The Republican Plan
Cliff
RD (The Sandman)
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvte...@4ax.com:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA
>
In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions. Perhaps, if
Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would hear some
of that. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Cliff
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
John R. Carroll
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvte...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA
>>
>
> In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
> Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
> reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
> insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions. Perhaps, if
> Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would
> hear some of that. ;)
Bellyaching and a plan to achieve your goals aren't the same thing.....
--
John R. Carroll
RD (The Sandman)
dkhLnHXnZ2d...@giganews.com:
And which of those do you apply to Grayson?
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in news:KpednX18-
> dkhLnHXnZ2d...@giganews.com:
>
>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>> news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvte...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA
>>>>
>>>
>>> In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy
>>> from Republicans although they have continually stated that they
>>> want tort reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance
>>> providers, no loss of insurance if they lose their jobs, and no
>>> preconditions. Perhaps, if Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit
>>> and open his ears he would hear some of that. ;)
>>
>> Bellyaching and a plan to achieve your goals aren't the same
>> thing.....
>>
>
> And which of those do you apply to Grayson?
The part that's going to be enacted into law.
--
John R. Carroll
HH&C
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
What do you think of voting for a plan you haven't read?
> --
> John R. Carroll
Buerste
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5beae2ec-0176-41e5...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> --
> John R. Carroll
John will like what he's told to like by his superiors.
HH&C
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Welp, they must have told him to like a 50 cal Desert Eagle for
concealed carry! Heh!
And he says he's not a very big man. I just don't know what to
believe.
tankfixer
@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com says...
Anyone who votes yes without reading it is not only a fool but is
criminal
Observer
Like the "Patriot" Act?
__
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
Gunner Asch
John isnt a very big guy. Rather runty as a matter of fact.
And he still has my Milwaukee 9" angle grinder that Id really love to
have back.
Gunner
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."
Cliff
> When I got fired I was offered medicaid for my familiy for free till I
>started working. FOR FREE! DENTAL TOO!!!
> If you have no job, your whole family is eligable for free
>medicaid...period!
??
Only in Florida, eh?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvte...@4ax.com...
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA
>
>I'm too lazy to click on links, especially political ones. But I'm not too
>lazy to post a book about my lousy opinions.
> Health care is broken for some and works fine for others, that's the
>problem. Add to that "both" sides are willing to lie to forward "their"
>cause.
> YES! BOTH SIDES ARE SELF PROMOTING LYING PUKES!!!
>
> If you have a job in America that pays more than minimum wage, chances are
>you have insurance for almost free, considering most people only need
>themselves and their children covered. It's only when a person has a spouse
>at home they have to cover the cost. In our two-working parent family
>culture that is the minority for sure. Those people are hit the hardest,
>from 150-250 a week cash.
> Those people have families and usually have extensive expenses to cover
>and a loss of that much money is devistating.
>
> That can be fixed. As much as I hate to say it..with a government option.
>My wife for example could get her own insurance plan and my boss covers most
>of mine and my kids. The government can enforce health options to make
>people on the plan live healthier. That's the beauty of government programs,
>take it or leave it, you take it, follow the rules. We have a government
>option for hurricane insurance in florida since almost nobody would insure
>us after the 3 in a row week a few years back.
> That government ran insurance company has been profitable to date. Take it
>or get your own.
>
> The next group of people is the so called 40 million uninsured. pfffft.
>It's a lie.
>A total lie.
> When I got fired I was offered medicaid for my familiy for free till I
>started working. FOR FREE! DENTAL TOO!!!
> If you have no job, your whole family is eligable for free
>medicaid...period! There's no poor kids out there with no insurance because
>the resources aren't there! Just like free lunch at school. The dying
>children due to no insurance is just a propaganda gimmic. There's even
>health insurance thru elementary and middle schools for kids, its like 14$ a
>month.
>
>The next group is the minimum wage folks. I feel for them. I'm one bad
>economy from being one of them. They are the victims in this culture. They
>have no money, or benefits.
> However...one minimum wage income is so low you still qualify for medicaid,
>even if your single.
