on this Change that is soon to come. Too bad there isn't very much Hope for seniors in this "healthcare" plan. (BO did promise HOPE and CHANGE, didn't he?) Stay tuned for federal legislation that will mandate euthanasia for those the government deems unworthy to live. Life will only be worth living if the Big Gov thinks it can handle the expense.

How much does anyone want to bet that this legislation will never apply to the Elite Governing Class? Their lives of this class are always worth saving -- no matter the cost to society. Anyone want to take me up on my bet?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Boxcar

[BUD]

we will reform it so the ins company gets the money---1st bud was a cop on duty and gets hurt public related




2nd bud gets ms


the whole time bud is to be cut into bud light bud ice


the ins company says whats needed and not-----trumping at times some pcp-------until my MS specialist gets involved----its a joke---They are killing me-----I have the paper work and all that shows---what is important to them is saving cash.

when I was saving lives----all was fine---Now that my life needs to be saved,,,,,,its scary as hell what is there---the callousness--------

and who runs the system the ins company---see my my post where I marked the no nothing got he r home address and cell and put her down as my pcp-----------they couldn't see the humor there---jerks------but i gotto fight for mri's scans---meds----not generic bs--
]

I could go on I chose to stop

[HUSKER55]

Hey guys, if people would notice on the bills that the cost are listed at retail but the insurance companies negotiate with the hospitals. So does medicare. While doctors would love to get full retail they all seem to take the money in the agreement that they negotiated for. hence the notation "adjustment entries".

As for living on life support I often wonder what the intent of the person really is. Without a living will doctors are more or less committed. I would think if I was terminally ill that when that final coma came the doctor would make sure I went painlessly. I think there are a lot of people who feel the same. But if you don't tell someone, ie, doctor, your child, priest, what do you think will happen.

Nobody wants to be remembered as "guessed wrong".

[BUD]

great point sir---sorry i actually fell asleep--i am glad i finished----from young to old on this board--THE LIVING WILL is so important it cant be stressed enough


Great point H55----Best point and so Important--its a must---Its a no brainier for the guy like me===but the kicker---in a moments notice anyone of you can make me look healthy,,

Think about what Huskers said----really you and you family will be happy you did






Hey guys, if people would notice on the bills that the cost are listed at retail but the insurance companies negotiate with the hospitals. So does medicare. While doctors would love to get full retail they all seem to take the money in the agreement that they negotiated for. hence the notation "adjustment entries".

As for living on life support I often wonder what the intent of the person really is. Without a living will doctors are more or less committed. I would think if I was terminally ill that when that final coma came the doctor would make sure I went painlessly. I think there are a lot of people who feel the same. But if you don't tell someone, ie, doctor, your child, priest, what do you think will happen.

Nobody wants to be remembered as "guessed wrong".

[ArlJim78]

no, you are wrong.

You can not expect to have millions of dollars in care to keep something "alive" for the last 3-6 months.

That is EXACTLY the issue.

If you or your insurance can not pay , well then I am sorry, but you have no claim on a 100 other people to pay for every desire/want you could ever dream up.

That's tough , but that's life.

Even a cursory attempt by you at research will show that the vast bulk of costs are in the last 3-6 months.

I don't know where the attitude came from that you have a right to extraordinary care once reasonable attempts have been exhausted.

you see, that's what gvt is for, society has to come to a consensus and then inform all of that and then you can make your plans.

I don't understand the cry/claim for welfare in this area by many.
Seems they endorse the very gvt/socialized medicine they decry.
umm, no that wasn't the issue. where did you come up with that? who said anything about welfare to spend millions on the last months of life.

Here, I will help you once again by quoting the part of the article that I object to;
"The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. "

I disagree competely that we should follow Europe and lower expectations and I feel we should maintain the lead in developing new medications and technologies.

now please cycle that through your random word generator and come up with another completely off-topic and unintelligible post.

[Tom]

Obama's health care plan......

[jognlope]

I don't know how this will speed up in hospital care. If a patient's primary doctor requests a consultation from, say Cardiology, he has to wait for the cardiologist to write his chicken scratch notes in the chart. Don't think that cardiologist is going to type his notes into any computer. The patient won't leave the hospital until the consultants are done and they wont' be digitalizing anything. Doctors will not give up their narrative style of reporting of their treatment.

But I'm not sure what all this digitalizing is about. Someone on MSNBC made a funny comment that Bruce Springstein won't be writing a song about digitalizing medical records.... ya had to hear it in context.

[witchdoctor]

I don't know how this will speed up in hospital care. If a patient's primary doctor requests a consultation from, say Cardiology, he has to wait for the cardiologist to write his chicken scratch notes in the chart. Don't think that cardiologist is going to type his notes into any computer. The patient won't leave the hospital until the consultants are done and they wont' be digitalizing anything. Doctors will not give up their narrative style of reporting of their treatment.

But I'm not sure what all this digitalizing is about. Someone on MSNBC made a funny comment that Bruce Springstein won't be writing a song about digitalizing medical records.... ya had to hear it in context.

Funny you should mention it. We have been paperless in the office for 9 years. We have people who enter the data from a pick list. The history of present illness we dictate and transcription has the note done in less than an hour. As doctors,we go over the pick list and make sure every thing is put in right. As for the hospital, we were paperless in 2005. What we do is just dictate our notes and transcription has a turnaround time of 45 minutes. If the dictation is not back,you can listen to it on playback.

[witchdoctor]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs


"and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system."

so morons like Tom Daschle will decide if you get care or not. perhaps you'll be deemed too old. but how much you want to bet that the old fossils like we have in the senate will NEVER be subject to any health care rationing or recieve a "hopeless diagnosis".



Unfortunately, in order to reign in medical cost we are going to have to ration medical care. The other thing that Obama says that is not necessary but would help lower cost is tort reform. You would see less defensive medicine looking for obscure possibiltities so as not to miss something. Essentially, you CYA.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The food guide pyramid, informally known as the food pyramid, and formally titled the Improved American Food Guide Pyramid, was published in 1992 to replace the earlier food groups classification system. Since that time there has been an epidemic increase in type 2 diabetes which is now even afflicting a large and rapidly increasing number of children. The food guide pyramid suggested optimal nutrition guidelines for each food category, per day, using a mnemonic graphic of a pyramid with horizontal dividing lines, to represent suggested percentages of the daily diet for each food group."

[jognlope]

Witchdoc,

I don't know what this digitalizing is all about. A bar code wrist tag on inpatients? Insurance claims people will still go through a paper chart?

I think it's a good thing, great that you are computer savvy. Some docs using voice recognition to dictation, do you? Not catching on that well I guess.

[Bubba X]

umm, no that wasn't the issue. where did you come up with that? who said anything about welfare to spend millions on the last months of life.

Here, I will help you once again by quoting the part of the article that I object to;
"The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. "

I disagree competely that we should follow Europe and lower expectations and I feel we should maintain the lead in developing new medications and technologies.

now please cycle that through your random word generator and come up with another completely off-topic and unintelligible post.

