Kucinich sells out by SergeantX

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

.....and, I'm out.

Promise?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Heh, Kwicko, I recognise that pattern from somewhere. It's just as funny from outside.

I thought he left?

Anyway:

I'm gathering Kucinich is a democrat who was against the US Healthcare reform bill, and now isn't?

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

Cit - Good to see you 'round these parts. Yup, Rappy never changes; he's the same old Rappy we all know and hate.

And yeah, you've got Kucinich pegged.

Don't be a stranger. Or at least don't be stranger than me.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 5:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
kwickie -

You know I NEVER said it " pissed me off" that Obama was black. So I never once back peddled. It's you who has reading comprehension issues. So you can stop w/ the mock indignation routine. No one's stupid enough to buy it.

It's right there in your quote, for all to see. Don't know why you keep denying what you so clearly said. You said outright that it pisses you off, and that you loathe our President because he's black. It's right there in your own words, in black and white. Or maybe it should be in WHITE and white, so it doesn't piss you off!

Quote:

All you're attempting to do is feign incredulity to cover for the fact that I obliterated your weak attempt to stir up some sort of point.

Actually, all I'm trying to do - and succeeding quite well at - is show you up for the liar, racist, and hypocrite that we all know you to be. And YOU know it, too, because it's right there in your words, in YOUR posts, and in your denial that you ever said the things which you clearly DID say.

Quote:
And while I officially think that a woman's right to choose an abortion exists for the first trimester, I'm wholly against ANY $ being spent by the Federal Gov't on the procedure. Not a proper function of Gov't. Not by a long shot.

Which is why there's not a single penny of government money being spent on abortions in this bill, and there's not a single mention of any government money being used in such a way anywhere in this bill, except to say that such use is strictly forbidden. You and Bart Stupak can keep on trying to bullshit the people by insisting that it's in there, but neither you nor he can show one single instance of it being there, because it quite simply isn't. As always, you're flat-out lying.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 5:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So the bill... as it is... represents a compromise: In exchange for additional regulation, the insurances get an expanded consumer base and some govt money. In theory this slows the rise of healthcare costs. If it truly DOES reduce the rise in per capita expenditures while expanding coverage, then we're heading in the right direction.

But I'm not sure that's going to happen, and just in case it doesn't, I'm still thinking we need to push for a government option. But back to the question:

HOW?

Now, in CA we have a single-payer plan brewing. For me, that's the most obvious place to start. For one thing, if it goes through in CA and the CA provisions collided with Fed provisions, we'll get to fight about it.

But for others, the next best thing is Grayson's public option bill. If there was EVER a time to apply a litmus test, this coming election is it. All candidates should be pressed, and pressed hard, on whether they support the Grayson bill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 6:51 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

MEh - what can I say Mike ?

cRAP insisted he NEVER claimed there were MASSIVE protests against Afghanistan - no matter how many times I quoted those very words that he posted.

He is one seriously delusional dude. We may be watching another PN in the making.

Normally I have sympathy b/c people who are like that generally get to blame pure dumb fate. But cRAP is actualy choosing this. So I'm going to get out the popcorn.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 7:14 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Niki

So, to get back to Kucinich a bit - let me go through a story about my experience as a union negotiator. We were negotiating a contract and our management wanted to create yet another tier for new hires - a tier with fewer benefits than the people currently working. We spent hours and hours every week for close to 2 months just fighting that one point. We kept asking for figures about how much was this benefit or that benefit for the old hires costing them, so we could trade away some of our current benefits in order have the same level of benefits available to everyone - no matter when they were hired. Finally management said - it's not about the money.

Now, we couldn't accuse them of regressive bargaining. And we couldn't accuse them of bargaining in bad faith b/c they knew how to play the game in order to avoid that. And if an impasse is declared management can impose their last, best and final offer.

So we bargained HARD for the sweetest contract we could get - albeit one with that tier for new hires.

I suspect that Obama simply showed Kucinich the figures. B/c the sad fact is that many DEMOCRATS will not support a public option. And the only way to get it to pass is to get every democrat on board in the Senate, and nearly every one in the House.

Sometimes you don't get a good choice, and you have to make, what is in that overworked phrase, a hard decision.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 7:28 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Byte ?

Quote:
Right, exactly. We need a change, but I don't think it's ethical to pursue that change if it could hurt people. So if we want to implement the change, we should try to think up a way that causes negligible damage, that way people don't dislike the new system out of spite and want to go back.

That is why I took the tack I did, since as I pointed out, 25% casualties in a top-down violent revolt type scenario, which much like the french revolution, would do naught more than skim the worst of the scum off the top.

We gotta quit producing the sociopathic bastards in the first place, and given how much effort it takes to produce them, just how much mental-social abuse it takes to turn a human born without genetic misfire into one of these monsters, it ain't even cost effective, so even the tiniest bit of additional difficulty has a major impact.

It ain't the size of the machine, it's which gears you put the sand in.

Compassion can be a weapon.

Quote:
Yeah, probably, but limiting damage is worth a shot I think. That's why SOMETIMES I grudgingly try to participate in the existing system despite the misgivings I posted above, but it always burns me. ._.

You ain't alone in that one, neither - it grinds me something awful to play along with a system I know is so damn destructive, but if doing the least harm requires it, you suck it up and do so.

Although, going on with my cards anology - sure, you have to play the hand your dealt, but why should you play it honestly ?

Quote:
Absolutely. That's the scenario I've built my Plan C around. It's not the optimal scenario, though.

Yeah, helping it along to speed the process isn't a bad idea, so long as you make sure the right parts fall off first, the key is of course, seeking to limit the damage - Detroit's rollback to agriculture is in my eyes a positive sign, because the folks involved, they chose life, instead of clinging to a structure that failed them, went back to seeing to their own survival and that of their community...

Now it's just keeping Monsanto and them Dept of Agriculture assholes from smashing them flat as an example to folk who don't wanna play the game.

And I see Mikey has once again stolen a march on me, but in this case he's welcome to it, since any time I try talkin to Rappy I feel like I need a bath, honestly I'd rather debate with the Mouth of Sauron.

And I do share many of Sarge's concerns that the powers that be are planning their exit strategy while intent on leaving us holding the bag - only, we've been ready for THAT stunt for roundabouts fifteen years goin on now.

They're valid concerns, and should not be dismissed lightly, however.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
They're all very petty, and blinded by delusional ideology,

Weren't you the one all giddy about how Palin's addition to the McCain ticket was going to be the end the Democratic Party? Thought you learned a lesson in that, about how choosing to live in the Faux delusion bubble can make you look a bit silly. Guess not.

Well, you have to remember, it was Rappy who proclaimed "McCain just won the election. Game over !" when Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate, so his record of accuracy and prognostication isn't exactly beyond reproach...

Quote:

Kwicko - see what happens when you engage the Rap? The petty back-and-forth of "Yes you did!" "No I didn't!" gets going in 2 posts or less. I don't know why you bother. He will never change, and you're only giving him what he wants.

Yeah, I know; sometimes I just can't resist poking the monkey, though, just to see him dance. It's like ringing a bell - he can't help but come running!

Quote:

Back on topic: I think this bill, while certainly flawed, has improved slightly in the past few weeks. The numbers on its finances are promising. $138 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years, then something in the trillions the next decade. Stuff like that is likely the reason Kucinich came around, as well as the fact that *something* has absolutely got to be done. This bill is at least not nothing.