> The problem comes when there's 2 minimum wage workers in a home, now your
>screwed. You make too much for medicaid, and don't get benefits. 200$ a week
>for insurance is 2/3rds or "more of a check(if your in new england)".
>
> They need help, they need a solution. Not the dumb shit sprayed out there,
>but a clever real soluion not thought of yet.
> But...
> Their kids can still get free health care if they bring in less than 40
>grand a year(in florida).
>
>Now there's the self employed. People will NEVER spend 200$ a week on a
>maybe. If its taken from their checks they will, but nobody will pay that
>much for nothing. They would be better off saving their money and have 2
>grand in a couple of months for emergencys.
>
>Billing enforcement would fix that. Forced insurance coverage might be the
>answer, maybe not.
>
>Bottom line is...
>
>There's resources in place. Nothing is going bankrupt, frig, theyv'e
>borrowed from the fund in the past to pay for other stuff. It's not going
>away, if they can grab a trillion out of their ass in the worst of times we
>have NO funding issues with medicare and medicaid.
>
> We need regulation, not new government organisations. That's why everyone
>is so pissed, don't shove nothing up our asses, we just watched the
>government pass plans they never read in 24hrs.
> FUCK THAT!
> They are begging for revolution doing stupid shit like that.
> THATS WHY PEOPLE ARE PISSED! It's not that they are democrats, it's that
>they have the friggen nerve to laugh in our faces and say MIND YOUR OWN
>BUISSINESS< WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! Learn your role peons!
>
>They could of fixed it all by now, but...there's no plans to fix jack. It's
>simply more government versus less government...
> It's simply been turned into us vs them. problem is we the people are
>neither us nor them.
>
>
>
John R. Carroll
When the Republican leadership puts out a real plan that can be read, I'll
read it.
--
John R. Carroll
Hawke
>>>> In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
>>>> Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
>>>> reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
>>>> insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions. Perhaps, if
>>>> Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would
>>>> hear some of that. ;)
>>> Bellyaching and a plan to achieve your goals aren't the same thing.....
>> What do you think of voting for a plan you haven't read?
>
> Anyone who votes yes without reading it is not only a fool but is
> criminal
I don't know why anyone would say the republicans don't have a health
care plan. They've had one for a long time. They had it from 2001 until
now. It's the same one. It could be called the leave well enough alone
plan because that is what they would be doing if they were still in the
majority, leaving things alone. They didn't see any reason to change a
thing about our health care system all during Bush's presidency. They
wouldn't do anything now either. Their plan is to keep the health system
we have now. In other words, maintain the status quo. That's their plan.
I don't know why people are having a problem understanding it. I's so
simple. Just leave things as they are and if things need to be changed
the market will do it for us. What's so hard about understanding that?
Hawke
RD (The Sandman)
All of his goals are going to enacted into law or just his bellyaching?
RD (The Sandman)
news:MPG.2557df6...@news.bytemine.net:
Not completely true. Both sides need to read it before they vote on it.
Buerste
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:tp-dnXx7nKfLdnPX...@giganews.com...
> When the Republican leadership puts out a real plan that can be read, I'll
> read it.
> --
> John R. Carroll
Try Google.com
John R. Carroll
None of that has come to the floor of either house for a vote. IOW - it's
just bellyaching. Like I said.
--
John R. Carroll
Gunner Asch
Once again Mr Carroll pops up his pointed little skull and proves again,
that he is a moron.
tankfixer
not_...@bogus.net says...
>
> The ObamaCare bill comes out and Cliff diverts us
> with his anti-Republican rants.
He isn't the only one..
A number of the serial leftists here have launched into non-stop
attempts..
Odd how they all seem to work in concert.. Like they are taking
direction from someone...
Nah..
That would never be the case, right ?
tankfixer
Sandman)" says...