You may consider recycling your own random generator and do some reading. Kaiser, some of the top econ schools white papers, etc. There is no, none, chance that the US will not stay in front in R&D. Too many private dollars flow --- and will flow --through for it to change, no matter what any health care reform happens here.

[Tom]

Are you ready for the health czar?
Ready to have your health decisions made by government bureaucrats? Ready to have your health determined by committee, by cost effectiveness, by budgets?

It's in this bill. Health care as we know it will go away and you will no longer have any say in your health.
Grab your ankles, people are going to die thanks to the dems, and three tratiors, Snow, Collins, Specter - the three lowest scumbags in American history. Specter had the balls to say he did not know what was in the bill, did not read it, was opposed to having to rush a vote without debate, yet he will vote for it. This man is a POS. With no clean end.

[ArlJim78]

You may consider recycling your own random generator and do some reading. Kaiser, some of the top econ schools white papers, etc. There is no, none, chance that the US will not stay in front in R&D. Too many private dollars flow --- and will flow --through for it to change, no matter what any health care reform happens here.
I have no clue who Kaiser is or what your point is.

[Bubba X]

I have no clue who Kaiser is or what your point is.
Imagine my shock.

[ddog]

umm, no that wasn't the issue. where did you come up with that? who said anything about welfare to spend millions on the last months of life.

Here, I will help you once again by quoting the part of the article that I object to;
"The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. "

I disagree competely that we should follow Europe and lower expectations and I feel we should maintain the lead in developing new medications and technologies.

now please cycle that through your random word generator and come up with another completely off-topic and unintelligible post.


Well listen , that's what they are getting at.
How would you interpret it otherwise?

So if you want to get off your broken soap box do you not agree that the majority of costs that are breaking this system are in the last 3-6 months and expended on extraordinary services?

Do you favor an adoption of any and all medical "advances" that anyone may think he wants to use even if no proof of benefit is available?

Do you think that those who can't afford same should have a claim on everyone else for it to be given to them no matter the cost.

Do you think the system as presently setup is getting better or worse and is it fiscally sustainable medium term?

Are you willing to have your taxes go up to fund the unlimited expectation you propose?
How about your prescription cost?

is there no limit to be set ever,you are for treatments at all costs?

You can dance and twist around all you want, that's part of the debate.

[Tom]

A glimpse as to where we are headed.
Remove Tom the Tax Cheat, but the road map remains.
What happens when they tell you are old and have to adjust to getting older....meaning, no more arthritis drugs for you, no pain relievers, no care for the elderly. This is a guy who voted more than once to kill babies after they were born, do you not think he will not let the elderly die, too?
Dr. Mengele in charge of health care, Al Goron running Hitler Youth, Barry O looking to restrict free speech and silence all dissenting views.......connect the dots. The Fourth Reich is here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123060332638041525.html

[ddog]

I have no clue who Kaiser is or what your point is.



health providers............................

[ddog]

A glimpse as to where we are headed.
Remove Tom the Tax Cheat, but the road map remains.
What happens when they tell you are old and have to adjust to getting older....meaning, no more arthritis drugs for you, no pain relievers, no care for the elderly. This is a guy who voted more than once to kill babies after they were born, do you not think he will not let the elderly die, too?
Dr. Mengele in charge of health care, Al Goron running Hitler Youth, Barry O looking to restrict free speech and silence all dissenting views.......connect the dots. The Fourth Reich is here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123060332638041525.html


silly ranting, there are issues, you have not listed any here.

adjusting to getting old, well the gvt doesn't really control that.

elderly die BECAUSE of this "system" everyday and did in the Bush and gasp Clinton admins, doubt you will outlaw that and you won't help it by doing nothing.

think triage.

[Tom]

You can dance and twist around all you want, that's part of the debate.

Wrong ddog....there IS not debate....this crap was slipped in without debate, slipped in a stimulus bill to hide it, and then your president used the politics of fear to rush it through.

Obama is AFRAID of real debate. Obama is a COWARD.

[ddog]

Wrong ddog....there IS not debate....this crap was slipped in without debate, slipped in a stimulus bill to hide it, and then your president used the politics of fear to rush it through.

Obama is AFRAID of real debate. Obama is a COWARD.

none of whatever you have here means anything on the ground, the debate and how it's implemented is not in his or the gvt control actually.

[chickenhead]

from most everything I have read on the matter, I believe ddog has it right.

The last year/few months is where an astounding percentage of money is spent, if I recall 30-40% of total costs, and no, the vast majority do not/cannot pay for it, so for all intents and purposes that is what the discussion is about when it comes to reducing costs.

If you throw into the mix that the number of elderly are growing faster than the overall population, combined with ever increasing costs on a per patient basis...you can begin to understand that to maintain the current system is going to require a permanent reduction in standard of living for everyone prior to reaching those final days, in order to pay for them. There aren't any free lunches.

It's a heavy discussion, that is about as important an issue as can be, that has zero chance of being debated or discussed honestly.

[Bubba X]

from most everything I have read on the matter, I believe ddog has it right.

The last year/few months is where an astounding percentage of money is spent, if I recall 30-40% of total costs, and no, the vast majority do not/cannot pay for it, so for all intents and purposes that is what the discussion is about when it comes to reducing costs.

If you throw into the mix that the number of elderly are growing faster than the overall population, combined with ever increasing costs on a per patient basis...you can begin to understand that to maintain the current system is going to require a permanent reduction in standard of living for everyone prior to reaching those final days, in order to pay for them. There aren't any free lunches.

It's a heavy discussion, that is about as important an issue as can be, that has zero chance of being debated or discussed honestly.
Of course he has it right. You can't get to any other conclusion.
20 years ago health care was 1/9 of the economy
15 years ago it was 1/8
10 years ago, 1/7
Now 1/6

If the economy keeps contracting it may wind up being 20% of GDP.

But public sentiment for change has been so modest and the uninsured have no political capital, so it's not surprising that people are averse to change, which is bad enough. The bigger problem is that people just don't care to understand the issue.

So they rant, use CAPS whenever possible and call reasonable people socialists. Works for them, I suppose.

[ArlJim78]

the main point of the thread is that major health care reforms should not be slipped into this spending bill, because there won't be a chance to even have a debate. this is a big issue, we all agree. but why then is it being handled in this way?

[Bubba X]

the main point of the thread is that major health care reforms should not be slipped into this spending bill, because there won't be a chance to even have a debate. this is a big issue, we all agree. but why then is it being handled in this way?
Frankly it is hard to accept your point when you throw up an article written by perhaps the most conservative member of perhaps the most conservative think-tank group in the nation.

Really now, what do you expect?

[ArlJim78]

Frankly it is hard to accept your point when you throw up an article written by perhaps the most conservative member of perhaps the most conservative think-tank group in the nation.

Really now, what do you expect?

are you telling me that it is now a conservative idea to think that a major reform to health care that effects ever American should be debated? what is conservative about that? it's freakin common sense.

it sounds like you are perfectly fine with having the senate simply voting yes on whatever is in there without even reading the fine print or discussing it.