Hell, I recall when DADT was a step forward, in that at least gay people could serve. It was an insane, pathetic policy, but at least a start, and now almost two decades later we see what was good about moving that direction. (Gay people have served admirably without starting mad homosexual orgies in the middle of combat zones - leave that for the priests and the consulting firms. ) We have also clearly seen the insanity of the DADT policy (People getting outed against their will and discharged, though they've done nothing wrong.) And so the insane parts of the bill are like to be repealed, and what could not have happened in 1993 - gay people serving openly - will happen.

Maybe the same will happen with health care, by which I mean the public option. Perhaps in a decade or two we'll get the enough of the faux-watching masses over their hysterical fears, and we'll finally move on to a decent health care system. Sucks that it'll take so long, but at least we're starting to move.

If nothing else, the discussion has been hella enlightening. Here's a poll number I'd like to see: how many Americans are more aware of the issues with our health care system, and the possible solutions, then they were a year ago? I certainly am.

Another thing I find interesting: both sides of this debate are all down with the insurance companies being the boogie men, but the Repubs say Obama is the puppet, while the Dems say the Faux news crowd is. While a simple perusal of money flow could clear up that debate, at least we're in agreement that the current corporate control of health care is a bad thing.

ETA: Jongsstraw - you give me hope. I have to admit, the conservatives who post here have made me build a caricature of Repubs in my mind - and not a complimentary one. Glad you're making me break that image down.

Yup to all of that.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 7:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Niki

So, to get back to Kucinich a bit - let me go through a story about my experience as a union negotiator. We were negotiating a contract and our management wanted to create yet another tier for new hires - a tier with fewer benefits than the people currently working. We spent hours and hours every week for close to 2 months just fighting that one point. We kept asking for figures about how much was this benefit or that benefit for the old hires costing them, so we could trade away some of our current benefits in order have the same level of benefits available to everyone - no matter when they were hired. Finally management said - it's not about the money.

Now, we couldn't accuse them of regressive bargaining. And we couldn't accuse them of bargaining in bad faith b/c they knew how to play the game in order to avoid that. And if an impasse is declared management can impose their last, best and final offer.

So we bargained HARD for the sweetest contract we could get - albeit one with that tier for new hires.

I suspect that Obama simply showed Kucinich the figures. B/c the sad fact is that many DEMOCRATS will not support a public option. And the only way to get it to pass is to get every democrat on board in the Senate, and nearly every one in the House.

Sometimes you don't get a good choice, and you have to make, what is in that overworked phrase, a hard decision.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Bingo. Show 'em the numbers, THEN show 'em what the numbers of Democrats returning the Congress are likely to be, and point out that it really IS now or never. At this point, regardless of whether it passes or not, a good number of Democrats ARE going to lose their jobs - some because of their support of this bill, some for NOT supporting it, all for not doing enough, quickly enough, and for not representing the interests of their constituents, who WANT a public option, if not an outright single-payer system.

So show all those numbers, let 'em know that this is it, last chance, we hang together or we shall certainly all hang separately, and let 'em take their chances.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 8:39 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Serge: Please show actual examples of

Quote:
This bill does damage to real people and enriches the stockholders of the insurance industry while they plan their exit strategy. WE are the sacrificial lambs.

Obama is serving us up to them on a platter and if this passes I intend to do everything I can think of to fuck up their plans and undermine the system.

Neither I nor many others like the bill as it stands, and certainly not the individual mandage, but I don’t find anything that indicates what you wrote anywhere in the actual bill. Respectfully, it sounds like talking points taken directly from rhetoric of the Tea Party.

Citizen: Kucinich was against the bill because it didn’t go far enough, no public option, etc. Now he is saying he still feels that way, but recognizes a first step has to be taken before any further steps can be, that he’s looking toward being able to refine it and improve it, just as was done with Social Security and Medicare. Their original bills weren’t so hot, either. He didn’t change his mind, he just recognized a beginning is better than nothing.

JS, the point is a lot of people (and I do mean “lot”) don’t like the bill because it doesn’t go far enough (see Kucinich above). That they don’t like the bill is not an effective argument unless you break it down into how many don’t like it because of what it IS and how many don’t like it because it isn’t ENOUGH. Then you have to take into account how many of those don’t know Social Security and Medicare were just as bad bills initially, but they were first steps; if those people were educated on how the system works, you can’t know what the numbers would actually BE.

Polls change regularly, and it depend on your source. The favorable number has gone up recently, since Obama became involved and is explaining to people and showing actual examples. The overall of seven polls taken his month shows currently it’s running 40% in favor, 49% opposed. Public Policy Polling shows it 45/49; AP 41/43, Gallup 45/48. Now if you get your facts from FauxNews, it’s 35/55—the highest difference of all. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_heal
th_care_plan-1130.html --these are March 2010 polls, by the way.

Ah, River, I see you’re back with more generalizations, despite never responding to my post some time ago which proved your generalizations about me were wrong. So:

Quote:
don't understand why you waste your time trying to play nice with the Liberals here. Every Conservative that was ever here has been down that road before, and everyone has been attacked and cursed at by them in return. I admire your attempt at civility, but they will only continue their partisan ways despite anything you write. Every day, every single day they post biased and hateful posts about Fox News and Republicans. They deny or ignore the same or worse stuff within the Democrat Party. They obviously just cannot live in a world with Fox News around to explain their lies, and explain their many faults. They're all very petty, and blinded by delusional ideology, and it's only a matter of time before you say something here that will have them all at your throat like wild dogs. But good luck though with your Mahatma Ghandi approach. It won't last too long.

From what I see, the majority of people here are civil, be they democrat, anarchist, moderate or whatever, at least until someone else starts something. The three or four people I see who are deliberately nasty are anti-Democrat. If you feel otherwise, how about some specifics? I know your feelings about me, but along with others, I have seen considerable evidence that few or none “ignore” stuff within the Democratic Party; and any sane person who wants to live in a world with FauxNews really needs to look closely at them, because even Glenn Beck says he’s not a reporter, he doesn’t check facts, he’s gives his OPINIONS. I’ve seen nobody go down anyone’s throat like a “wild dog” because of differences in ideology; certainly personal differences, as you’ve attacked me, and the concept that anyone on the right uses a “Mahatma Ghandi” approach is simply laughable.

It appears obvious that your emotions blind you to the facts, which is a shame...if you truly believe all you say, then give us specifics, please. JS is every bit as ideologically bent as anyone else, yet I have agreed with him on points. The same is true of Wulf and PN, who are among the most vituperatively anti-Democrat in what they post. Basically, I think your view is skewed. I see as I scroll down that JS has responded to you as well, and I agree with him.

I, too, would very much like to see numbers which show that people WITH government health insurance die more than those WITHOUT any insurance. I don't expect it, but I'd welcome it.

Rue, I agree. I think he realizes it is now or never, as well as believing that once we do SOMETHING, we can refine it down the line. If something isn't started now, I don't think anyone will have the courage to do so for a very long time, and at that only a Democrat would dare, so how long before we have a Dem Prez and majorities in both Houses? I say go for it, and work on it later...and there's always Grayson's bill in the House, which, who knows, may go somewhere...someday!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 10:08 AM

Quote:
Posted by Niki:

From what I see, the majority of people here are civil, be they democrat, anarchist, moderate or whatever, at least until someone else starts something. The three or four people I see who are deliberately nasty are anti-Democrat.

I stopped reading right there, because I needed to respond. I'll finish the rest of your post in a minute; maybe you already addressed this...

Anyhow, I'd like to respectfully disagree with you on that point. *I* am not civil, at least not to certain posters, and absolutely WILL "start something" where they are concerned, and will be deliberately nasty about it. Not terribly proud of that, but feel that in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, it needs to be said, and I don't mind being the one to say it (and wouldn't have been offended if you'd pointed it out, because it IS true).