>
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.2557df6...@news.bytemine.net:
>
> > In article <5beae2ec-0176-41e5-8ade-068c9d4f6368
> > @s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Oct 31, 5:57 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
> >> > RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> >> > > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> >> > >news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvte...@4ax.com:
> >> >
> >> > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA
> >> >
> >> > > In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy
> >> > > from Republicans although they have continually stated that they
> >> > > want tort reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance
> >> > > providers, no loss of insurance if they lose their jobs, and no
> >> > > preconditions. Perhaps,
> > if
> >> > > Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would
> >> > > hear some of that. ;)
> >> >
> >> > Bellyaching and a plan to achieve your goals aren't the same
> >> > thing..
> > ...
> >>
> >> What do you think of voting for a plan you haven't read?
> >
> > Anyone who votes yes without reading it is not only a fool but is
> > criminal
>
> Not completely true. Both sides need to read it before they vote on it.
At the very least it is 1800 pages too long...
TinLizziedl
> > >> What do you think of voting for a plan you haven't read?
> > >
> > > Anyone who votes yes without reading it is not only a fool but is
> > > criminal
> >
> > Not completely true. Both sides need to read it before they vote on it.
>
> At the very least it is 1800 pages too long...
No bill is ever too long for Congress. There's plenty of room in there
for everyone's porky pet projects.
--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long
Buerste
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Blocked by Democrats.
Michael A. Terrell
Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:17:44 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> >news:tp-dnXx7nKfLdnPX...@giganews.com...
> >> When the Republican leadership puts out a real plan that can be read, I'll
> >> read it.
> >> --
> >> John R. Carroll
> >
> >Try Google.com
> >
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=republican+health+care+plan&aq=1&oq=republican+health&aqi=g10
> >
> Once again Mr Carroll pops up his pointed little skull and proves again,
> that he is a moron.
I'm beginning to wonder if he's related to Alan Grayson.
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:KrCdnfguQdvB5HLX...@giganews.com...
>> Buerste wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:tp-dnXx7nKfLdnPX...@giganews.com...
>>>> When the Republican leadership puts out a real plan that can be
>>>> read, I'll read it.
>>>> --
>>>> John R. Carroll
>>>
>>> Try Google.com
>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=republican+health+care+plan&aq=1&oq=republican+health&aqi=g10
>>
>>
>> None of that has come to the floor of either house for a vote. IOW -
>> it's just bellyaching. Like I said.
>>
>> --
>> John R. Carroll
>>
>>
>
> Blocked by Democrats.
Which has nothing to do with reading the thing, or things. As I said, none
of that has come to the floor of either house for a vote. IOW - it's just
bellyaching.
Republican's had twelve years, during six of which they had control of all
three branch's of government, to do something to reform health care in the
United States.
--
John R. Carroll
Curly Surmudgeon
Second example of right wing wacko hallucinations substituting for reason
just this morning. Has the Bush Economy reduced you to wild mushrooms
for sustinance?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RD (The Sandman)
news:MPG.25595cc...@news.bytemine.net:
I agree. The only real things needed for reform are:
Tort reform
No state line boundaries for health plans
No pre-existing conditions for refusal
No loss of healthcare if one loses their job
No loss of healthcare when one really needs it
Emergency care limited to emergencies or urgent need
Plans available for catastrophic occurrence
The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, for
whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, why fine
them? It is their choice.
Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
coverage they already have.
Medicare/Medicaid is already 14% of the budget and will be insolvent in
2019 without an infusion of funds. If you look at Medicare/Medicaid,
Social Security and the interest in the debt, you are looking at 62% of
the entire budget. That only leaves 38% for *everything* else and they
wish to add a public option?
Too_Many_Tools
I agree with Hawke.
Smart guy.
TMT
Ed Huntress
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB871020...@216.196.97.130...
For the sake of perspective, the CBO estimated last year that tort reform
would save $4 billion. This year they re-estimated it, and said that the
reduction in "defensive" medicine actually would multiply that figure by a
factor of ten. Their estimate now is $41 billion.
Few other experts believe the higher figure, but they also scoffed at the
lower one. The truth probably is somewhere in between. But even assuming
it's $41 billion, that's 1.8% of health care costs in the US.
In other words, tort reform is good, but it's also trivial. Don't think that
putting it at the top of your list will make it any better. <g>
> No state line boundaries for health plans
Pretty much meaningless, in terms of total health care costs. You're just
talking about squeezing the balloon. The air is still there, just in another
place.
