it's funny how Sen. Bunning didn't make a peep about such a thing until confronted with legislation he doesn't like.
the fact that it's attached to pending legislation (as opposed to being introduced on its own) is a big clue as to the motivation.
what's the over/under on the number of Republicans who would've supported such a measure during the Bush years? I'll set it at 2 and take the under. so don't make that out like it's some Democrat special. neither party is exempt from that crap.
It's different when it was a campaign promise that has been ignored by the president and now all the sudden it's too much trouble
true. and as an Obama supporter, i find it highly annoying.
however, if that's the reason for the measure, that says to me that it's motivated more by political goals than by a real desire for transparency. if the latter is the real motivation (as opposed to simply showing up a political foe), it shouldn't matter what campaign promises were made.
i think it's a good idea, and i would like to see something like it passed. i also would like to see it enforceable, and not ignored whenever the power changes parties again.
Hi Buzz,
I’ll decline from taking your bet as I’m not a fan of parting with my money.
Now, who cares about what the republicans had done or what they would do if they were currently in power.
I want full disclosure…I want time to digest the information…I want us to stay the course with our current bad system until such time that a realistic, viable improvement is proposed.
Right now, all we’re doing is rushing through a change because it allows for the creation of winners & losers. This is not in our collective best interest as the winners tend to be those that spend their time positioning themselves to get free stuff and the losers tend to be those that spend their time getting the job done.
Dr. Hess wrote: ...The current system was deliberately destroyed to force us to this point... ....Then the government comes along, after allowing all the above, and suddenly wants to fix it all by taking direct control of it all....
OK, let me get the clear.
The government, pretty much as a whole, has undertaken a guided plan that would cause the healthcare system to become horribly inefficient and expensive by ways of legislation and other actions. This of course include the Republicans (and would realistically be mostly the Republicans since they have had far more "power" in the last 10 years). The same Republicans who now WILDLY protest ANYTHING that RESEMBLES government control of the healthcare system (see Fox news for examples).
And they do all this to what purpose? What is their goal? How does this get them re-election money or votes (the primary motivator of most all politicians).
Oh, wait, I think I get it. It's a bit of a double conspiracy. The "right" has orchestrated this and has waited until the "left" had come to power and has now tricked them into doing these reforms, making it look like their idea. The right can now scream and holler like stuck pigs, screaming how this cannot be tolerated, while all the time know it was their plan all the time but not have to take responsibility for it, and yet reap the huge gains (?!) that will result. Or maybe just to be able to blame the left for such a horrible plan (which of course was really their plan, made purposely horrible)
But wait, I am now thinking it is a triple layered conspiracy. The left has somehow gotten the right to believe that such changes would benefit them, thus causing them to create this plan (believing they would be setting the left up), yet quietly supporting them knowing they can blame them later, but the left knows that such changes will be beneficial in the long run so they will take a hit at first but will eventually be able to tremendous damage to the right by pointing out how they railed on and claimed no responsibility for such a great program.
BTW - disagreeing with my above double or triple conspiracy theory automatically makes you part of the conspiracy and thus you argument will be immediately discounted.
The ability to see collusion and conspiracy at almost every turn is truly a talent I don't understand.
Buzz Killington wrote:wbjones wrote: plus have any of you spent any time in an ER lately..?? if it's not life threatening the wait can seem forever.. hrs anyway... it's not because they don't care it's because there aren't enough people or rooms...b/c the ER is the only place a lot of people can go to get any medical treatment. if they can't pay, we do.
that's pretty much what I said...
RX Reven' wrote: Hi Buzz, I’ll decline from taking your bet as I’m not a fan of parting with my money. Now, who cares about what the republicans had done or what they would do if they were currently in power.
no one really does. but that tidbit was presented as if the big bad democrats are crushing the efforts of the righteous republicans to provide the transparency in government that republicans have long treasured. i don't buy it.