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 10:36 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
There is nothing more crucial to the "general welfare" than health.

You're wrong.

It's not the responsibility of the Gov't to ensure everyone's health. That's the job of THE INDIVIDUAL!

Under no circumstance is it legal, morally or otherwise, for the Gov't to forcibly compel you to buy something merely because you EXIST! Also, when you "mandate " healthcare you are telling doctors, nurses and anyone involved in the HC industry that they are OBLIGATED to give up a portion of their lives and give it to another person.

I'm sorry, that is simply flat out wrong.

We already have the BEST healthcare in the world, and it's available for ANYONE who wants to access it. Whether they are citizens of this country or not. Which is why so many come HERE , to the USA to get care which other wise would not be available for them anywhere else in the entire world.

What's really so sad is that folks PRETEND to admire Mal and the spirit of the Independents, call themselves Browncoats, but in real life, they're nothing more than whores for the Alliance minded socialist.

* and for anyone who cares, McCain did pull even and even a bit a head of Obama after he chose Palin as his VP, but his doddering response to the Tarp bill, indecisiveness and the fact everyone really thought it'd be cool to have the first black Prez pretty much sealed the deal. That, plus the colossal mishandling of Palin by jealous McCain handlers all were just too much to overcome.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Well, you have to remember, it was Rappy who proclaimed "McCain just won the election. Game over !" when Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate, so his record of accuracy and prognostication isn't exactly beyond reproach...

I don't recall that. I must have been ignoring Rappy already back then!

Quote:
Quote:

Kwicko - see what happens when you engage the Rap? The petty back-and-forth of "Yes you did!" "No I didn't!" gets going in 2 posts or less. I don't know why you bother. He will never change, and you're only giving him what he wants.

Yeah, I know; sometimes I just can't resist poking the monkey, though, just to see him dance. It's like ringing a bell - he can't help but come running!

I have to say, you're doing well here. Excellent post about the Constitution and such. I prefer Operation Ignore, since it's lovely to see Rap's baiting fall flat. But I guess there's some good to be done in posting reason next to his silliness. He does make it easy to sound intelligent and informed.

In fact, there have been times I was certain he was one of our liberal posters posing as the stereotype of a close-minded, logic-challenged, Faux-news enslaved conservative. You know, just to make liberals look smart and reasonable. Kind of an online Stephen Colbert. Can't decide if it's funny or pathetic that Rap is actually sincere...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
Serge: Please show actual examples of
Quote:
This bill does damage to real people and enriches the stockholders of the insurance industry while they plan their exit strategy. WE are the sacrificial lambs.

Obama is serving us up to them on a platter and if this passes I intend to do everything I can think of to fuck up their plans and undermine the system.
Neither I nor many others like the bill as it stands, and certainly not the individual mandage, but I don’t find anything that indicates what you wrote anywhere in the actual bill. Respectfully, it sounds like talking points taken directly from rhetoric of the Tea Party.

I don't give a rat's ass about the Tea Party or their talking points. I've been opposed to this crappy solution since it was signed into Massachusetts state law by Republican governor Mitt Romney in 2006. It pissed me off then because I knew that the insurance industry, and their legislative accomplices, wouldn't be able to resist turning it into a nation wide campaign, exactly like they did with automobile liability insurance. What I didn't expect is that they'd go straight for the jugular and attempt to impose it at the federal level. I "hoped" their efforts might be held up a bit with the election of Obama, given that he spoke out against the mandate in his campaign. Obviously, that was a lie.

This bill will punish the very people we should be rewarding - those looking for better ways to pay for their health care than traditional insurance plans. It stifles the innovation we badly need by forcing everyone into the same failed "solution" that has driven us into this deadend in the first place.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 11:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
We already have the BEST healthcare in the world, and it's available for ANYONE who wants to access it. Whether they are citizens of this country or not. Which is why so many come HERE , to the USA to get care which other wise would not be available for them anywhere else in the entire world.

Wish you were the kind of person who backed up their claims, but I know better. Nonetheless, I WILL do so to refute your comments, as both of them are incorrect:

Quote:
The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is two-and-a-half times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland.

Canadians live longer than Americans do after kidney transplants and after dialysis, and that may be typical of cross-border differences. One review examined 10 studies of how the American and Canadian systems dealt with various medical issues. The United States did better in two, Canada did better in five and in three they were similar or it was difficult to determine.

Yet another study, cited in a recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, looked at how well 19 developed countries succeeded in avoiding “preventable deaths,” such as those where a disease could be cured or forestalled. What Senator Shelby called “the best health care system” ranked in last place.

The figures are even worse for members of minority groups. An African-American in New Orleans has a shorter life expectancy than the average person in Vietnam or Honduras.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1

The study cited above and underlined says in part:

Quote:
There is a perception among many Americans that despite coverage, cost and other problems in the health care system, the quality of health care in the United States is better than it is anywhere else in the world and might be threatened by health reform. The overall evidence is mixed, indicating that the United States has neither the best nor the worst quality of health care for particular conditions among developed countries.

In certain cases where U.S. quality appears low relative to that of other countries — in the areas of prevention and care for chronic conditions, for example — access barriers experienced by the uninsured and the underinsured may contribute to the results seen.. Among 30 OECD countries, the United States ranked below average in adult asthma care. Adult hospital admission rates for asthma, an indicator of inadequate care for the condition, were second highest among 17 countries reporting (12 per 10,000 U.S. versus 5.8 OECD average) and U.S. asthma mortality, double the OECD average rate, was fifth highest among 25 countries reporting.

A handful of studies undertaken in the 1990s18 have compared outcomes for U.S. and Canadian patients with end-stage renal disease and found that Canadians have longer survival times while in hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis programs, and after receipt of kidney transplant, even when extensive adjustment for comorbidity is done.

U.S.-Canada comparisons more often find Canadian quality is better: A significant share of the academic research studies comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of health care across countries consists of U.S./Canada comparisons, perhaps reflecting policy interest, data availability or other factors. Although studies findings go in both directions, the bulk of the research finds higher quality of care in Canada.

Overuse of health services not linked with service volume: Although there have been relatively few studies comparing the rates of overuse of health services, the limited available evidence suggests that higher rates of certain surgeries and procedures in the United States put more Americans at risk, in comparison with their counterparts.

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411947_ushealthcare_quality.pdf

That's just a taste regarding "best" health care. Regarding people coming to the US,

Quote:
World-Class Doctors At Third-World Prices

This summer, millions headed out to foreign lands for vacation, adventure, tourism, or just a beautiful beach.

But how about hip surgery or a multiple bypass or a facelift?

A growing number of tourists are doing just that, combining holidays with health care, and that's because a growing number of countries are offering first-rate medical care at Third-World prices. Many of these medical tourists can't afford health care at home (the 40 million uninsured Americans, for example). Others are going for procedures not covered by their insurance: cosmetic surgery or infertility treatment, for example.

Thailand is an exotic vacation spot known for its Buddhas, its beaches, its brothels, and the bustle of Bangkok.

But for people needing medical care, it’s known increasingly for Bumrungrad Hospital, a luxurious place that claims to have more foreign patients than any other hospital in the world. It’s like a United Nations of patients here, and they’re cared for by more than 500 doctors, most with international training.

The hospital has state-of-the-art technology, and here’s the clincher: the price. Treatment here costs about one-eighth what it does in the United States. It's the No. 1 international hospital in the world.

