1
2
I totally agree with treating the cause rather than the result. I certainly don't want to end up paying for Joe Cheeseburger's 3rd triple bypass because of his own unhealthy choices -- which is exactly what will happen when the Medicare override being used to pay for this runs out.
On the same note, the President essentially admitted that Medicare/Medicaid are extremely wasteful programs and in the next breath asks for the support of the American people in another such program.
For those decrying government intervention in our everyday lives, where is the cutoff? Are the FDA, USDA, and EPA doing more harm than good?
The cutoff is simple, don't restrict freedoms that do not impact the safety, well being, and freedom of others.
obama said:There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage
if there is a way out.. you're not really required... gotta listen more closely...
From. page 3 of the full text http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26953_Page3.html
MrJoshua wrote:So I assume this is in reference to the Obama speech? What did I miss?
Obama comes out and says "You mother berkeleyers haven't heard!? We fixed the economy! Yeaaaaah me!!! What? 9.7% unemployment? Aaahh, that's no big deal. Trust me, it's fixed."
He then goes on to say something to the effect of "It's time to stop 'bickering.' Comply motherberkeleyers."
He claims (as he did in his speech on Monday) that "His door is always open, but no Republicans have come to him with an alternative bill." Republican representatives held their bills way up in the air so that the president could see them. This infuriated Emperor Pelosi, and she went from looking like this:
to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQKeZ8qrhb4
The end.
Poop,
That was the best review I have ever read about almost anything. Missed a couple points some people might be interested in but you summed it up nicely.
I would like to see two things happen to fix health care. The first being tort reform. If you think health insurance is expensive ask your doctor what he's paying in malpractice insurance. I'm not saying doctors are perfect or that they shouldn't be held responsible, but there needs to be some kind of limit on what you can collect money for, and how much.
The second would be to disconnect health insurance from employment. If everyone had to pay for their insurance out of pocket you would see a change in the way it was sold and used. Companies would have to compete like auto insurers to give lower rates and good service. Like your car insurance you also wouldn't use it for every little thing. Before I had insurance I used to pay my doctor. Physicals and regular office visits were $75 dollars. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount to spend on your health, and it would cut down on the people who run in over every little sniffle. Most people would pay that to have their car serviced, but cry like children at the thought of paying for their own well being.
poopshovel wrote:
- This also occured when Representative Joe Wilson had the balls to shout "YOU LIE" after Obama referred to Republicans opposed to the bill as liars using "scare tactics," and claiming that (presumably HR 3200) wouldn't cover illegals. The video is berkeleying priceless. Watch Pelosi saying "WHO SAID THAT!? WHO SAID THAT!?!?" like she's going to get up and whoop some ass:
Breaking the Republicans own rules of conduct in both houses. Hence the apology after the fact.
While that behaviour would fly on AM radio it won't in the houses of government.
Wally, I agree with part 1. Tort Law is ridiculous in the country and part of the reason our healthcare costs what it does. It doesn't seem to keep bad doctors from practicing, just makes bad doctors more in debt.
Part 2, yes and no. I'm not sure insurance companies would ever drop prices to car insurance levels, and even if they did there would still be people out there who couldn't afford it or would choose not to have it, and stick the rest of us with the bill.
Xceler8x wrote:poopshovel wrote:
- This also occured when Representative Joe Wilson had the balls to shout "YOU LIE" after Obama referred to Republicans opposed to the bill as liars using "scare tactics," and claiming that (presumably HR 3200) wouldn't cover illegals. The video is berkeleying priceless. Watch Pelosi saying "WHO SAID THAT!? WHO SAID THAT!?!?" like she's going to get up and whoop some ass:
Breaking the Republicans own rules of conduct in both houses. Hence the apology after the fact.
While that behaviour would fly on AM radio it won't in the houses of government.
Yeah man, I totally recognize the irony/hypocrisy. If it was a democrat screaming "NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL!" or some E36 M3, I'd be shaking my head. That being said, I think it was awesome, particularly because at that point, I was literally saying out loud: "Wouldn't it be great if some ballsy mother berkeleyer just stood up and called his ass out?"
I agree w/Wally on "part 2." The Democrats, as part of this long, ongoing plot to control healthcare, were the initial proponents of forcing businesses to provide insurance. A lot of people are stuck with whatever they get from their employer because it's "what's cheap." I'd also speculate that this is a big contributing factor to stagnant wages. I know that as a self-employer, our rates went up 20-30% per year when we had insurance.
My fear is that once people are hooked on gov't provided insurance, it'll be the same way. Take a look at SS and medicaid/medicare if you need a clear, relevent, current example. As Herman Cane put it so eloquently this weekend, they'll have the brass ring hooked through your nose. Every 2-4 years, they'll give it a little tug, the Democrats shouting "The evil Republicans are going to take away your healthcare! Here's what I'M going to GIVE you! FREE this and FREE that."