RX Reven' wrote: I want full disclosure…I want time to digest the information…I want us to stay the course with our current bad system until such time that a realistic, viable improvement is proposed. Right now, all we’re doing is rushing through a change because it allows for the creation of winners & losers. This is not in our collective best interest as the winners tend to be those that spend their time positioning themselves to get free stuff and the losers tend to be those that spend their time getting the job done.
this is a good point, but where are the counter proposals? all i see is complaining. i was watching fox news the other day, and according to the GOP talking head, "the republicans have a plan. we do."
well, i'm sold. let's go with that one.
this is a serious subject that deserves serious, measured debate. but there is no constructive feedback coming from the GOP. the problem is that the loudest voices are more concerned with "stopping Obama" than with addressing the problem and crafting a solution. they're preventing a serious conversation from taking place, necessitating the current bullrush approach.
i would love to hear some constructive counter ideas, but none appear to be forthcoming.
So, Buzz, what you're suggesting is a totally flawed, full on bullE36 M3 plan that is really nothing but a drive to nationalize another 15% of our economy and push us that much closer to a totalatarian government under the cover of "save the geezers" or "save the children," take your pick, is better than doing nothing right now and thinking about this for a little bit? How about addressing the issues I pointed out earlier? Oh, don't want to do that. You can listen to someone that just watches talking heads or someone that has seen it from both sides. Take your pick.
aircooled wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: ...The current system was deliberately destroyed to force us to this point... ....Then the government comes along, after allowing all the above, and suddenly wants to fix it all by taking direct control of it all....OK, let me get the clear. The government, pretty much as a whole, has undertaken a guided plan that would cause the healthcare system to become horribly inefficient and expensive by ways of legislation and other actions. This of course include the Republicans (and would realistically be mostly the Republicans since they have had far more "power" in the last 10 years). The same Republicans who now WILDLY protest ANYTHING that RESEMBLES government control of the healthcare system (see Fox news for examples). And they do all this to what purpose? What is their goal? How does this get them re-election money or votes (the primary motivator of most all politicians). Oh, wait, I think I get it. It's a bit of a double conspiracy. The "right" has orchestrated this and has waited until the "left" had come to power and has now tricked them into doing these reforms, making it look like their idea. The right can now scream and holler like stuck pigs, screaming how this cannot be tolerated, while all the time know it was their plan all the time but not have to take responsibility for it, and yet reap the huge gains (?!) that will result. Or maybe just to be able to blame the left for such a horrible plan (which of course was really their plan, made purposely horrible) But wait, I am now thinking it is a triple layered conspiracy. The left has somehow gotten the right to believe that such changes would benefit them, thus causing them to create this plan (believing they would be setting the left up), yet quietly supporting them knowing they can blame them later, but the left knows that such changes will be beneficial in the long run so they will take a hit at first but will eventually be able to tremendous damage to the right by pointing out how they railed on and claimed no responsibility for such a great program. BTW - disagreeing with my above double or triple conspiracy theory automatically makes you part of the conspiracy and thus you argument will be immediately discounted. The ability to see collusion and conspiracy at almost every turn is truly a talent I don't understand.
It ain't right vs. left. It is DC vs. America.
DILYSI Dave wrote: It ain't right vs. left. It is DC vs. America.
That's why they are called profiticians.
This might help see where it went awry.
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm
As an aside, a lot of people blame the current mess on Nixon's creation of HMOs. It's interesting reading what was said about him at the time (and by whom) at the link above.
Datsun1500 wrote: How did people deal with no insurance in the past? Did my Great Grandparents have insurance or did they get sick, and deal with it? They also had a modest house, 1 car, and a I can do this myself attitude...
If you compare the wages for the day and the cost of health care compared to those wages your grandfather was better off.
Remember that the medical professional of the past did not have a seven year $285,000 degree to pay off.
Datsun1500 wrote: How did people deal with no insurance in the past? Did my Great Grandparents have insurance or did they get sick, and deal with it? They also had a modest house, 1 car, and a I can do this myself attitude...
Health insurance was a luxury. That being the case, the tendency for Insurance to lead to price increases was kept in check, as many people paid out of pocket. And you don't have to go generations back. When I was born in 1976, my folks didn't have health insurance. The total cost for my delivery (including hospital stay, all doctors, etc.) was $2500. Dad paid it out of pocket.
Buzz Killington wrote: reasonable people can certainly disagree on the best solution, but i can't see how a reasonable person could think that the current system is sustainable.