[Bubba X]

are you telling me that it is now a conservative idea to think that a major reform to health care that effects ever American should be debated? what is conservative about that? it's freakin common sense.

it sounds like you are perfectly fine with having the senate simply voting yes on whatever is in there without even reading the fine print or discussing it.
Look, there are two inescapable facts.

1. Spending on new technologies and treatments is incredibly expensive and nearly all of it happens here.

2. Introducing comparative effectiveness into US health care policy is long overdue.

You cannot have any meaningful discussion until you are able to grasp these. Far right conservatives have and will continue to cry against these discussions as socialist. They have been very, very successful and we have seen HC costs rise from 1/9 of the economy 20 years ago to a level of just south of 1/5.

The far-right wing article you posted is nothing more than standard far right posturing of government invading our lives. The fact is the bill simply introduces comparative effectiveness into the discussion.

I give Obama credit for doing it. All the "debate" you think is needed has already happened during the years HC went from 11% of GDP to 17%. What exactly is so very new that needs to be injected into the conversation?

[Lefty]

To Paraphrase Tom Daschle in his book: 'old people have got to learn how to die and get out of the way'

First the libs tell us that healthcare is a right. Then they want to have the fed govt tell us who has that right and when. They want the doctors to consult with a health Czar before giving care to patients. The health Czar will decide if it's cost effective to give treatment.
Personally, i don't want the people who bankrupted SS and Medicare and caused this latest economic chaos to be in charge of my healthcare.

[Tom]

I give Obama credit for doing it. All the "debate" you think is needed has already happened during the years HC went from 11% of GDP to 17%. What exactly is so very new that needs to be injected into the conversation?

There has been NO debate on this HVC plan - none whatsoever. Many do not even know it is the bill they are voting for. You call THAT responsible government? First off, HC is expensive because, once again, gov't meddling.
There are many ways to improve the system and cut costs without going to this very bad extreme. If the post of health czar doesn't scare you, you are not looking at the realities of this.

[ddog]

pls , try to get away from the con/lib deal.
I know many are not going to even try , but I never asked when going in for a medical procedure , heh , whoes you vote for last time and why?

I am not pushing for the elderly to be killed off , Nazi style.

I am just trying, however poorly to get across that we are now rationing medicine, making these choices almost undebated.

I don't see the big problem with putting the seed money into this bill, if that's in fact what it is.
The elections , as many have said before, have consequences.
arj, if you don't think there will be debate on your overall concerns then you have gone into hyper-manic overdrive mode.

I think the vast majority of the population is in fact not happy (understatement) with the system now.

There is currently no difference, on the ground, between the Daschle quote that arj put up and "private" insurance providers.

If you don't think they ration care now and restrict choices and fight against new technology that hurts their bottom line , then you are in a dream universe.

gvt has been in this for decades.
that means nothing. you take the gvt out of this, ok how exactly?
They are in it to stay, as long as we can pay the bills anyway.
So to now say , well there are problems but they are off limits , we are freezing everything at status quo, well good luck with that.

[Bubba X]

There has been NO debate on this HVC plan - none whatsoever. Many do not even know it is the bill they are voting for. You call THAT responsible government? First off, HC is expensive because, once again, gov't meddling.
There are many ways to improve the system and cut costs without going to this very bad extreme. If the post of health czar doesn't scare you, you are not looking at the realities of this.

Name 5. Or as many as you can, please.

[ddog]

To Paraphrase Tom Daschle in his book: 'old people have got to learn how to die and get out of the way'

First the libs tell us that healthcare is a right. Then they want to have the fed govt tell us who has that right and when. They want the doctors to consult with a health Czar before giving care to patients. The health Czar will decide if it's cost effective to give treatment.
Personally, i don't want the people who bankrupted SS and Medicare and caused this latest economic chaos to be in charge of my healthcare.


to parphrase lefty"i am lost so what"

Just as now, as long as you have your own insurance or funding, you can get anything you want.
You make no sense.

[ArlJim78]

Look, there are two inescapable facts.

1. Spending on new technologies and treatments is incredibly expensive and nearly all of it happens here.

2. Introducing comparative effectiveness into US health care policy is long overdue.

You cannot have any meaningful discussion until you are able to grasp these. Far right conservatives have and will continue to cry against these discussions as socialist. They have been very, very successful and we have seen HC costs rise from 1/9 of the economy 20 years ago to a level of just south of 1/5.

The far-right wing article you posted is nothing more than standard far right posturing of government invading our lives. The fact is the bill simply introduces comparative effectiveness into the discussion.

I give Obama credit for doing it. All the "debate" you think is needed has already happened during the years HC went from 11% of GDP to 17%. What exactly is so very new that needs to be injected into the conversation?
It does much more than that, and it should not be dumped into the stimulus bill while were told not to think, just pass it now! This whole bill was crafted in a totally partisan basis, and frankly the whole thing stinks.

Blaming far right conservatives for health care costs rising out of site is lunacy.

its hard to take seriously any far left socialist proposals that are supposed to save us from the high costs of heath care, or anything else for that matter. Like there are so many many examples where additional direct government involvement leads to reduced costs? you're giving credit already to a guy for reducing cost and doing the right thing, when right out of the box he's asking for a trillion dollars to get things rolling? the budget is wrecked from here on out, the well has run dry and no amount of government spending is going to magically turn things around.

[Lefty]

These dims tried to pull a fast one. They tried to slip this healthcare czar in the bill past the people. I didn't know about it till Rush mentioned it yesterday. Rush just said even Arlen Specter didn't know about it.
Today, it's public knowledge. thanks Rush.

[ddog]

It does much more than that, and it should not be dumped into the stimulus bill while were told not to think, just pass it now! This whole bill was crafted in a totally partisan basis, and frankly the whole thing stinks.

Blaming far right conservatives for health care costs rising out of site is lunacy.

its hard to take seriously any far left socialist proposals that are supposed to save us from the high costs of heath care, or anything else for that matter. Like there are so many many examples where additional direct government involvement leads to reduced costs? you're giving credit already to a guy for reducing cost and doing the right thing, when right out of the box he's asking for a trillion dollars to get things rolling? the budget is wrecked from here on out, the well has run dry and no amount of government spending is going to magically turn things around.


the "budget" has not been wrecked "from here on out" and you know it.

this thing has been building for at least 20 years.
maybe some didn't choose to believe it but that's their problem.

I have not heard and wouldn't believe that anything works by magic.
I have not heard the "magical" claims of the turn you refer to from bama anyway.

I think i have heard just the opposite in fact.
Now he is being force fed those lines I suspect from his "advisors" but that's what I heard.

[Bubba X]

It does much more than that, and it should not be dumped into the stimulus bill while were told not to think, just pass it now! This whole bill was crafted in a totally partisan basis, and frankly the whole thing stinks.

Blaming far right conservatives for health care costs rising out of site is lunacy.

its hard to take seriously any far left socialist proposals that are supposed to save us from the high costs of heath care, or anything else for that matter. Like there are so many many examples where additional direct government involvement leads to reduced costs? you're giving credit already to a guy for reducing cost and doing the right thing, when right out of the box he's asking for a trillion dollars to get things rolling? the budget is wrecked from here on out, the well has run dry and no amount of government spending is going to magically turn things around.
Really? Like what?