I think "part 1" is a moot point. The lawyers are paying the politicians' salaries. I don't think they're going to throw them under the bus. Sure, Dems and Republicans both will give tort reform a bunch of lip service, but nothing more, IMO.
I've got mixed feelings over the whole "employer provided health insurance" deal. If it wasn't for the health insurance provided by my job, I couldn't afford to buy insurance for a family. Before you go out and scream "then don't have a family" I could just barely afford insurance for myself, much less my wife added on. I could get total catastrophic insurance for a price I could afford, but my wife is a different story. She has to go to the doctor a lot more than I do just for normal preventative care. An insurance plan that would cover that was way out of our price range. I've got no problem with paying for our own health insurance the same way I do for our cars, but before having my job provided health insurance yanked away I would want assurance that I could actually afford to buy insurance on my own that was at least somewhat comparable.
Throw in having a child and WOO boy do insurance AND medical costs skyrocket. Even if your child is completely healthy medical costs rack up.
Tort reform would be a good start, but I have little belief that it will happen. Sure billions per year get paid out in awards, but how many more billions just stay in the insurance company's pocket? So imagine how much money will DELUGE Washington in the form of lobbying to prevent tort reform from happening. I'm not against the insurance companies making a profit, but I am against the wholesale buying of legislation to the highest bidder.
blaze86vic wrote:I think this is hillarious!
I don't wear a seat-belt when I'm driving my car on the streets because I find it far more comfortable, and I'm confident in my ability to predict the idiots around me and avoid any accidents (7 years 250,000 miles successful). When they made it a law that I had to, I was rather pissed that the government was able to tell me how to live my life when it in no way endangered anyone else's life or way of life. It of course didn't change what I did (wooh there's a huge rebel for ya haha). People would always harp on me about "it's the law". And I'd always say that seat-belts are to protect you and only in the event that you have an accident.
And now full circle, the government has now been granted the power to force insurance on people for themselves. This is nothing like insurance for car (as that is mostly to cover someone that you hit than it is for you). Health insurance is to protect you and only you in the event that you have an accident.
Amazing how similar they are, and yet no one seems to be bothered with the seatbelt law........
BTW, I pay over $200 a month for health insurance since I am independently employed. So I'm not just an anti-authority nut.
You sir lead a charmed life. I led a charmed life too for more years than you did and way more miles. I made it 13 years before being hit head-on by a drunk driver. Never even saw him, completely out of nowhere. Had I not had my seat belt on I'd either be dead, or had racked up a huge medical bill that my insurance company would have had to pay (that's right, MY insurance company, not the other drive cause he had no insurance). It still cost $36k to put me back together and who knows how high it would have been if I hadn't had a seat belt on. I'm fairly sure it would be enough to put me in debt for the rest of my life without insurance to take the brunt.
So I'm glad you lead a charmed life, but choosing to not wear a seat belt in the event of an accident will ultimately cause the cost of your OWN health insurance to go up due to the massive increase in cost to patch you back up after an accident that possibly would have left you unscratched. But at least you were comfortable.
blaze86vic wrote: I don't wear a seat-belt when I'm driving my car on the streets because I find it far more comfortable, and I'm confident in my ability to predict the idiots around me and avoid any accidents (7 years 250,000 miles successful). When they made it a law that I had to, I was rather pissed that the government was able to tell me how to live my life when it in no way endangered anyone else's life or way of life. It of course didn't change what I did (wooh there's a huge rebel for ya haha). People would always harp on me about "it's the law". And I'd always say that seat-belts are to protect you and only in the event that you have an accident.
If a seat belt only protects you please explain to me the two fatalities I attended where a back seat passenger who was unrestrained was thrown head first into the front seat occupant killing them by crushing their skull.
This is not a statistic but personal experience.
Just to put it in perspective I had driven approx 1,000,000 miles in the past 7 years and all of them in a seat belt, I also insist my passengers wear them, nobody is perfect all the time.
slefain wrote: You sir lead a charmed life. I led a charmed life too for more years than you did and way more miles. I made it 13 years before being hit head-on by a drunk driver. Never even saw him, completely out of nowhere. Had I not had my seat belt on I'd either be dead, or had racked up a huge medical bill that my insurance company would have had to pay (that's right, MY insurance company, not the other drive cause he had no insurance). It still cost $36k to put me back together and who knows how high it would have been if I hadn't had a seat belt on. I'm fairly sure it would be enough to put me in debt for the rest of my life without insurance to take the brunt.So I'm glad you lead a charmed life, but choosing to not wear a seat belt in the event of an accident will ultimately cause the cost of your OWN health insurance to go up due to the massive increase in cost to patch you back up after an accident that possibly would have left you unscratched. But at least you were comfortable.