> No pre-existing conditions for refusal
You've just blown your savings in other categories, probably by a factor of
five. <g>
> No loss of healthcare if one loses their job
Another big multiplier.
> No loss of healthcare when one really needs it
Another big multiplier.
> Emergency care limited to emergencies or urgent need
That's a good one, which has the potential to save some money. But it
depends on having universal, or near-universal coverage.
> Plans available for catastrophic occurrence
They're mostly available now. They don't save anything in terms of total US
healthcare costs. They just save money out of insurance and then take it
away again, in your out-of-pocket expenses.
It's not a bad idea, and it's one I'd like to see, but don't think it will
save a nickel overall. It won't, except for a really trivial amount of
administrative cost. And the people who pay out-of-pocket pay through the
nose, because they have no bargaining power. Just ask Gunner.
>
> The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, for
> whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, why fine
> them? It is their choice.
Because it winds up costing the rest of us. That's the paradox. We'll either
pay for their care, because they can't, or they'll squeeze the balloon again
and shove the costs up the age scale. In total, we wind up paying the same
thing.
>
> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
> coverage they already have.
That includes the 87 million people who receive Medicare or Medicaid, or
both. <g> (The "dual eligibles," who receive both, are not counted twice in
the 87 million figure.) They tend to be happy, as do the people who aren't
worried about their jobs and who have employer-provided (or heavily
assisted) health insurance. That number is in the neighborhood of 166
million -- which includes all government employees (including teachers) and
their families. I'll take the time to break that out if you want but you can
see that the number who are getting government-paid insurance is huge. And
they don't want any changes. Thus, 84% are happy with what they have. And
we're paying for a hell of a lot of it.
And that's the political problem. People who get Medicare or Medicaid don't
want any changes. Neither do the people who have something provided by their
employers, including the government. But they aren't the problem. The rest
of the population is the problem, and the costs of taking care of them
produce various kinds of fallout -- all of it bad.
>
> Medicare/Medicaid is already 14% of the budget and will be insolvent in
> 2019 without an infusion of funds. If you look at Medicare/Medicaid,
> Social Security and the interest in the debt, you are looking at 62% of
> the entire budget. That only leaves 38% for *everything* else and they
> wish to add a public option?
>
> --
> Sleep well tonight,
>
> RD (The Sandman)
The whole system is fraught with trouble for taxpayers. The biggest problem
is that there are few incentives anywhere in the system to make care more
economical. All of those things you listed above sound good, but most don't
produce any significant net savings. The only thing that will is a complete
overhaul of the insurance system, building in incentives to keep costs down.
--
Ed Huntress
RD (The Sandman)
news:4af07ce5$0$22537$607e...@cv.net:
Thanks.
> Few other experts believe the higher figure, but they also scoffed at
> the lower one. The truth probably is somewhere in between. But even
> assuming it's $41 billion, that's 1.8% of health care costs in the US.
>
> In other words, tort reform is good, but it's also trivial. Don't
> think that putting it at the top of your list will make it any better.
> <g>
The list wasn't in any particular order.
>> No state line boundaries for health plans
>
> Pretty much meaningless, in terms of total health care costs. You're
> just talking about squeezing the balloon. The air is still there, just
> in another place.
I am not trying to save healthcare costs. I am interested in providing
what is really needed in healthcare.....the issues.
>> No pre-existing conditions for refusal
>
> You've just blown your savings in other categories, probably by a
> factor of five. <g>
See above. And keep in mind that those who claim that they are trying to
cut costs include these items.
>> No loss of healthcare if one loses their job
>
> Another big multiplier.
See above on both comments.
>> No loss of healthcare when one really needs it
>
> Another big multiplier.
Again.
>> Emergency care limited to emergencies or urgent need
>
> That's a good one, which has the potential to save some money. But it
> depends on having universal, or near-universal coverage.
No, it doesn't. If someone truly needs emergency services (life or death
issues) they get it. Same for true urgent care. Anything less, get the
hell out of the ER. The taxpayer does not owe you for your decision to
not get healthcare....period.