PErhaps you are right and we should wait until HC spending is 1/2 of GDP to do something? The road you have thought has been good and want to continue to go down guarantees a fully socialistic, no doubt about health care system.

I don't suppose Rush has found time to work this fact into his 15 hours a week.

[ddog]

These dims tried to pull a fast one. They tried to slip this healthcare czar in the bill past the people. I didn't know about it till Rush mentioned it yesterday. Rush just said even Arlen Specter didn't know about it.
Today, it's public knowledge. thanks Rush.


lefty,

you have heard of the executive dept of the gvt right.

Actually bama could appoint one, no need to slip it in the bill.
so, actually slipping it in the bill is the more open way to do it.

it's right there to see.

[Tom]

Name 5. Or as many as you can, please.

1. Allow HC packages to be tailor made, like other types of insurance. Only but what you need. A 20 year old and a 70 years have vastly different needs

2. Stop giving away free medical care to illegals

3. Malpractice reform

4. Allow mass purchasing of prescription drugs to help lower prices here

5. Lower administrative costs

6. Realize that not everyone NEEDS HC insurance.

7. Tax credits for HC costs, especially preventive medicine

[Bubba X]

1. Allow HC packages to be tailor made, like other types of insurance. Only but what you need. A 20 year old and a 70 years have vastly different needs

2. Stop giving away free medical care to illegals

3. Malpractice reform

4. Allow mass purchasing of prescription drugs to help lower prices here

5. Lower administrative costs

6. Realize that not everyone NEEDS HC insurance.

7. Tax credits for HC costs, especially preventive medicine

1. No, this raises costs. Not only Health care but especially on health insurance. Nothing can hurt a group health plan (and it's costs/rates) more than healthy young people opting out or opting for the cheaper option. It is called anti-selection. Also, see 6, below.
2. No. You are trying to treat a symptom when you need to treat the disease. You can't legislate immigration reform through HC reform.
3. Yes. That's one.
4. Kind of, but not really. Presc Drugs get a lot of ink but really only account for about 12% of all HC costs. Presc drugs are a hangnail compared to the rise costs in non-PD costs.
5. One-half of a kind of. If not centralized medical records, as proposed by Obama, then what? Even if you can get a one-time savings on admin costs of 20%, you have to understand that admin costs are only 15%. So you lower the line on the graph, but not the slope, which is running at 8-10%+ a year.
6. You do that and the healthy 25 year old who doesn't need health insurance who gets hit by a bus MUST not get treated and MUST DIE ON THE STREET. I suppose you could say this type of person only needs "hit-by-a-bus" insurance but frankly injuries, not chronic illness are what happens to 25 yo's anyways. And not often.
7. No. Tax credits are just a transfer, either to another income class or generational. And preventive care is cheap; the three things that cost are dread diseases, neo-natal and end of life care.

So, I give you one yes and two "kindas" in case you're keeping score at home.:ThmbUp:

[Lefty]

comrade dog, you say it's right there to see. How many pages do you have to wade through to see it. If they're so open about it how come Obama hasn't mentioned it?
Obama is playing the politics of fear that the libs always accused Bush of doing. These geniuses wreck the economy then propose to fix it. They tell the pipples that this bill must be passed now. Then they slip in all the b.s. they've wanted for 20 yrs. Obama says it's time to put politics aside but he let the 2 most leftwing partisans you can think of draft the bill.

[Tom]

1. No, this raises costs. Not only Health care but especially on health insurance. Nothing can hurt a group health plan (and it's costs/rates) more than healthy young people opting out or opting for the cheaper option. It is called anti-selection. Also, see 6, below. No, you make several types of plans available. One each that would fit the various groups
2. No. You are trying to treat a symptom when you need to treat the disease. You can't legislate immigration reform through HC reform. Not doing that at all, just stoping spending money on non-citizens, as it should be.
3. Yes. That's one.
4. Kind of, but not really. Presc Drugs get a lot of ink but really only account for about 12% of all HC costs. Presc drugs are a hangnail compared to the rise costs in non-PD costs. 12% is a major cost cut. Would you be happy with a 12% pay cut? Or raise?
5. One-half of a kind of. If not centralized medical records, as proposed by Obama, then what? Even if you can get a one-time savings on admin costs of 20%, you have to understand that admin costs are only 15%. So you lower the line on the graph, but not the slope, which is running at 8-10%+ a year. Do some googlin g- there are a lot of examples out there.
6. You do that and the healthy 25 year old who doesn't need health insurance who gets hit by a bus MUST not get treated and MUST DIE ON THE STREET. I suppose you could say this type of person only needs "hit-by-a-bus" insurance but frankly injuries, not chronic illness are what happens to 25 yo's anyways. And not often. Nonsense. You cannot use the 1% exception to argue against the rule. National costs will overall be lowered by this.
7. No. Tax credits are just a transfer, either to another income class or generational. And preventive care is cheap; the three things that cost are dread diseases, neo-natal and end of life care. The idea is that we pay for our own HC, not some governement nanny or an employer. This would benefit many individuals and businesses, which would then have more money to invest.

So, I give you one yes and two "kindas" in case you're keeping score at home.:ThmbUp:

Well, you got one right and two close. HC cost so much because of government interfernce and lack of competition. HC is not a right and the government can ever adminstier a good HC system.

[Bubba X]

Well, you got one right and two close. HC cost so much because of government interfernce and lack of competition. HC is not a right and the government can ever adminstier a good HC system.

I'll make one last point, cede the floor and move on.

Non-medicare health insurance is one of the most competitive industries there is. There are nominal barriers to entry and there is almost no federal legislation aside from COBRA, HIPPA, some of ERISA and Mental Health Parity that impact Health Care. Surely you know that health insurance is regulated by the states, not the fed gov't.

Anyway, here's to hoping none of us are hit by the bus, insured or otherwise.

[Tom]

Under the new guidelines, would Ted Kennedy be denied care?
If not, would everyone with a similar age, condition, be granted treatment?


Bubba, you have clearly demonstrated today that much more debate is needed on this issue. You are actually sounding more like a conservative than Arlan Spector does!

[Lefty]

Tom, of course he will get all the healthcare he wants. Congress has their own plan. these clowns make laws they don't have to live under themselves. Reverse that and it's a different ballgame.

[Bubba X]

Under the new guidelines, would Ted Kennedy be denied care?
If not, would everyone with a similar age, condition, be granted treatment?


Bubba, you have clearly demonstrated today that much more debate is needed on this issue. You are actually sounding more like a conservative than Arlan Spector does!
Teddy? You mean the Rotund One of the Rotunda? I suppose he's still a full time employee of the Senate and that plan is primary to Medicare. Frankly, I don't think Medicare would have denied his or someone else's similar surgery. Nor would they in the future.