"It’s sort of Ground Zero. I haven’t heard anybody yet who’s told us that they take more than 350,000 international patients a year," says Curt Schroeder, CEO of Bumrungrad.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/21/60minutes/main689998.shtml estimates for the number of Americans traveling abroad to have medical procedures range between 70,000 to 500,000 depending on how you interpret medical travel. Some simply have acupuncture while on vacation; others specifically travel to receive a kidney transplant. Most patients travel outside the U.S. because the medical procedures are cheaper in other countries. Some may be uninsured or the procedure they want is not covered by their health insurance.

A new $40 million industry has evolved called medical tourism. The world of medical tourism is highly sophisticated with its own conferences, accreditations and marketing channels. International insurers are learning how to include coverage for those who are self-insured and tourism organizations are marketing directly to employers to influence their inclusion in health plans. Medical facilities around the world are forming partnerships.

Many foreign doctors are actually trained in the United States. While the cost of American medicine continues to increase, other countries have built world class, highly-trained medical systems at a fraction of the cost.

http://financialedge.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1009/Where-Can-Am
ericans-Go-for-Cheaper-Healthcare.aspx

There is a list on that one of the countries where people go most frequently and for what procedure.

There. Two different, factual articles refuting both of your claims. Both of which may have been true at one time, but no longer. Having the "most expensive" health care in the world does not translate to having the "best", and while people USED to come to the US for health care, the trend is more and more toward not only them going elsewhere, but AMERICANS doing so as well.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 12:02 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Serge: One of the oft-reported talking points by both sides to explain Brown's election was that Mass. already had a good health-care system and was afraid a national one would override it, so they had an interest in voting for Brown to avoid that. How does that square with your estimation of their health care system? Were all the others wrong and you right? I don't know how to judge that.

I repeat my initial question; would you please provide FACTS to support your allegation that

Quote:
This bill does damage to real people and enriches the stockholders of the insurance industry while they plan their exit strategy. WE are the sacrificial lambs.

Obama is serving us up to them on a platter and if this passes I intend to do everything I can think of to fuck up their plans and undermine the system.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 12:16 PM

Niki,

I can only repeat my initial answer:

It's a FACT that this bill will make non-traditional health care insurance, or going without health care insurance at all, illegal. I know people personally who are making these work and this bill will punish them by forcing everyone to pay for shitty overpriced insurance when they could be using the money to buy actual health care instead.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 12:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SARGE: I intend to do everything I can to make sure that we get a BETTER plan. Leave the f@cking up to the Repubcs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
We already have the BEST healthcare in the world, and it's available for ANYONE who wants to access it. Whether they are citizens of this country or not. Which is why so many come HERE , to the USA to get care which other wise would not be available for them anywhere else in the entire world.
Wish you were the kind of person who backed up their claims, but I know better. Nonetheless, I WILL do so to refute your comments, as both of them are incorrect:

I believe all this has been explained to Rap before. (Or maybe I confuse him with other rapid deniers of reality on other sites... could be.) Folks like him simply will not accept the fact that many Americans do not have the kind of health insurance they do. Or that America is not THE BEST at anything. It's that conservative American superiority complex. (And we all know where that comes from... big ego, small penis.

)

Anyway, I just broke my foot and had surgery and such, will many appts to follow up. My health care was both excellent and covered. (Well, I'm waiting to hear about the anesthia bill, but feeling hopeful.) I don't need this health care bill. The bill is not for me. It's for others who aren't as fortunate as I am. Some of the people in the dance class where I broke my foot do NOT have insurance, and this injury would destroy both their careers and their finances. THEY need this bill, and I'll support it for them.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 12:29 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
forcing everyone to pay for shitty overpriced insurance when they could be using the money to buy actual health care instead.

Can you point to facts that prove this? How do you figure it will be "shitty" and "overpriced" and how do you figure they could buy "actual health care" instead?

Given we now pay for overpriced insurance which DENIES us coverage and in some cases provides shitty health care, what do you see as the better alternative? Where can I buy this "actual health care" you speak of?

Mal: Yes on every point. This bill doesn't affect me, as I have Medicare and Jim's insurance, and when he finally does quit, we'll both have Medicare and can buy a "supplemental" policy of some form. It's the rest of America I care about and why I believe this is better than nothing, and then will do whatever I can to help it get improved, just as Social Security and Medicare have been.

As to "the wind", yes, sigh, I know, but I can't resist quoting the facts, despite knowing he'll ignore them completely. Just me.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This bill will punish the very people we should be rewarding - those looking for better ways to pay for their health care than traditional insurance plans. It stifles the innovation we badly need by forcing everyone into the same failed "solution" that has driven us into this deadend in the first place.

Sarge - I actually share your fears. It really does disgust me to have a law requiring people to do business with a private company. It bothers me with car insurance, it will bother me with health insurance. It needs to happen in smaller non-profit coops, or as a whole national govt-run system. What we're going to have is surely not ideal. I can only hope it won't last long.

Thing is, I don't see a direct way to a better system from where we are now, not given the realities of politics. The insurance companies have too much power in the govt, as do all corporations. All we can do is take steps toward reducing that power. I think this bill does that, if for no other reason than that the insurance companies are spending so much money trying to stop it. And they do have a lot of influence and power over both Reps and Dems.

That's why the recent SCOTUS decision scares the hell out of me. It moves us away from the only real solution to health care, wall street, Iraq, energy, the environment... we have got to get big business out of govt, and we need to return to the days of anti-trust laws that actually do something.

I saw this coming in the late 90s (though, not being into politics at all, I didn't see the full ramifications) when the oil companies started buying each other up until the big three were left. The banks were doing it too. That's the root of all this badness - we're back in the days of cartels stifling the free market. *depressed*

What? Me? On a tangent?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
forcing everyone to pay for shitty overpriced insurance when they could be using the money to buy actual health care instead.
Can you point to facts that prove this?

It's in the bill. You'll have to read it.

Quote:
How do you figure it will be "shitty" and "overpriced"

because it's the same insurance their selling now - which is shitty and overpriced

Quote:
... and how do you figure they could buy "actual health care" instead?

with the money the aren't spending on shitty overpriced insurance.

Quote:
Given we now pay for overpriced insurance which DENIES us coverage and in some cases provides shitty health care, what do you see as the better alternative? Where can I buy this "actual health care" you speak of?

One of the better options I know of currently is catastrophic insurance combined with an HSA. You should check it out if you're interested.

There are also local community efforts, even state and government organized programs, that don't reward the insurance industry by fucking us. That's what's so amazingly frustrating about this bill. They seem to have pushed for the worst possible solution that the public might tolerate.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 12:44 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ah, thank you for specifics. I understand your points better now.

We'll just have to agree to disagree; I think it's a first step and have hopes of improvement down the line.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
What we're going to have is surely not ideal. I can only hope it won't last long.

How can you possible maintain such a hope? Do YOU have as much money and time as the insurance industry to lobby for the change you want? If the public interest, as we face an upcoming election cycle, isn't enough to convince congress to write a decent bill in the first place, how do you imagine it will compete with industry lobbyists in the future, especially once all of our money is being funneled into their coffers via the mandate?

Quote:
The insurance companies have too much power in the govt, as do all corporations. All we can do is take steps toward reducing that power. I think this bill does that, if for no other reason than that the insurance companies are spending so much money trying to stop it.

They're not spending to stop it. They're spending to control it. And they are succeeding.

Quote:
we have got to get big business out of govt

That's my primary concern. This bill does the opposite.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
What we're going to have is surely not ideal. I can only hope it won't last long.

How can you possible maintain such a hope? Do YOU have as much money and time as the insurance industry to lobby for the change you want? If the public interest, as we face an upcoming election cycle, isn't enough to convince congress to write a decent bill in the first place, how do you imagine it will compete with industry lobbyists in the future, especially once all of our money is being funneled into their coffers via the mandate?