I never said they didn't save lives. I never said they weren't safer. I never said they weren't good. But as wonderful a point you make it is even in your own statement, it is my own decision, and does not affect others. I pay for my insurance, it's my risk that I take, and it's my life to loose, not yours or the government to tell me how I loose it. That's all I said about it, and people like yourself don't see the harm in letting the government force you into this, because it happens to align with your way of living. Maybe you'd care if the government said you couldn't wear socks on slick floors because that's too dangerous? Again there is no difference.
aussiesmg wrote: If a seat belt only protects you please explain to me the two fatalities I attended where a back seat passenger who was unrestrained was thrown head first into the front seat occupant killing them by crushing their skull.
This is not a statistic but personal experience.
Just to put it in perspective I had driven approx 1,000,000 miles in the past 7 years and all of them in a seat belt, I also insist my passengers wear them, nobody is perfect all the time.
I wear my seat-belt in other people's cars. People wear their belts in my car (except for the back of my Vic, as I have repeatedly tried to inform people of the increased risk of injury in using only lap belts.) But I don't usually have people in the back of my Vic, and I would like to eventually convert it to 3 point rear belts from a newer Crown Vic (if I can find it in Tan). If someone chose not to wear their belt in my car, I would either accept the increased risk to myself, or ask them to wear their belt. As unfortunate as your circumstance was, it is extremely rare, and also VERY unlikely. An accident in cars with full seats would not have had that problem because the seat protects the passengers from objects in the rear. If it were a car with full seats, despite the circumstances, it's possible they may have been injured that way irrelevant of the rear passengers. I'm not going to try and debate how it happened, I can't re-create the accident any better than you. But either way rare circumstances aren't what laws are made from.
How about this answer to health insurance. Everyone must pay a certain percentage of their income (say 1% or so) to a health insurance provider. Who provides it doesn't matter (as long as they report it to the government). If you make a lot of money, you pay a "tax" between the cost of the insurance up to your 1%. If you don't make that much, you won't ever pay more than your 1%.
Health care insurance should be available as easy as auto insurance (we shouldn't have to be tied to our employer's choice).
All treatments/visits should be logged and made available to every doctor (think CarFax,but for people, and more detailed). Those who abuse the system (hypochrondriacs and bored people) would have to answer to one doctor, who could properly diagnose their ailment and treat (or not) as necessary.
Medical malpractice suits should be limited.
Having more government than absolutely necessary is just asking for additional cost/bureaucracy.
poopshovel wrote:I think "part 1" is a moot point. The lawyers are paying the politicians' salaries. I don't think they're going to throw them under the bus. Sure, Dems and Republicans both will give tort reform a bunch of lip service, but nothing more, IMO.
I'm sure that's what the insurance companies thought right up until the dems started tossing them under the bus.
re: your other statement about the brass ring:
its obvious (to me, at least) that this is heading toward communism. playing up the economic troubles, playing up the "crisis" of insurance/healtcare reform and then "oh don't worry, just let the gov't step in and give you guys a bailout, then we'll just require you do things the way we say. don't worry, we'll give you all "free" insurance, we'll just have to decide when you're too old and/or sick to get treatment anymore.
Hi Poopshovel,
Nice job critiquing the speech.
Here are my thoughts...
Illogical argument #1: The root cause of the problem is excessive profits on the part of insurance, pharmaceutical, & medical device companies…All of these companies are publically traded so if there were any truth to this, anybody could immediately help themselves to the “Excessive Profits” by simply buying shares. Additionally, the valuation is automatically held in check by free market trading; people will buy up shares until capitalization dilutes the PEG “price earnings growth” ratio to the point where it's in line with other equities.
Illogical argument #2: The changes will be paid for by eliminating inefficiencies…Why hasn’t this already been done? What is stopping us from doing this now – Why wouldn’t we do this first and then reassess the situation to see if further changes are required before moving ahead and exposing ourselves to enormous transition costs and even more enormous risks of unintended consequences. – Why is tort reform, at best, given a trivial little blurb when we know that about 25% of total healthcare costs go to defensive medicine, malpractice insurance, & settlements?
Illogical argument #3: The folks that currently have insurance will get better treatment and many folks that currently don’t have anything will get included…The population is aging & we’ve got a huge influx of immigrants of child bearing years and both of these groups place a much greater burden on the medical system than average – We’ve already got demand exceeding capacity as exemplified by the abundance of waiting room horror stories - It takes about twelve years to make a doctor. Add all of this up and it becomes totally obvious and totally unavoidable that for every person that will be getting better treatment as a result of the change, there absolutely, positively, & irrefutably will be at least one, perhaps many, people that receive poorer treatment as a result of the change. It’s a basic theory of constraints issue like that in racing where we say: You can have it strong, light, or cheap – pick two.
The President could have given a 25 minute emotional speech or a fifty minute technical speech but instead, he gave a 50 minute emotional speech which provides indication that the realities are just too repugnant to reveal to the American people so at the conclusion, I was reminded of an old prayer that goes: Dear God, please let me be the person my dog thinks I am.
Dear God, please give us a President that is what our citizens think he is.