[Lefty]

bubba, that's the whole plan. To ration healthcare to seniors. Except the ones in Congress. You didn't like insurance companies running healthcare? Just wait till the Federal govt does it. Your Doctorv will have to consult the federal govt to get the yea or nea to give you the medicine you need.
"Lefty, he's old;probably only got 2 yrs to live according to our statistics. The medicine costs to much. Tell him to go home and do the right thing and die"

[cj's dad]

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!

-- P.J. O'Rourke

[Bubba X]

bubba, that's the whole plan. To ration healthcare to seniors. Except the ones in Congress. You didn't like insurance companies running healthcare? Just wait till the Federal govt does it. Your Doctorv will have to consult the federal govt to get the yea or nea to give you the medicine you need.
"Lefty, he's old;probably only got 2 yrs to live according to our statistics. The medicine costs to much. Tell him to go home and do the right thing and die"No, not at all. In fact MEdicare guidelines are far more restrictive and directive already than private healthcare.

The only things I know for sure are that the cost drivers are tech, neo-natal and end of life. And I also know that no one likes to talk about them and for good reason; they raise issues of morality and ethics. But you cannot get anywhere without having the conversation.

We spend 2x what they spend in Japan per cap. They are far healthier and live far longer. And JApan is not a full nationalized healthcare country.

I just won't buy into the "they are going to take away our health care" mantra. But if you are against HC change, I think you are safe. The forces for change can only do so much while the AMA, ins co's, etc have far greater political and other capital to spend.

[Tom]

Good point Lefty, and one that needs to be asked by the media....."Mr. Obama, if this health care program is so good, will your wife and daughters be enrolling in it as thier sole source of HC? If not, why not?"

That is what a legitimate press does............not fools like Knucklehead Ed.

[chickenhead]

bubba, that's the whole plan. To ration healthcare to seniors. Except the ones in Congress. You didn't like insurance companies running healthcare? Just wait till the Federal govt does it. Your Doctorv will have to consult the federal govt to get the yea or nea to give you the medicine you need.

If you've got a few million in the bank, you can pay for whatever procedures you want, that will never change. Personal responsibility, right? If instead, like the vast majority of people, you rely on the gov't to pay for your medical care when you get older, of course they are going to have to make decisions about how much and of what you can get. Is there some third way?

Otherwise the people receiving the benefits will gladly bankrupt everyone who is working to pay for them. For some reason welfare gets plenty of press from the personal responsibility crowd, yet Medicare and Social Security, which absolutely dwarf welfare in size, yet are at root the exact same thing ( only with prettier names) get next to none.

Any time you rely on someone to provide you with something you can't provide yourself, you are at their mercy. So don't rely on them. Save a few million bucks during your life, and you can be your own man. Voila, problem solved.

[JustRalph]

Bubba, all I see from your responses is that you want Government to tell us what we need. End of story.

Health care is a goods and service. Taking it out of the private sector will make it an entitlement.

We have been down this road before. I won't go back.

Wait until Doctors go black market. That is going to be fun You think only the rich can get healthcare now.....wait until you drive all the good doctors out of business.

[Bubba X]

Bubba, all I see from your responses is that you want Government to tell us what we need. End of story.

Health care is a goods and service. Taking it out of the private sector will make it an entitlement.

We have been down this road before. I won't go back.

Wait until Doctors go black market. That is going to be fun You think only the rich can get healthcare now.....wait until you drive all the good doctors out of business.Ralph,
Can you do me up a funny picture?

[witchdoctor]

Witchdoc,

I don't know what this digitalizing is all about. A bar code wrist tag on inpatients? Insurance claims people will still go through a paper chart?

I think it's a good thing, great that you are computer savvy. Some docs using voice recognition to dictation, do you? Not catching on that well I guess.

Barcodes help to make sure when the patient go what and also assist i billing. As for insurance companies, we usually have to print out hte chart. I am not afan of voice recognition software yet.

[witchdoctor]

You may consider recycling your own random generator and do some reading. Kaiser, some of the top econ schools white papers, etc. There is no, none, chance that the US will not stay in front in R&D. Too many private dollars flow --- and will flow --through for it to change, no matter what any health care reform happens here.

If you go to the cardiology meetings, you would see that most of the important research is done in Europe and South America. Very little clinical research is done in the US mainly due to liability problems.

[witchdoctor]

from most everything I have read on the matter, I believe ddog has it right.

The last year/few months is where an astounding percentage of money is spent, if I recall 30-40% of total costs, and no, the vast majority do not/cannot pay for it, so for all intents and purposes that is what the discussion is about when it comes to reducing costs.

If you throw into the mix that the number of elderly are growing faster than the overall population, combined with ever increasing costs on a per patient basis...you can begin to understand that to maintain the current system is going to require a permanent reduction in standard of living for everyone prior to reaching those final days, in order to pay for them. There aren't any free lunches.

It's a heavy discussion, that is about as important an issue as can be, that has zero chance of being debated or discussed honestly.


Agreed. I just got off service and had several 90+ year olds on vents that we could not wean off and are going to die in the next 1-2 weeks. The families keep want to push forward and do not want to let go.

[witchdoctor]

To Paraphrase Tom Daschle in his book: 'old people have got to learn how to die and get out of the way'

First the libs tell us that healthcare is a right. Then they want to have the fed govt tell us who has that right and when. They want the doctors to consult with a health Czar before giving care to patients. The health Czar will decide if it's cost effective to give treatment.
Personally, i don't want the people who bankrupted SS and Medicare and caused this latest economic chaos to be in charge of my healthcare.

I spent several years of my training in the VA system. It was one of the most frustrating experiences that I have ever had. My fear is that if the government takes over running healthcare, we all get to experience the "joy" of the national healthcare.

My prediction is that the US will develop a 2 tiered system with a universal healthcare system and a second private system. If you have angina and are in the national system, you will get meds pushed on you and everntually get cathed in 6-9 months. In the private system, you will get cathed and intervened on within a week of symptoms.

[HUSKER55]

For the sake of debate, suppose health insurance was covered by a "national sales tax" or some similiar measure. In other words everyone paid into it, no exceptions.

Would hospitals still be run as they are now or would they have to be nationalized? Sudsidized? Neither? Assume the policy was the current medicare program now in effect.

Would the same levels of competency for surgury and care be the same or would the typical person see a reduction?

The reason I am wondering we had a local hospital said that they covered 5% of the indegents and therefore they were losing money. But most states have a Title 13???? to aid those in need and with welfare and state aided insurance I am wondering how these loses are being dtermined.

It is my understanding that different insurance groups negotiate prices with hospitals and doctors. So how are the loses figured?

Thanks

[Bubba X]

If you go to the cardiology meetings, you would see that most of the important research is done in Europe and South America. Very little clinical research is done in the US mainly due to liability problems.
I recommend you read then share the fairly recent JAMA special study on research with your colleagues. Despite liability concerns, research dollars doubled the last decade.

Here's a passage lifted from that report:

"The data in this article make it plain that we are spending huge amounts of money, more than any other country, to develop new drugs and devices and other treatments," said Dan Fox, president of the Milbank Memorial Fund, a philanthropic group that works on health policy issues. "But we are not spending as much as we could to disseminate the most effective treatments and practices throughout the health system."