Well, the public interest has been largely misguided by all this BS about death panels and such. And don't even think that the insurance companies weren't a part of that misinformation.

I have hope because the govt has been challenged before and has moved past it. It all seems very sudden in the history books, but in reality it took time. For example: big steel and the railroad companies during the industrial revolution. They got broken up eventually. Women's rights. DADT.

I guess the thing that saves me is that I believe Obama knows of the problems, and his long term goal is to fix them. He will go about fixing them *in a way that works*, even if it's not pretty alogn every step. I also believe that the majority of the American people have been made aware of the problem, and though the sides may assign blame differently, we are going to be voting differently in the future. There will be a shift in the representation, so there will be a shift in how they vote. It's already begun.

Sure, insurance companies may make some money off this, but they won't make it by cutting off insurance to people who need it the most. That's a good thing. As for them making money unfairly - hey, what's new? You seem to be glossing over the fact that they will also have limits that they did not have before. And now the problem is very well known, and the electorate will be looking to make further changes.

Quote:
They're not spending to stop it. They're spending to control it. And they are succeeding.

Not sure what you mean. Elaborate? With specifics, please?

Quote:
Quote:
we have got to get big business out of govt
That's my primary concern. This bill does the opposite.

It is a frightening connection being made: the govt forcing customers to do business. It's going to be our job, the voter's job, to stay informed and see that this doesn't go to a really bad place.

OK, I can see that you believe it is the Bad Place as is. Again, I have more faith in *some* of the current leadership to believe that it will not be as bad as you think. And I have looked into other countries who use this system, and it is not the end of the world. It actually works pretty good.

Now, I will be here to discuss the ramifications if I'm wrong. Will you?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 19, 2010 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
They're not spending to stop it. They're spending to control it. And they are succeeding.
Not sure what you mean. Elaborate? With specifics, please?

They got the mandate they wanted (along with subsidies that will funnel money directly from government to their accounts) and no public option. We'd like to think guaranteed issue is a win, but with no solid constraints it's essentially meaningless. And with their newfound "partnership" with government, they can ensure it will make them more than it costs them.

Quote:
It is a frightening connection being made: the govt forcing customers to do business. It's going to be our job, the voter's job, to stay informed and see that this doesn't go to a really bad place.

It's a job I don't want. I know a lot of you want democracy as the be-all, end-all of society. I don't. I'm not much good at politics and I'm almost always in the minority. So, as far as I'm concerned, the less things that get decided by majority rule, and the more than are left up to individual decisions, the better. I don't think we should be forcing conformity unless it's absolutely necessary.

Quote:
Now, I will be here to discuss the ramifications if I'm wrong. Will you?

Well, I don't come around as much these days, but I'll be willing to own up to it if I'm wrong. Hell, I'm hoping I am.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
They're not spending to stop it. They're spending to control it. And they are succeeding.
Not sure what you mean. Elaborate? With specifics, please?

They got the mandate they wanted (along with subsidies that will funnel money directly from government to their accounts) and no public option.

The mandate and the lack of public option are certainly compromises, but they have been in the current bill for some time. I'm talking about right now - the past month really - the insurance companies have been trying very hard to stop this bill from passing. Even with those compromises. That means something!

Quote:
Quote:
It is a frightening connection being made: the govt forcing customers to do business. It's going to be our job, the voter's job, to stay informed and see that this doesn't go to a really bad place.

It's a job I don't want.

I understand. Politics is icky. But if that's your approach, don't you kind of deserve whatever govt you get?

Quote:
I know a lot of you want democracy as the be-all, end-all of society. I don't. I'm not much good at politics and I'm almost always in the minority. So, as far as I'm concerned, the less things that get decided by majority rule, and the more than are left up to individual decisions, the better. I don't think we should be forcing conformity unless it's absolutely necessary.

Personally, I'd much prefer to set up my own "insurance savings" acct and pay into it every month of my life. By my present age, I'd have enough money to cover myself (except for extreme situations, like if I ran over a Spyder in my Jeep) Those payments I've been making all my life would be *my* fucking money, and not just more coins in the pocket of some already overly wealthy jackass CEO.

But, in real life, that's just not going to happen anytime soon. And we're stuck living real life. Where some conformity *is* in fact necessary.

For example: I like having food that isn't full of bacteria, doctors who are actually trained to do what they're doing, roads with smooth pavement, drivers who obey the same rules as I do so they don't run into me, restaurants that keep their kitchens clean, air that doesn't poison my lungs, water that doesn't make me sick, etc.

When I don't have to worry about this basic stuff, I am free to focus more on what interest me. It's a more productive, happier society (I think - some would certainly disagree) when we can specialize. Like you, choosing to not know politics. Leave it the specialists so you can do what you do best. I think it could be argued that mandated health care is a similar thing.

If only it wasn't run by for-profit companies. *sigh* Someday, that will change. I hope.

Quote:
Quote:
Now, I will be here to discuss the ramifications if I'm wrong. Will you?

Well, I don't come around as much these days, but I'll be willing to own up to it if I'm wrong. Hell, I'm hoping I am.

Yeah, I'm only here off and on. More on lately with the bum foot. But what I'm after is some review from people who don't like the Obama admin and its actions. There were so many predictions in 2008 of how our country will go the toilet because of him - he'll take our guns, turn us into a heathen Muslim nation, kill of all white men, etc. I'd really like to see these doomsday people deal with the utter failure of their predictions.

I don't think your fears are so unfounded, since I have my own doubts about this bill, but I'm hoping to continue the conversation with a little more optimism if we find that the health care system actually improves because of it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:56 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I know a lot of you want democracy as the be-all, end-all of society.

I respectfully disagree and believe that is a big generalization. I know it doesn't hold for me, and I can't think of anyone specifically here who DOES hold that view.

Quote:
They're not spending to stop it. They're spending to control it. And they are succeeding.

Far as I can tell, that’s not true. The vast amounts of money have NOT financed neither Tea Parties nor advertisements to CHANGE the bill, merely to kill it. Despite Republican suggestions being added to the bill, they reject it. Where do you come up with them trying to “control” it rather than kill it?

Quote:
That's my primary concern. This bill does the opposite

—as referenced getting big business out of government. You said it does the opposite—I’m assuming means gets government in big business. I would say that “big business”, as reflected by the health insurance industry, isn’t doing exactly that hot of a job, and are rolling over the American people in myriad ways which are all detrimental to their well being. What viable alternatives can you present to the concept of trying to regulate them to stop some of their more egregious actions, aside from a public option, which would be a Medicare buy-in at this point?

Mal,

Quote:
Sure, insurance companies may make some money off this, but they won't make it by cutting off insurance to people who need it the most. That's a good thing. As for them making money unfairly - hey, what's new? You seem to be glossing over the fact that they will also have limits that they did not have before. And now the problem is very well known, and the electorate will be looking to make further changes.

I agree, and as for them making money unfairly, isn’t that what’s happening right now, with no end in sight to the denial of pre-conditions, raising of premiums, “annual” and “lifetime” limits, denial of claims, etc., etc.? Isn’t that “making money unfairly” already?

Well, Serge, it appears to me that what you say is already happening:

Quote:
the less things that get decided by majority rule, and the more than are left up to individual decisions, the better.

The Republicans have done a pretty good job trying to stop “majority rule”, and from what I’ve seen, the more left up to individual decisions—as in for-pay insurance—the more who suffer at the price of profits.

Quote:
I don't think we should be forcing conformity unless it's absolutely necessary.

I’m not sure it’s “forcing conformity”—yes, I’m not happy with the individual mandate, but it doesn’t tell you WHAT kind of insurance or from whom you buy it, any more than the requirement that cars have safety belts and air bags doesn’t tell us what kind of car we must buy.