>> Plans available for catastrophic occurrence
>
> They're mostly available now. They don't save anything in terms of
> total US healthcare costs. They just save money out of insurance and
> then take it away again, in your out-of-pocket expenses.
It is still a choice for those who wish to take it.
> It's not a bad idea, and it's one I'd like to see, but don't think it
> will save a nickel overall. It won't, except for a really trivial
> amount of administrative cost. And the people who pay out-of-pocket
> pay through the nose, because they have no bargaining power. Just ask
> Gunner.
His choice....his problem.
>> The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves,
>> for whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example,
>> why fine them? It is their choice.
>
> Because it winds up costing the rest of us. That's the paradox. We'll
> either pay for their care, because they can't, or they'll squeeze the
> balloon again and shove the costs up the age scale. In total, we wind
> up paying the same thing.
Nope....they decide not to get healthcare and they fall under the
emergency care/urgent care area. They get what is truly emergency or
urgent care....no pre-natal, no sniffles, no band-aids, etc. If it isn't
really an emergency, kick them the fuck out. That is their choice. I
don't owe them much.
>> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
>> coverage they already have.
>
> That includes the 87 million people who receive Medicare or Medicaid,
> or both. <g>
So what? I am one of them. That is why I included the current situation
with costs in Medicare/Medicaid. Yet, while bandying costs around, no
one seems to address that public options or subsidizing those premiums
still adds cost.
(The "dual eligibles," who receive both, are not counted
> twice in the 87 million figure.) They tend to be happy, as do the
> people who aren't worried about their jobs and who have
> employer-provided (or heavily assisted) health insurance.
My employer was one of those Fortune 10 Companies that everyone says
provides so much.....at one point they did, but not since I retired in
1994, at the age of 55, I have been able (every year) to do better on my
own with no subsidy than the choices my company presented. Now, I am on
Medicare and Social Security. I use a Medicare Advantage plan and it
still beats what my company could give me as a choice.
> That number
> is in the neighborhood of 166 million -- which includes all government
> employees (including teachers) and their families.
Who really don't pay any of the taxes. All new government revenue comes
from the private sector.
> I'll take the time
> to break that out if you want but you can see that the number who are
> getting government-paid insurance is huge.
I agree......and yet, many folks want to add more of those types of
health care to the table. Private sector taxes can only pay so much.
> And they don't want any
> changes. Thus, 84% are happy with what they have. And we're paying for
> a hell of a lot of it.
We? I assume you are in the private sector or you aren't paying for it.
> And that's the political problem. People who get Medicare or Medicaid
> don't want any changes. Neither do the people who have something
> provided by their employers, including the government. But they aren't
> the problem. The rest of the population is the problem, and the costs
> of taking care of them produce various kinds of fallout -- all of it
> bad.
Yep, but with many it is by choice. And some of the fixes I mentioned
here will reduce those costs.
>> Medicare/Medicaid is already 14% of the budget and will be insolvent
>> in 2019 without an infusion of funds. If you look at
>> Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and the interest in the debt, you
>> are looking at 62% of the entire budget. That only leaves 38% for
>> *everything* else and they wish to add a public option?
The above comments you made about Medicare, etc.. are one reason I
included this paragraph.
In the new plans from Congress there is a claimed savings in costs by
reducing waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid. If those savings, do, in
fact, exist, then Congress has done the same slipshod oversight of it
that they did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And we are to trust them
to suddenly do better? ROFLMAO!!!!
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
Ed Huntress
I find it ironic that you're on a government-paid insurance system, yet you
want to deny coverage to all the people who aren't. I'm not impressed by the
fact that you're over 65 and therefore got yourself on the government
insurance dole. You probably don't need it nearly as much as many other
people.
However, it's not unusual for libertarian types. They tend to be extremely
short-sighted about their own situation versus those faced by other people.