[witchdoctor]

For the sake of debate, suppose health insurance was covered by a "national sales tax" or some similiar measure. In other words everyone paid into it, no exceptions.

Would hospitals still be run as they are now or would they have to be nationalized? Sudsidized? Neither? Assume the policy was the current medicare program now in effect.

Would the same levels of competency for surgury and care be the same or would the typical person see a reduction?

The reason I am wondering we had a local hospital said that they covered 5% of the indegents and therefore they were losing money. But most states have a Title 13???? to aid those in need and with welfare and state aided insurance I am wondering how these loses are being dtermined.

It is my understanding that different insurance groups negotiate prices with hospitals and doctors. So how are the loses figured?

Thanks

If hospitals only got what Medicare paid, then most hospitals would go under. Even now, over half of the internist in Tulsa will not take a new Medicare patient. The fees for Medicaid are worse and when I looked at the numbers for the multispecialty clinic that just bought my group out, not a single internist or family practioner would take a Medicaid patient. As a cardiologist, much of our business comes thru the ER and we are just glad to get any payment. Approximately 9% of our patients don't pay up from 5% 2 years ago.

As for fees, our prices have not changed in 20 years. Interestingly, insurance used to pay about 90% of what was charged 20 years ago. Now,
we mark down private insurance 50-60% and Medicare 75%. By increasing volume, salaries have only fallen 30%.

[cj's dad]

Health care in the US is not being torpedoed by the elderly.

Health care costs have skyrocketed due to increasing birth rate among those who cannot afford and should not want children. No one person has a "right" to have a baby without some plan in place to care for that child. The plan should include TWO responsible parents, jobs, housing etc... not the idea that I'm gonna have me a baby cause then I can get me a guvmint check. A child is not a means to an end; it is not an entitlement. It is so damn convenient to blame the old folks, many of whom are WW2 survivors who worked hard, payed taxes, and lived thru the depression. Yeah, it's easy to blame them 'cause they are helpless and in nursing homes. Where's the outrage over these welfare sluts who give NOTHING TO SOCIETY other than grief and unwanted children? Oh wait, we can't go there because then we are talking about the poor down trodden underclass who never had a chance in life.
Vent your anger and frustration where it belongs, not at the elderly; oh, but wait, if you do that you are a racist.
I prefer the term REALIST !!

[JustRalph]

Health care in the US is not being torpedoed by the elderly.

Health care costs have skyrocketed due to increasing birth rate among those who cannot afford and should not want children. No one person has a "right" to have a baby without some plan in place to care for that child. The plan should include TWO responsible parents, jobs, housing etc... not the idea that I'm gonna have me a baby cause then I can get me a guvmint check. A child is not a means to an end; it is not an entitlement. It is so damn convenient to blame the old folks, many of whom are WW2 survivors who worked hard, payed taxes, and lived thru the depression. Yeah, it's easy to blame them 'cause they are helpless and in nursing homes. Where's the outrage over these welfare sluts who give NOTHING TO SOCIETY other than grief and unwanted children? Oh wait, we can't go there because then we are talking about the poor down trodden underclass who never had a chance in life.
Vent your anger and frustration where it belongs, not at the elderly; oh, but wait, if you do that you are a racist.
I prefer the term REALIST !!


Warning!!! You have exceeded the Common Sense Limits Allowed by the Left Wing of this Board.............You will Be Stamped with the (R) for Racist from this point forward..........




Standby for Hyper-Links and Effusive Data implying that you are an idiot!!!!

[Tom]

How true.

[chickenhead]

yes, let's go with feelings rather than facts.

We have made something like $50 trillion dollars more in promises to the elderly for health care than we have figured out how to pay for over the next decades. So we are going to either have to cut benefits or raise taxes, to the tune of $50 trillion dollars.

It doesn't really have a lot to do with feelings or blame.

There is no way we are going to deliver all the Medicare promises that have been made. No way.

—David M. Walker, U.S. Comptroller General

[cj's dad]

Where are the facts re: unwanted children, single moms, deadbeat dads, alcoholics on SSI, etc.... that drain our society each and every day?

Why are you so damn intent on laying it at the feet of the elderly?

Reality bites , doesn't it ?

[jognlope]

The number of folks walking around fine on SSI in my town is just amazing. No program followup, but then again, no jobs here either.

[Tom]

We have no money for anything, yet the bozos keep piling up the pork like we were at at State Fair having sandwiches! Who puts the cole slaw on top?

The facts are that this administration is 100% wrong and are doing nothing but harm to us all. The government is not capable of running anything and their health care plan is cause to take to the streets. It is time to shut this country down cold.

[chickenhead]

Where are the facts re: unwanted children, single moms, deadbeat dads, alcoholics on SSI, etc.... that drain our society each and every day?

Why are you so damn intent on laying it at the feet of the elderly?

Reality bites , doesn't it ?

I have come to realize people process information differently, and you and me are obviously just different. I am not intent on laying the blame on anyone. I don't choose who to blame, and then go find the data to support it. I'm not really interested in blame. I'm interested in two things primarily; protecting myself and those I care about, and trying to support things that will fix problems.

Saying we have promised more than we can pay does not lay anything at the feet of the elderly, per se. It lays it at the feet of a broken government.

It's kind of like housing...people have seen their paper value evaporate. Guess what, it was never real to begin with. The only thing they lost was something that never existed in the first place It is much the same with many of our government programs, what is promised is not real, because it cannot happen.

So to me, in my strange way of looking at things, if they slashed Medicare benefits by $50 trillion dollars, that would not actually be a cut at all. It's just realigning the promises with reality. The problem is the same as it was with housing, the average ordinary everyday people, go about their lives, and make their plans, as if it were real. And then they are left in the lurch when the reality check actually sets in.

We are whistling past the graveyard, and people, average ordinary good citizens, are going to get hurt terribly. There simply isn't the money to pay for pensions and healthcare for everyone in their golden years. Retirement as an entitlement is going to be hard tested. Reality does indeed bite. People need to save much, much more of their money.

The reason I focus on this problem, and talk about it a lot, is precisely because it's not convenient. Because nobody wants to talk about it. Because it effects everyone. And because it's the biggest one out there. There are costs all over the place, absolutely, but they are not as big, and not as taboo and off limits.

[Grits]

Chickenhead, may I ask you . . . . what is your age?

[chickenhead]

here, let me duck down under the desk before answering...and preface by saying that it is my benefits that will be cut, not the current elderly, and that who really needs to hear this is people my age, to get them to prepare for what will not be there for them....

31 :)

[Grits]

Ok.

Now, another question. Have you, at this age, spent any real amount of time in local hospitals or any major university (teaching) medical centers?

here, let me duck down under the desk before answering...and preface by saying that it is my benefits that will be cut, not the current elderly, and that who really needs to hear this is people my age, to get them to prepare for what will not be there for them....

31 :)

[chickenhead]

I have spent around 5 or 6 days sitting with dying family members over the past 2 years. I spent a lot more than that at long term care facilities. I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for. I'm definitely not in the medical field, nor do I go to the hospital unless I have a good reason too.