It all comes down to one thing for me: The current system is very, very bad, it lets the insurance companies make decisions for us, deny us coverage, charge us exorbitant prices. And all with an exemption from any control over it which other industries have. It is, in essence, unregulated. We know what unregulating commerce does, we have only to glance at Wall Street and the banks, whose regulations were cut away one by one by the Neocons. So what is the option to reigning in these abuses? If we can’t look to the government to provide some kind of safety net, we’re lost. There is VERY little competition, so the “free market” can’t do it. What are your VIABLE alternatives?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:04 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Personally, I'd much prefer to set up my own "insurance savings" acct and pay into it every month of my life. By my present age, I'd have enough money to cover myself (except for extreme situations, like if I ran over a Spyder in my Jeep) Those payments I've been making all my life would be *my* fucking money, and not just more coins in the pocket of some already overly wealthy jackass CEO.

Mal, I think that’s unworkable. I can’t think of many of us who, even making a pretty hefty deposit into an insurance savings account, would be able to care for ourselves in the event of serious medical bills...and there WILL be serious medical bills eventually, unless you are counting on Medicare to pick up the slack at a certain age. Personally, I don’t believe I could have set aside nearly enough in all my working life (which was some 30 years) to cover just the things that have come up for me the past three or four years...and I’m not of Medicare age yet; I get it because I’m disabled, and it pays what’s left over from insurance, but at 61 I’d have some time left to go before Medicare would cover me.

I’m afraid the doomsday folk would reply to you by saying one word: “Yet”. They firmly believe it’s coming, and nothing will change their minds...probably ever.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
The mandate and the lack of public option are certainly compromises, but they have been in the current bill for some time. I'm talking about right now - the past month really - the insurance companies have been trying very hard to stop this bill from passing. Even with those compromises. That means something!

Hmmm... not sure if you're old enough to remember the Uncle Remus stories, but you should look up the story of Br'er Rabbit and the Briar Patch.

Quote:
Quote:
It's a job I don't want.
I understand. Politics is icky. But if that's your approach, don't you kind of deserve whatever govt you get?

Uh no. Joining one mob to fend off another mob might be the prudent thing to do, but that doesn't mean the person who refuses to join either mob deserves to get run over. One of he main ideas behind limited government is that we want to be free to live our lives free from interference. We want a government that protects us from bullies, not one that merely supplants them.

Quote:
Personally, I'd much prefer to set up my own "insurance savings" acct and pay into it every month of my life. By my present age, I'd have enough money to cover myself (except for extreme situations, like if I ran over a Spyder in my Jeep) Those payments I've been making all my life would be *my* fucking money, and not just more coins in the pocket of some already overly wealthy jackass CEO.

That sort of thing is out there right now! That's exactly what an HSA is and, combined with a low-premium "catastrophic" insurance policy, it does almost exactly what you describe. My previous employer offered these instead of the usual group plan. We all had policies with $2500 yearly deductibles, along with savings accounts that the company contributed to. Any money put into the account was tax-free, and could be spent tax-free, on health care. The premium for the catastrophic insurance plan was about half the normal policy. So the company would pay the premium, and take the remainder of what they'd been paying for the traditional group plan and put it into our savings accounts. The kicker was that they continued to do this, even after the account reached the amount of the deductible - and the savings account continued to grow. And it was our money. It could be rolled over into an IRA, or you just transfer it into your checking account if you were willing to pay the taxes on it.

Beyond just being a better deal for health care consumers, this approach provides the key missing element from the current health care market - prudent consumers. When you're spending your own money you actually have incentive to spend it wisely. You start to care what office visits cost and look for bargains. This puts pressure on health care providers to keep costs low and provide us with better value. It also keep patients and doctors from spending foolishly on high-cost, low-percentage treatments. For example, let's say you have a choice between treatment A which is proven 90% effective and costs $250 or treatment B which is 95% effective but costs $1500. Under a traditional plan with, let's say, a $100 deductible, you have exactly no incentive to choose the cheaper treatment. Neither does your doctor. You both actually have incentive to do the opposite. These kinds of decisions, made thousands of times daily across the country, are a large part of what's driving health care inflation. Not to mention that doctors are happy to offer discounts for cash payment. I was able to arrange discounts of up to 50% from doctors simply because they were paid direct not monkeying around with an insurance company.

This is exactly the kind of thing we need and it will go away under Obama's plan. That's what's got me so riled. We're going to shove everyone back into the same failing paradigm. It's insane.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mal, I think that’s unworkable.

Well, I didn't expand on the idea, given my post was long enough. Clearly, few of us would be able to save enough for the big calamities - I gave the car wreck idea, was hoping you'd expand it to the health fiasco case. Group insurance would still need to exist for that. But I'm absolutely serious about insurance being a kind of savings for our payments, rather than our money being a means of profit.

There has to be some kind of balance. Sure, you have expensive health care now that you aren't paying directly, but that's after a lifetime of taxes and insurance fees. Wouldn't it be preferable if all that money (minus some fees, of course) had been pooled somewhere, under your name, earning interest for you all this time?

I know, it won't happen, because the whole point of health insurance (as it is) is to earn a few people a lot of money. It's not about treatment or convenience or fairness.

Quote:
I’m afraid the doomsday folk would reply to you by saying one word: “Yet”. They firmly believe it’s coming, and nothing will change their minds...probably ever.

Which is why I tried to ask them in 2008: will you be here to talk about it when Obama's been in office a few years and the country hasn't fallen apart? I don't think it's quite time yet, but the right wingers are slowly returning to this site, and eventually I will dig those threads up and repeat the question. See what they say.

It may not make them see the point, but does tend to make them simmer down. Kind of like how pulling out the evolution thread makes Antimason disappear.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Hmmm... not sure if you're old enough to remember the Uncle Remus stories, but you should look up the story of Br'er Rabbit and the Briar Patch.

Yes I am old enough, and I think that argument is ridiculous. Are you old enough to know Occum's Razor? If you need to invent more and more convoluted systems to make your theory fit, then maybe the theory is the thing needing an update...

Quote:
Quote:
I understand. Politics is icky. But if that's your approach, don't you kind of deserve whatever govt you get?

Uh no. Joining one mob to fend off another mob might be the prudent thing to do, but that doesn't mean the person who refuses to join either mob deserves to get run over.

I didn't suggest joining any particular mob. I suggested being informed ie watching closely to see what the new bill will actually do.

Quote:
That sort of thing is out there right now! That's exactly what an HSA is and, combined with a low-premium "catastrophic" insurance policy, it does almost exactly what you describe.

I have something like HSA, except that the money goes away every year. This part:

Quote:
It could be rolled over into an IRA, or you just transfer it into your checking account if you were willing to pay the taxes on it.

We don't have. My first year I put a bunch of money into the account, but never got around to making all the appts I thought I would so I lost the money. Really, the bastards just took it away at some deadline. Now, this year I broke my foot and could have used all that money--which was MINE!--but it's gone. Nice little bonus for Blue Cross. I'm not paying into that crap anymore.

Quote:
Beyond just being a better deal for health care consumers, this approach provides the key missing element from the current health care market - prudent consumers.

I'm so with you on that. If we didn't have this middle-man of the insurance companies, health care would cost a fraction of what it does. For many reasons.

Quote:
This is exactly the kind of thing we need and it will go away under Obama's plan. That's what's got me so riled. We're going to shove everyone back into the same failing paradigm. It's insane.

I do share your riled-ness. There are many plans that would be better, such as what you're describing. I really do wish that was an option I had. But I think you're very much in the minority, as far as having a good plan. More people seriously need a change.