As for all the people who are making "choices," many, if not most, really
don't have a choice. When I was paying full-boat it cost me close to
$13,000/yr. Now I'm paying half of that. But a lot of people just can't pay
$13,000, at today's wages and costs of living. You would just leave them to
their own devices -- their own "choices" -- and say screw 'em. Let's wait
until they have a heart attack or a stroke (think of Gunner again), or
advanced cancer or pneumonia, and then let them into the ER. The
short-sightedness you're showing here is that if we had a sensible system,
and if Gunner had been going for regular stress tests and had a doctor
telling him how it really is, there's a statistically much better chance
that we wouldn't have wound up paying $275,000 for his emergency care. Now
that he's had a heart attack, the chances are higher that we'll wind up
paying it again.
But the bigger issue, for me, is that you sound like you favor a libertarian
dystopia, in which it's screw-the-hindmost. Besides the economic
short-sightedness of that approach, I find it morally repugnant. That's a
difference in our opinion. We may agree on the need for reforms in health
care, particularly those that would improve cost efficiency, but we'll never
agree on that. In a civilized society, there's no room for that kind of
thinking, IMO.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
I'm a doctor. So sue me. No, really
The doctors' lobby says capping malpractice suits will make healthcare
cheaper. I'm an M.D. and I don't believe it
By Rahul K. Parikh, M.D.
Flu season has come early and I'm writing far too many prescriptions for
Tamiflu. I'm trying my best to adhere to the guidelines set by the Centers
for Disease Control for who should get the drug (kids under 5 years of age,
or kids who have a chronic illness like asthma or diabetes). But in more
than a few instances, I've ignored the guidelines and given Tamiflu to
perfectly healthy kids with no risk factors for influenza-related
complications.
Part of the reason I'm writing so many extra prescriptions stems from
stories about healthy people getting sick with H1N1 and ending up critically
ill or dead. One of those stories aired recently on "60 Minutes" -- a
healthy high school football player in Arkansas developed a fever after a
game. He went to his doctor, who thought he had a garden variety flu and
sent him home. Two days later, the boy collapsed and was airlifted to the
nearest pediatric intensive care unit. He developed a bacterial pneumonia on
top of his H1N1 flu, which led to severe damage to his lungs. He couldn't
breathe on his own, so he remains in the ICU on a ventilator.
The H1N1 strain of influenza is no more lethal than any other strain of flu.
Mortality is less than 1 percent. Nevertheless, by over-prescribing an
expensive drug that has only marginal benefits, I'm unequivocally practicing
what is known as defensive medicine. As in, the kind of medicine that
protects doctors as much as patients.
Mine isn't an extreme example of defensive medicine. I'm a pediatrician.
Obstetricians and emergency room doctors are sued at far higher rates, and
would have more dramatic stories to share. But my motivations are the same
as theirs: I'm afraid that if I don't do something, one of my patients may
get sick or die, and I'll end up in court being asked why I didn't do
everything I could have.
Defensive medicine is just one of the supposed systemic ills that doctors,
doctors' lobbies and doctors' insurers invoke when they shill for what they
call malpractice reform. Proponents of reform say that defensive medicine,
frivolous lawsuits and high premiums are behind the surge in healthcare
expenses. They insist that malpractice costs are forcing doctors to close
their doors and depriving patients of care. Recently, three past presidents
of the American Medical Association coauthored an opinion piece for the Wall
Street Journal that bundled all of these arguments into an attack on the
public option. Their piece attempted to shift the blame for America's
healthcare crisis away from private insurers and onto a supposed scourge of
ambulance chasers. "The nation needs comprehensive medical malpractice
reform," they wrote. "It is the surest and quickest way to slow down the
rising cost of healthcare."
Their refrain is familiar to anybody following the healthcare reform debate.
The only problem is that it's not true. There's nothing "sure or quick"
about changing medical liability laws that will improve healthcare or its
costs. Defensive medicine adds very little to healthcare's price tag, and
rising malpractice premiums have had very little impact on access to care.
Let's look at the numbers. First, based on the current rhetoric, it's easy
to assume we have an epidemic of malpractice suits in America. We don't.