[cj's dad]

Actually, your reply was reasonable. And as a 31 year old I simply say to you to look around and see where the problems really lie; life time politicians who want to reform a health care system that they are not part of, control pensions that they do not participate in, vote themselves pay raises, avoid term limits (Senate and House) and then the public sector- folks who refuse to work, obey societal rules, contribute to society's growth etc.....

The only thing to do is take care of one's self and family which this F---ing gov't is making near impossible to do with their boneheaded actions.

[ddog]

here, let me duck down under the desk before answering...and preface by saying that it is my benefits that will be cut, not the current elderly, and that who really needs to hear this is people my age, to get them to prepare for what will not be there for them....

31 :)


hmmmmmmm, that seems a sensible course.

Imagine that.

perhaps now we can get someone to post a pic of grampa in blackface being clubbed to death by daschle using an aborted fetus to get the thread back on track.

[Tom]

It would only be fair, and the media should ask this question, "Mr. President, why can't we all have the same health care program that you and congress have, at our expense? Why should you and congress have a better plan than your employers - US!"

[Tom]

here, let me duck down under the desk before answering...and preface by saying that it is my benefits that will be cut, not the current elderly, and that who really needs to hear this is people my age, to get them to prepare for what will not be there for them....

31 :)

Throw all your SS contribution into that. I'm 57 and have no reason to believe I will ever see a penny of it. My money, STOLEN from me by an outlaw government. I think that the descendants of FDR should be responsible for or retirement, since their miserable SOB of a president started this socialist mess.

GD FDR
GD FDR

[ddog]

Actually, your reply was reasonable. And as a 31 year old I simply say to you to look around and see where the problems really lie; life time politicians who want to reform a health care system that they are not part of, control pensions that they do not participate in, vote themselves pay raises, avoid term limits (Senate and House) and then the public sector- folks who refuse to work, obey societal rules, contribute to society's growth etc.....

The only thing to do is take care of one's self and family which this F---ing gov't is making near impossible to do with their boneheaded actions.

You NEVER address the issue.

So, after your "self" is not taken care of then what?
When they show up at an ER or run out of insurance then what do you do to take care of yourself?

Toss them out into the street with a note to toughen up?

[ddog]

It would only be fair, and the media should ask this question, "Mr. President, why can't we all have the same health care program that you and congress have, at our expense? Why should you and congress have a better plan than your employers - US!"

of course, there is no reason to ask him that, since that has been their goal.
if you want that i guess you would need to ask those who are against you having it.

[cj's dad]

You NEVER address the issue.

So, after your "self" is not taken care of then what?
When they show up at an ER or run out of insurance then what do you do to take care of yourself?

Toss them out into the street with a note to toughen up?

Once again, you have gone off on a tangent. My response was addressed to a post made by c -head.

PS- I know who you is, but who are they and them ??:lol:

[Tom]

of course, there is no reason to ask him that, since that has been their goal.
if you want that i guess you would need to ask those who are against you having it.

No, that is NOT what they are saddling on us. I want the EXACT same plan they have, and that is a 100% legitimate question. Unfortunately, we have no real free press in this country to do it. We have a bunch of bought and paid for clowns who have no idea what journalism is. Those who are against us having is are Fidel Obama and the dems.

[Grits]

Dog, the questions I asked of Ch. are relevant to the thread, and his answers are in no way taking the thread off track.

Much of what is being stated in these six pages, aside from some of the excellent postings of BubbaX, along with yourself, is simply more political posturing. That's it. Healthcare, for the most part in these six pages, as is most often the case on the internet, nothing more than a political football.

And until its YOU or your family member that has a chronic (or worse, terminal) illness, how you believe will continue to be effected only by your political view, primarily speaking. In other words, as long as you and your loved one's experience reasonalby good health you're safe.

Also, one's age does and should be included in one's thinking. Smart young man he is in this way. (Which was my point.) Chick is right to be concerned about his future. Still, I'm probably Chick's mother's age, as my son is also 31. And if Chick's mother developed melanoma tomorrow, or her kidneys failed and she was on dialysis every other day for years to come, hoping one day to live to see a suitable donor kidney, he'd want every avenue possible available to her. Somehow, I don't think he'd be as concerned about his own medicare benefit dwindling.

hmmmmmmm, that seems a sensible course.

Imagine that.

perhaps now we can get someone to post a pic of grampa in blackface being clubbed to death by daschle using an aborted fetus to get the thread back on track.

Honestly speaking, its easy to debate our points, but they are simply that. Points in a damn debate that reads like--as I said, a political football being tossed around. In reality there are those who are living the hell that is our healthcare system. Some are elderly, some are not. Some are neonatal/preschool, some are not. Some are disabled by illness and cut down in their prime of life--damn those are a drain for years to come. Or like my son, whose been a cardiology patient at Duke Medical Center for 31 years--hell, now there's a drain on us all, huh!

Anyway, the post that really hits home with me in all of these six pages, though, is the guy, who today, knows the reality. The one that can truly back up every word coming out of his mouth because he's there--day in, day out. I can identify with him, because I've been in a similar position, but at the time--had NO medical insurance. And wasn't eligable for ANY entitlement of ANY kind, walking out of Duke Medical Center with bills, the result of an accident, including 8 surgical procedures in less than 30 days that took over 10 years to pay off--in full, every dime. Mind you, someone referenced a million dollars in the bank. I promise you, it wouldn't mean jack shit, it would disappear quicker today, than in 1979.

I have to be careful about getting personal, or once again, I may find myself subject to ToeToe's reprimand. Toe, I apologize in advance. LOL

Whatever you think, though, THESE words, in this quote are ones that no one should ever, ever, lose site of.

Bud stated:

we will reform it so the ins company gets the money---

1st bud was a cop on duty and gets hurt public related


2nd bud gets ms


the whole time bud is to be cut into bud light bud ice

the ins company says whats needed and not-----trumping at times some pcp-------until my MS specialist gets involved----its a joke---

They are killing me-----I have the paper work and all that shows---what is important to them is saving cash.


when I was saving lives----all was fine---Now that my life needs to be saved,,,,,,its scary as hell what is there---the callousness--------

and who runs the system the ins company---see my my post where I marked the no nothing got her home address and cell and put her down as my pcp-----------they couldn't see the humor there---jerks------but i gotto fight for mri's scans---meds----not generic bs--


I could go on I chose to stop

[Lefty]

tom, right you are. It is not the same plan. Under Their plan, the geezer Kennedy gets treated. If he wasn't in Congress, under the plan they have for us, he does not.

[Tom]

Grits, I have no objections to my tax money helping the elderly. We, as a nation, owe it to help those who cannot fend for themselves. I have never objected to welfare, food stamps, free medical care to the needy, but what I object to is the truly needy being short changed by having to carry humps who choose not to take care of themselves. Like that bitch with the 8 kids who thinks she is entitle to have her way paid! Now there is one I would happily pull the plug on.

In any event, if the government gets involved in any way shape or form, the system will fail. Everything the government has ever done has failed and always will. The very idea that congress has a better plan than the citizens is unacceptable.