And again, I don't see a path for everyone to get directly from where we are to the ideal. Not in a system as big and messy and convoluted as ours. I think we do have to go roundabout.

Though, really, the best roundabout path would start with a separation of corporation and state. We'll never really fix health care (or much else that needs fixing) while the majority of our politicians are puppets.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If you need to invent more and more convoluted systems to make your theory fit, then maybe the theory is the thing needing an update...

It doesn't require much invention. Just observation of the collusion that runs rampant between lobbyists and our legislature.

Quote:
I have something like HSA, except that the money goes away every year. This part:

Quote:
It could be rolled over into an IRA, or you just transfer it into your checking account if you were willing to pay the taxes on it.

We don't have. ...

Yeah that's an FSA (Flexible Spending Account) and it's indeed a ripoff. That's what my current employer "offers".

HSAs are a way forward though. It would be foolish to outlaw them.

Quote:
And again, I don't see a path for everyone to get directly from where we are to the ideal. Not in a system as big and messy and convoluted as ours. I think we do have to go roundabout.

Well, we'll never get "ideal". Certainly never what I'd consider ideal. And even though I think building another dependency on government, especially for something as necessary as health care, is a bad idea, we could socialize medicine sanely.

But I think it's a mistake to embark on a profound change to our society with a foundation that everyone agrees is fundamentally flawed.

Quote:
Though, really, the best roundabout path would start with a separation of corporation and state. We'll never really fix health care (or much else that needs fixing) while the majority of our politicians are puppets.

Absolutely. That's what we need more than anything else. I'd like to see the concept of "separation of economy and state" held as dear as the wall between church and state. I think what most liberals don't realize (most conservatives either, for that matter) is that government interference in economic matters isn't a one-way street. When government gets involved in business, business gets involved in government.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:41 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Serge, I think you're lucky (or 'were' lucky?) to have an HSA, but I think it's in the minority, and it can still be offered to people if employers choose to. The fact that I think it ISN'T offered to many employees shows it's not mainstreamed enough for some reason. How is it going to be outlawed? I thought the bill meant that anyone could keep whatever they have right now if they want it--the exchange pools are for people who can't otherwise afford insurance or are turned down?

But that FSA is a JOKE! Who can save up enough, even with help, in ONE years to cover major medical? You're right, it's a gimme.

Quote:
you have expensive health care now that you aren't paying directly

More and more we are. As premiums go up, employers either make the employees pay more, don't offer insurance, or go out of business. Jim's employer is upping their share of the insurance, while not giving them raises...in essence a pay cut.

How about the middle man of a "gatekeeper"? That's a terrible waste of money--I have to see mine before I can go anywhere else, and it's just a wasted appointment. She's great, mind you, but I think she just makes a living at small stuff and being gatekeeper. What a waste!

Quote:
I think it's a mistake to embark on a profound change to our society with a foundation that everyone agrees is fundamentally flawed.

I agree. But I also have hopes it will be improved and maybe we'll get a public option down the road. It's true that both Medicare and Social Security started out with less-than-wonderful bills, but were overhauled in time, and I don't think we'd have to create a whole new bureaucracy for Medicare for all. Unfortunately, if/when that comes about, the bureaucracy they're creating NOW will already be in place, and we know how easy they are to get rid of, once they're here.

It's not good, but I still believe a start is better than nothing; and if it doesn't pass, that it will be decades before anyone tries again...AND that if it doesn't pass, it's a sign to the insurance companies that they're free to do whatever they want. Given they've had that freedom up to now, I think we can guess where THAT would go!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Serge, I think you're lucky (or 'were' lucky?) to have an HSA, but I think it's in the minority, and it can still be offered to people if employers choose to.

The HSA/catastrophic coverage combo will not qualify as coverage under the proposed plan.

Quote:
I thought the bill meant that anyone could keep whatever they have right now if they want it--the exchange pools are for people who can't otherwise afford insurance or are turned down?

That's what Obama keeps saying, but it's simply not true for everyone. He admits this when pressed. I guess he figures that since most people will be allowed to keep their coverage, his statement is "mostly" true. But he's equivocating. HSA will not fill the requirements of the bill. It and pretty much all creative alternatives will be effectively outlawed.

Quote:
But that FSA is a JOKE! Who can save up enough, even with help, in ONE years to cover major medical? You're right, it's a gimme.

The FSA isn't actually meant to fill the same purpose as an HSA. It just allows people to set aside money that they plan to spend and get a tax break for doing so. It's just one of those "stimulus" measures designed to get people to spend money on big ticket items. But, as mal noted, if your situation changes and you can't or don't spend the money as planned, you simply lose it. It's a gamble at best.

Quote:
It's not good, but I still believe a start is better than nothing; and if it doesn't pass, that it will be decades before anyone tries again...

I couldn't disagree more. It is worse than nothing. If Obama had the "courage" he keeps calling for, he'd direct congress to wipe the slate clean come back to him in three months with a bill he could sign without selling our souls to the insurance industry.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 22, 2010 5:09 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Except for your belief that it's "worse than nothing", I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement:

Quote:
If Obama had the "courage" he keeps calling for, he'd direct congress to wipe the slate clean come back to him in three months with a bill he could sign without selling our souls to the insurance industry.

You're right: He doesn't, he didn't and they won't, so all I can do is hope it works out for the best.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The HSA/catastrophic coverage combo will not qualify as coverage under the proposed plan.

And that truly sucks. There had to be give and take, and this was an unfortunate give.

Quote:
I couldn't disagree more. It is worse than nothing. If Obama had the "courage" he keeps calling for, he'd direct congress to wipe the slate clean come back to him in three months with a bill he could sign without selling our souls to the insurance industry.

What you're not getting is that the majority of Congress already has sold their souls to the insurance industry. Corporations own enough of our govt that this dream bill you picture would not pass, EVER! It would not reach Obama's desk. It would be scuttled early on, as it was last summer. And you'll note it was primarily the far right Reps, and the Tea Party, who scuttled it with all their BS about death panels and socialism and such.

Unfortunately, The power balance that exists between the govt and corporations is real. The stranglehold by financial institutions is real. (And will only get tighter, thanks to the f**ing SCOTUS.) The only way to move forward is to get as much as possible out of the powers that be - the corporations - which is happened on Sunday. Then continue pushing and pushing, which will happen. *If* we stay to stay informed and not just vote in politicians who play on our fears.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Bingo!

Quote:
The only way to move forward is to get as much as possible out of the powers that be - the corporations - which is happened on Sunday. Then continue pushing and pushing, which will happen. *If* we stay to stay informed and not just vote in politicians who play on our fears.

What I'm wondering is, once this is out there and people have had a chance to get used to it, will the Repubs win or lose because of it?

And if people find out what it is and what the good parts are and that there are no death panels and other horrors, when they go to improve it, or if Medicare-for-all actually gets to a vote, will people not be riled up by the lies and fear tactics the Repubs will no doubt pull out, because they saw what liars they were this time? Or will they buy them whole cloth again?

I know those with locked mindsets and either overt or subconscious racism will buy them no matter what, but they only make up some small percentage of voters...will those with BRAINS reject the fear tactics "next time"?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're right: He doesn't, he didn't

I think it takes more courage to look at a situation realistically and do what needs to be done, then to sit back stubbornly insisting to get your way. Especially when the first gets a result, and the second goes no where.

But, for the record, I'm not inclined to credit this whole thing to Obama. Surely it wouldn't have happened without him, but he wasn't nearly as active as he could have been. As much as she creeps me out, I have to think that Pelosi did more of the actual work.