I love how most people (and I'm not singling you out) automatically assume that if you're not for The Second Coming's socialized health care, you MUST think the status quo is working.
Toyman01 wrote: A long time ago I decided I was a big boy and able to take care of myself so I moved out of my parents house. I have no intention having someone take care of me now. Let me keep my money and I will take care of me.
golf clap
Snowdoggie wrote: Have you read the fine print on your health insurance policy lately?
I'll wager he has, if he's got the attitude shown by his post.
Xceler8x wrote: But think of the profits! Those poor, poor neglected profits.
You know what? If somebody can save my berkelying life then they should make as much money as they possibly can.
Duke wrote: You know what? If somebody can save my berkelying _life_ then they _should_ make as much money as they possibly can.
So you would be in favor of paying government employees like policemen and firemen over 200K a year then?
Duke wrote: You know what? If somebody can save my berkelying _life_ then they _should_ make as much money as they possibly can.
And when he won't save your life because you can't afford it, OR you'd be better off dead then living in a mountain of debt for the rest of your life because he did save your life: priceless!
Duke wrote:Snowdoggie wrote: Have you read the fine print on your health insurance policy lately?I'll wager he has, if he's got the attitude shown by his post.
Guys who write contracts for a living have a name for people who have that attitude and lack the legal knowledge to understand every single word and every possible interpretation of a contract.
They call them suckers. 
Snowdoggie wrote:Duke wrote: You know what? If somebody can save my berkelying _life_ then they _should_ make as much money as they possibly can.So you would be in favor of paying government employees like policemen and firemen over 200K a year then?
When policemen and firemen start spending the better part of decade getting an education, amass a six-figure debt while doing so, then have to insure themselves against those they protect, and constantly have to further their education (still out of pocket) - then, perhaps, they should be paid over 200k a year.
Until then, ummm, NO!
Cops and firemen in California make over 200K a year now. There's been several references to it in the past year or two. Several towns are in bankruptcy because of it.
Uncle Bill passed a law saying that any illegal alien can go to any ER and be treated. The ER sends a bill to... Oh well, they just eat it. If the ER so much as says, hey, you have a minor cold and don't need to come to the ER, why don't you go home and take some OTC meds? They can get sued into oblivion, arrested, lose their license (but not the 200K student loan debt) because anything can be a "serious" condition or lead to one.
My observation: 25 years ago, when I had a sinus infection, I would go to my "primary care provider," a M.D., who would write me a prescription for some antibiotics. Total office visit charge was $25. Today, when you have a sinus infection, you go to your "primary care provider," likely a nurse or a physician assistant (who both think they are doctors), they write a prescription under a M.D.'s license, charge you a $35 "co-pay," the insurance kicks in a few more dollars, the doctor's office pays 8 to 10% overhead in billing costs either inhouse to subbed out to get that insurance money back, and you pay the insurance company $4,000/year for "health insurance." What's different? The four large you pay the insurance company. Now, there's a big block of people (estimates vary from 10-40 million) who are not paying $4K/yr to an insurance company!!! How can we force them to do that? Let's get Congress to do it.
Snowdoggie deserves the medical care he wants, where doctors are paid pennies to keep them BMW's and P cars out of the parking lot and that's what he's going to get. Just like Cuba, where the patients have to bring their own linen to the hospital. Or didn't Moore cover that in his movie? Just like Canada where my grandfather had to wait 5 years for prostate surgery because he kept getting cancelled at the last minute and where old people, like my grandmother, are declared "old" and just left to die.
oldsaw wrote: When policemen and firemen start spending the better part of decade getting an education, amass a six-figure debt while doing so, then have to insure themselves against those they protect, and constantly have to further their education (still out of pocket) - then, perhaps, they should be paid over 200k a year. Until then, ummm, NO!
What he said. I have great respect for cops and I work with a variety of different volunteer fire companies, and I have great respect for them as well. But a firefighter shows up at my house, sees its on fire, does his best to save anybody inside, and puts the fire out. I donate to both my local VFC and ambulance corps and I have never used either. You can bet that when my mother's house burned down we made a substantial donation even though they were completely unable to save any part of it. It's a dangerous and difficult job, but the problem is obvious and when the fire is out it's over. A few hours later he goes away and it is done.