As for C-Head, yes, he has wisdom beyond his years for sure. I feel very sad that my generation is not able to leave his a strong nation like my father left for me. I am sorry he gets the "as is" version of America.

[JustRalph]

There is such a concept of the "Deserving Poor" the problem is there are no limits on who those people are.

[Grits]

Grits, I have no objections to my tax money helping the elderly. We, as a nation, owe it to help those who cannot fend for themselves. I have never objected to welfare, food stamps, free medical care to the needy, but what I object to is the truly needy being short changed by having to carry humps who choose not to take care of themselves. Like that bitch with the 8 kids who thinks she is entitled to have her way paid! Now there is one I would happily pull the plug on.

And I understand and agree with you 100%. As far as that bitch in California, you wouldn't have to, sweetheart, I'd pull her plug for you GLADLY, you truly have no idea how readily I'd do so. Of the 6 she already has, disabilities have been diagnosed among them. And now, 8 more?

She's a liar. She is on welfare. She's been lying from the moment she opened her mouth. The physician who implanted the embryos, hopefully he's under investigation.

The greater question is WHERE did she get the money for the fertility treatments??? Invitro fertilization is a very, very expensive procedure, which NO insurance company would dare pay, nor will any entitlement program . . . . . or so I thought.

Unmarried, no job, I hope, deeply, that her children are removed from her. And I mean this as much as anything I've ever stated--anywhere. They're living in filfth, all over top of each other in a tiny dump, and she's unfit.

I wish the talking heads would stop on her. This, of course, being all she's wanted from day one. She's obviously impaired by mental illness, and these children don't need to be in her care. The assistance she needs should be in the form of psychiatric care.

There's also questions about cosmetic surgery undergone? Apparently, she planned for her Angelina likeness as well as her 14 children.

I better hush. I'm serious, Tom, this one's a real can of worms with me. LIVID!:faint:

[chickenhead]

Chick is right to be concerned about his future. Still, I'm probably Chick's mother's age, as my son is also 31. And if Chick's mother developed melanoma tomorrow, or her kidneys failed and she was on dialysis every other day for years to come, hoping one day to live to see a suitable donor kidney, he'd want every avenue possible available to her. Somehow, I don't think he'd be as concerned about his own medicare benefit dwindling.

You are reading my comments wrongly. I am not concerned with my medical benefit dwindling. None of my comments have anything to do with me being upset about anything related to my own benefits. I have to approach the unknown and unknowable future assuming there will be zero benefit. I think that is really the only rational approach, and I'm as at peace with that as is possible. So I feel I must attempt to be in a position to provide for myself and those around me, to whatever extent possible.

My point in it's entirety is that it is not ultimately about what we want. Our wants and opinions do not make up a reality. We can have wants and opinions, but we must always recognize that they are more or less largely irrelevant in a whole lot of cases.

If the costs of whatever I want, and the costs of whatever you want, when added all up together millions and millions of times over for each of us -- are more than we can possibly pay, and more than we can possibly ask future generations to pay -- they become irrelevant.

Health care is not quite free-marketable, because people who need medical care need to receive it, we have empathy and we want to help people in serious need. But how we actually go about affording the luxury of putting that empathy into practice is an enormous problem, I would say it is the problem that the entire west is going to need to grapple with. Because the myriad new ways we can help, and their costs, are rapidly outstripping our ability to pay for it. Couple in the demographic shifts that are going on, and it simply becomes too big a problem to ignore.

There is no easy answer, there may not even be a palatable answer, no matter how much we might wish for one.

[Grits]

Chick, I understand you more fully now. And maintain still, there's much wisdom in your 31 years. ;-)

[mostpost]

"A new bureaucracy is created, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are

It is always a good idea to check the truth of what you read. First a "new" bureaucrcy is not being created. The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology was created by George W. Bush :eek: in 2004 by executive order.
The web address is www.hhs.gov/healthhit (http://www.hhs.gov/healthhit)
Second, the job of the coordinator is not to look over a doctor's shoulder and tell him where to make the incision. The idea is to provide a central clearinghouse for treatment options which physicians can consult. Nothing in this bill can be interpreted to read that doctors will not have autonomy in treatment.
What they will have is information to help in making decisions. Nothing in this bill forces them to use this resource. Read the cited sections (Pages) and you will find that the authors arguments are made of whole cloth. They don't say what she says they say.

[mostpost]

It would only be fair, and the media should ask this question, "Mr. President, why can't we all have the same health care program that you and congress have, at our expense? Why should you and congress have a better plan than your employers - US!"

Tom, I have the same plan as the Senators and Congressmen. I am a retired postal service employee They are under the FEHB (Federal Employees Health Benefits) Plan. Under this plan we have a large number of private companies to choose from; both PPO and HMO. Under the PPO plan we can choose the Doctor(S) we want. If we choose a provider who is off network we will pay more. However, there are a large number of doctors and hospital on the preferred providers list and I have never had a problem finding one, even when in need of a specialist. Also we can switch plans if we want. (During an open season which last 2 plus months each year)

I'm guessing you are not a government employee. Otherwise you would already be under this plan. But are you aware that one of the health plans put forth during the campaign proposed opening this plan to everyone. Vote Democratic and your wish will come true;)

[Tom]

OK, dems are in power.....when do I get it?;)

[mostpost]

You did remember to tip your mailman, didn't you?

[JustRalph]

How in the hell is this Stimulus? This is an end run around debating these payments. Pure and Simple. Obama says flat out; "There are no earmarks in this bill" Lying bastard!!!

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/01/military_filipinoscouts_stimulus_012909w/

Senate puts Filipino vet pensions in stimulus

Philippine Scouts and other Filipinos who served under direct control of the U.S. military in World War II would get one-time payments of up to $15,000 for their service under a provision of the Senate’s economic recovery bill.

About 18,000 people might qualify, although numbers are declining every day as World War II veterans die.

Buried inside the Senate bill, which includes tax cuts and new spending initiatives intended to create jobs in the U.S., the Filipino payment was inserted at the urging of Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a longtime supporter of monthly pensions for World War II Filipino veterans.

Providing a one-time payment instead of a pension is a compromise that first surfaced in the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee last year as a suggestion from Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., committee chairman.

Under terms of the Senate bill, S 366, Filipino veterans who served under U.S. military control would file claims for benefits. Payments would be $15,000 for an eligible veteran who is a U.S. citizen and $9,000 for noncitizens.

Veterans could not receive more than one payment, even if they served under U.S. control in more than one unit.

Claims would have to be filed within one year of the bill being signed into law. The bill includes $198 million to help cover payments.

The fate of the provision is not clear. Last year, Inouye and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried but failed to get the Senate to agree to provide long-promised pensions to Filipino veterans.

Part of the problem had to do with funding, and part of the opposition came from senators who objected to spending scarce veterans funding on noncitizens — many of whom do not even live in the U.S. — when stateside veterans still have unmet needs.

more at the link

[Lefty]

Ralphie, Schumer says Americans aren't upset about the little porky elements.
Now here you go making Chucky out a liar. Now that we're talking trillions, what's a few billion?