ETA: This is a change from what I was posting just after Brown was elected, when HCR was supposedly dead. At that point, I was pretty pissed that Obama didn't push through a good bill, ie public option. Politically, it's better to blame the Reps for killing a good bill, then for killing a poor one. But, for me, that all changed once that the bill made it. And once I saw the fight this took. A stronger bill would never, never have made it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:24 AM

And don't give up on the public option just yet. I know, I know - it's not in the bill.

That's what we need the Republicans for, and the courts.

The bill mandates that all citizens shall have health coverage. The Republicans have vowed to fight that in the courts on constitutional grounds. Typically, when that happens (think public schools, school lunches, Title IX, etc.) the courts rule that if the law says you must have it, then the government must provide a method by which you get it - VOILA! - a backdoor public option!

Of course, now we just have to keep Joe Biden locked up somewhere before he spills the beans. ;)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
VOILA! - a backdoor public option!

Ah---love you Mike! This is brilliant.

I had heard whispers that Repugs will try hard to put in amendments just so the bill would have to go back to the House, and the PO might be one of those. Hadn't heard of the Supreme Court route. I like it!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:31 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The biggest obstacle to this was Congress. Historically republicans have been trying and succeeding at chipping away at Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, WICC and other programs. IN ADDITION - Obama is black. So, given that they were and are categorically against anything like this it fell to the democrats to move things forward. But though the democrats are a little bit more progressive than the republicans, they are far more protective of the status quo than people realize.

The second biggest obstacle was Obama. He could have risked his political career by trying to push the democrats into something more progressive - the power of the bully pulpit. Instead he took the safer route, hung back and left it Pelosi to do the hard work. Politically it was a smart move, but it doesn't gain him any points as a populist. One thing about him, he does know how to play the game.

The only reason it got this far is b/c there was a vocal group of regular people looking for SOMEthing better than what we have now.

If you want to see it improved, it means that you will have to keep on pushing. And remember, there is a group of people - republicans - who will be pushing back for decades to come, no matter how helpful and how popular it may become as a program.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
What I'm wondering is, once this is out there and people have had a chance to get used to it, will the Repubs win or lose because of it?

It's funny how the Dems are being very cautious: "Oh, we'll still lose seats in November..." They are trying to keep the expectations low. But I'm beginning to wonder. Sure, some will buy into the Rep talking points without trying to connect with reality, but I can only hope that these sheep are a minority.

If Dems can get the truth of this bill out there, if they can in any way minimize the mandate part (I mean by actually changing the bill somehow) and especially if they pass financial reform with teeth, it's the Repubs who are in trouble.

Of course, all of this will piss off the corporations big time, and since they can freely buy advertising, that adds a wrinkle. My hope for that lies in the internet. It needs to yelled from the hilltops which candidate is getting TV time bought by which company. With public opinion of big business the way it is, this might actually turn against candidates. They may end up begging Bank of America *not* to fund their ads...

It all depends on the American public being informed rather than gullible. *nervous*

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
VOILA! - a backdoor public option!
Ah---love you Mike! This is brilliant.

I had heard whispers that Repugs will try hard to put in amendments just so the bill would have to go back to the House, and the PO might be one of those. Hadn't heard of the Supreme Court route. I like it!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

Don't thank me; I didn't do anything. All I did was notice it, and only because a co-worker and I were discussing the public schools and school lunch programs yesterday. And then this morning I heard David Axelrod saying that they had anticipated the legal challenges and welcomed the lawsuits by 12 conservative Attorneys General of various states. That's when it hit me, because the free school lunch program had lodged itself in my head.

And I swear, I don't think the conservatives ever saw this one coming.

By the way, shouldn't Rush Limbaugh be leaving the country soon? He *did* promise, after all. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:06 AM

I *do* think the Democrats will lose seats in November. I think if this bill can be made into something better over time, that will have well been worth it. Hell, they MAY even lose control of the House, the Senate, or BOTH. And it will still have been worth it if this can be expanded upon (and for an idea of what I'm talking about, see my post above regarding a court-mandated public option).

The Republican strategy has already been voiced: Run on Repeal. That's it; that's all they've got. Run on the idea of repealing this bill once it's passed.

Of course, they're HOPING that their constituency will remain as woefully ignorant as they've so far proven to be, and won't realize that it would take a swing of TWENTY-SIX Senate seats and OVER ONE HUNDRED House seats to give them enough control to REALLY repeal anything at all. Remember, even if they tried to repeal it (and they're already trying, via bugfuck-crazy Michelle Bachmann), Obama's still the President for the next two years plus, at least.

So, repeal all you want - ASSUMING you even get control of either house - if you don't have a full two-thirds majority, your efforts will have been for naught, because Obama will simply veto that repeal bill.

D'OH!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:19 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mal, I don't credit Obama totally either. But I do credit him for cow-towing to the Repubs to try and get votes he should have KNOWN weren't there. So there are provisions in there that never would have been if he hadn't pushed for compromise...bah.

And yes, Mike, that's a great one if it comes to pass. I refuse to give up on the idea that this is just a first step, aka Medicare and Social Security, which will be refined over time.

Yes, Rue, the Repubs will push back. I'm HOPING that maybe the Dems and Obama woke up enough to realize that they're going to have to do just what the Repubs did...use reconciliation where nothing else seems possible. We'll just have to wait and see.

Unfortunately, Mal, you're right to be nervous. It also requires the public to GIVE enough of a shit to want to know the reality of the bill (or any revisions attempted), which also makes me nervous!

My one hope is Maddow--yes, her audience is liberal, but they talk to other people, and sometimes stuff she brings up gets picked up by the MSM. She is the only person I know on TV who digs and digs to find out the truth of who's behind what, what is misinformation and downright lies, etc. Her slant may be liberal, but what her people dig up is TRUTH, and she puts it out there with no apologies.

I've loved that a couple of the people she's made statements about or had on her show have gone after her and said she lied...the very next show she puts up facts and figures to show THEY lied, in detail. She doesn't take anything lying down, and that helps get the truth out there.

Example: Big "secret memo" supposedly from Dems was circulated by Drudge and others, and picked up by MSM. It's such an obvious hoax it's pathetic, right down to having a big "stamped" DRAFT on each page, like it was 1977 and came out of the typing pool. Drudge and Politico took their stories down; Politico even forced to admit they were given the "memo" by Republican sources and that they did not bother to verify its origin.

Another: She had J.D. Hayworth on. He said her researchers got facts wrong and told his own "facts". Her researchers did an in-depth search for the facts again, and the next night she cited each place where Hayworth had lied, giving details and how the figures were obtained.

I like this woman, and I've never heard her give out with a lie that can be proven to be a lie. Whatever you dislike about her slant, she's fucking GOOD at finding out the facts. We need more of those.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:27 PM

Niki, I PM'd you (*NOT* "PN'd"!! Gods, no!) about

http://therationalradical.com/podcast.html

If you like Rachel's digging down to get to the nitty-gritty, check this guy out. I think you'll like him.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The bill mandates that all citizens shall have health coverage. The Republicans have vowed to fight that in the courts on constitutional grounds. Typically, when that happens (think public schools, school lunches, Title IX, etc.) the courts rule that if the law says you must have it, then the government must provide a method by which you get it - VOILA! - a backdoor public option!

*glares sideways at mikey and administers a dopeslap*

And I was trying SOOOOoooooo HARD not to say that!

PROtip: Nefarious plans tend to work better, as a general rule, if you don't shout em from the mountain before you put them into action.

(And yes, I know, my kooky melodramatic habit of doin exactly that is counterintuitive, shaddap.)

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:48 PM