A doctor, on the other hand, should be involved in my care for life and may have to use extremely specialized knowledge and training to my benefit over a period of many years
I don't have any problem with a doctor making $250-$500k, if he is a good doctor and gives good service to his patients. No problem at all.
HiTempGuy wrote: And when he won't save your life because you can't afford it, OR you'd be better off dead then living in a mountain of debt for the rest of your life because he did save your life: priceless!
Then don't go to the doctor if it is such a horrible fate.
If I can't afford to eat I go hungry. If I can't afford a Mercedes I drive a used Ford or ride a bike. If I can't afford to support my kids I don't berkeleying have any. The grocer, the car dealer, and the daycare center are not required to give me something cheaply or free just because I need it. And nobody should be required to pay for those things on my behalf just because I can't (or won't - makes no difference).
Dr. Hess wrote: Cops and firemen in California make over 200K a year now. There's been several references to it in the past year or two. Several towns are in bankruptcy because of it. Uncle Bill passed a law saying that any illegal alien can go to any ER and be treated. The ER sends a bill to... Oh well, they just eat it. If the ER so much as says, hey, you have a minor cold and don't need to come to the ER, why don't you go home and take some OTC meds? They can get sued into oblivion, arrested, lose their license (but not the 200K student loan debt) because anything can be a "serious" condition or lead to one. My observation: 25 years ago, when I had a sinus infection, I would go to my "primary care provider," a M.D., who would write me a prescription for some antibiotics. Total office visit charge was $25. Today, when you have a sinus infection, you go to your "primary care provider," likely a nurse or a physician assistant (who both think they are doctors), they write a prescription under a M.D.'s license, charge you a $35 "co-pay," the insurance kicks in a few more dollars, the doctor's office pays 8 to 10% overhead in billing costs either inhouse to subbed out to get that insurance money back, and you pay the insurance company $4,000/year for "health insurance." What's different? The four large you pay the insurance company. Now, there's a big block of people (estimates vary from 10-40 million) who are not paying $4K/yr to an insurance company!!! How can we force them to do that? Let's get Congress to do it. Snowdoggie deserves the medical care he wants, where doctors are paid pennies to keep them BMW's and P cars out of the parking lot and that's what he's going to get. Just like Cuba, where the patients have to bring their own linen to the hospital. Or didn't Moore cover that in his movie? Just like Canada where my grandfather had to wait 5 years for prostate surgery because he kept getting cancelled at the last minute and where old people, like my grandmother, are declared "old" and just left to die.
Strange. I didn't refer to any movie by 'Moore'. Would that be Roger Moore by any chance? I really thought that Connery was the better Bond.
Again, I still see doctors making plenty of money, for the amount of education they have, both here and in Canada.
I have spoken to Canadians who rather like the system they have up there and say that the horror stories are often exceptions touted by the American right. On the other hand, most people here seem to hate the system we have, except for those who are stockholders or executives from the health care industry.
Duke wrote:oldsaw wrote: When policemen and firemen start spending the better part of decade getting an education, amass a six-figure debt while doing so, then have to insure themselves against those they protect, and constantly have to further their education (still out of pocket) - then, perhaps, they should be paid over 200k a year. Until then, ummm, NO!What he said. I have great respect for cops and I work with a variety of different volunteer fire companies, and I have great respect for them as well. But a firefighter shows up at my house, sees its on fire, does his best to save anybody inside, and puts the fire out. I donate to both my local VFC and ambulance corps and I have never used either. You can bet that when my mother's house burned down we made a substantial donation even though they were completely unable to save any part of it. It's a dangerous and difficult job, but the problem is obvious and when the fire is out it's over. A few hours later he goes away and it is done. A doctor, on the other hand, should be involved in my care for life and may have to use extremely specialized knowledge and training to my benefit over a period of many years I don't have any problem with a doctor making $250-$500k, if he is a good doctor and gives good service to his patients. No problem at all.HiTempGuy wrote: And when he won't save your life because you can't afford it, OR you'd be better off dead then living in a mountain of debt for the rest of your life because he did save your life: priceless!Then don't go to the doctor if it is such a horrible fate. If I can't afford to eat I go hungry. If I can't afford a Mercedes I drive a used Ford or ride a bike. If I can't afford to support my kids I don't berkeleying have any. The grocer, the car dealer, and the daycare center are not required to give me something cheaply or free just because I need it. And nobody should be required to pay for those things on my behalf just because I can't (or won't - makes no difference).
I really don't understand that since there is such an objection to 'socialized medicine' here that we don't have the same objection to 'socialized' police and fire protection. Then you get to decide if these guys are worth what they get paid or not, NOT the government. Hey, like Hess said about 60 year olds who should die if they can't afford a doctor, if you can't afford it, your house should burn down and you should get robbed and beaten to death without assistance from anyone.
Dr. Hess wrote: Snowdoggie deserves the medical care he wants, where doctors are paid pennies to keep them BMW's and P cars out of the parking lot and that's what he's going to get. Just like Cuba, where the patients have to bring their own linen to the hospital. Or didn't Moore cover that in his movie? Just like Canada where my grandfather had to wait 5 years for prostate surgery because he kept getting cancelled at the last minute and where old people, like my grandmother, are declared "old" and just left to die.
Come to think of it, you are imagining things here. I never stated on this board exactly what kind of medical care I want. I stated that I don't like the current system where health insurance companies play shell games with contracts. Neither do some doctors I know.
I also stated that the current bill in congress was written by a Democrat who gets lots of money from health insurance lobbyists so it should be suspect too, although we won't really know until the bill comes up in it's final form for a vote.
I did not make any references to Michael Moore's movie or what he believes.
Quit making assumptions based on less than ten posts I made on a message board. You do not know me. You do not know what I believe.
Snowdoggie wrote: I really don't understand that since there is such an objection to 'socialized medicine' here that we don't have the same objection to 'socialized' police and fire protection. Then you get to decide if these guys are worth what they get paid or not, NOT the government. Hey, like Hess said about 60 year olds who should die if they can't afford a doctor, if you can't afford it, your house should burn down and you should get robbed and beaten to death without assistance from anyone.
Police and military defense are not socialism in any way. Police are there to protect the rights of individual citizens from being violated by criminals. That is the SOLE LEGITIMATE PURPOSE of the executive branch of government. Police are just the government doing its job, not a form of social care. Ditto the military, on an international scale.
Fire protection is a slightly greyer area, but not much, and is still not analogous to health care. When your house catches on fire they come and put it out. This also protects your neighbors' property rights so that your house does not light their houses on fire too. Then, when the fire is out, the fire company GOES AWAY. They do not hang around and rebuild your house for you. That's up to you and/or your insurance. In fact, as I've repeated several times, firefighting began as a service provided by private insurance companies to protect their clients! Our local VFC is called Aetna Hose, Hook, and Ladder - you bet your boots it's that Aetna, too: an insurance company protecting its clients (and its own investments).
The only way that parallels socialized health care is in the example of someone coming into the ER with a critical issue. They should stabilize you and that's it unless you have some other ability to pay, either personal or insurance.
You apparently choose not to believe it, but this is a completely separate issue from routine-maintenance and chronic health care. During a 911 emergency - police, fire, or ambulance - immediate reaction is paramount for successfully resolving the issue. Seconds count and I don't think anyone here who is against socialism would be against publicly funding emergency response. To suggest we are is at best a red herring and an outright lie at worst (just like the media's implication that the only reason people are against socialized health care is because we hate black Democrats).
However, if I am an overweight, diabetic smoker (I've known plenty), then why on Earth should the taxpayers be forced to pay for the huge quantity of health care resources I am going to soak up during the course of my lifetime? Why should that be anybody's responsibility but my own?
Come to think of it, you are imagining things here.
Pot, meet kettle. You suggest that anyone who's opposed to the federal government forcing us to buy health insurance is anti-military, anti-fire-dept., anti-law enforcement, anti-berkeleying-post office, whatever.
That's where I generally stop posting in these threads. Lots of stereotyping, deflecting, baby talk, and not much real content or intelligent debate.
Have fun with that.
You'll need to log in to post.