There are many statistics out there, and it's not always possible to make an
apples to apples comparison between one study and another. Some surveys
cover the nation, some cover one group of states, some cover another
cluster, and results vary. But according to the Congressional Budget Office,
nationally, between the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, the frequency of
malpractice suits per capita remained stable at about 15 claims per 100
physicians per year. Another report, from the National Center for State
Courts, actually shows that the number of cases between 1996 and 2006
dropped 8 percent.
Although the payout per claim has increased, the Justice Department, in a
2007 report about medical malpractice -- in fact, the same report cited by
the authors of the Wall Street Journal piece mentioned above -- provided an
explanation quite different from an epidemic of lawsuits. "Growing
healthcare costs and an increasing effort by many attorneys to litigate only
those medical malpractice claims involving severe injuries or wrongful death
claims may explain some of these increases," they wrote. Still, even with
the rise in payouts, the Congressional Budget Office, using statistics from
the government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, estimates that
malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of healthcare spending.
Saving 2 percent of the over $2 trillion we spend on healthcare isn't going
to bend the cost curve.
Next is the question of frivolous lawsuits. Tort reformers push the notion
that junk lawsuits dominate the legal system. The Wall Street Journal
article cited above refers to studies that show that 80 percent of claims
are settled without payment to the patient and that when a case does make it
to trial, doctors win 89 percent of the cases.
But the private studies cited often involve small numbers of claims, or
focus on a single hospital, insurer, specialty or type of injury, or were
commissioned by interested parties, aka the malpractice insurers themselves.
The 2007 Department of Justice study cited by the Journal trio covers only
seven states, and nowhere does it mention the numbers 80 percent and 89
percent. Repeated attempts to contact and ask one of the authors of the WSJ
story about the specific source of their data were unsuccessful. The DOJ
report shows that in one state, Illinois, 88 percent of claims were closed
without a payout. But for the other states it examined, the number was
between 62 percent and 69 percent. Regarding the percentages of cases
doctors win, a 2001 analysis by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, examining
malpractice trends in the 75 most populous counties in the U.S., put that
number closer to 70 percent.
In 2006, researchers from Harvard published a study in the New England
Journal of Medicine that was designed to avoid the limits, and the biases,
of prior research. What they found kills the notion of frivolous lawsuits.
It suggests that most people who sue are suing for good reason.
The researchers reviewed nearly 1,500 claims from five different malpractice
insurers. First, they reviewed the merits of each case by determining
whether a patient was injured and, if so, whether it was due to physician
error. Most of the suits were not frivolous: Almost two-thirds of cases
involved errors by doctors. Second, they followed each claim to see if the
legal system acted appropriately. The majority of the time, it did.
Seventy-three percent of injuries in which a doctor committed an error
resulted in payments. Seventy-two percent of cases in which there was an
injury not due to physician error did not result in payment. Those
conclusions do not paint the picture of a medical-legal system burdened by
ambulance-chasing lawyers and their litigious clients.
Instead of a swamp of frivolous lawsuits, what the data shows is a system
that functions. Insubstantial claims tend to collapse, while the medical
industry usually opts to pay off injured patients instead of going to trial.
The doctors and the insurers choose to fight to win when they think they
can, and when there is enough money at stake, and usually do win.
There are two more arguments tort reformers use to make their case for
change: The first is that defensive medicine drives up the cost of care. The
second is that skyrocketing malpractice premiums are driving doctors out of
business, cutting patients' access to care. In both cases, however, the
facts don't substantiate those claims.
Tort reformers like to cite a 1996 study by Daniel Kessler and Mark
McClellan as evidence that defensive medicine increases healthcare costs.
That study analyzed Medicare hospital spending for patients who had been
hospitalized for heart disease, and concluded that states that had enacted
tort reforms had lower healthcare costs than those that did not, the
assumption being that in those states without reforms, doctors were more
likely to practice defensive medicine.
Yet more recent analyses show that the effect of defensive medicine on
overall costs is, at best, marginal. The most visible of them came from the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In a 2004 report, it reviewed
studies suggesting tort reform did reduce healthcare costs, including the
Kessler and McClellan study. However, when the CBO applied the methods used
in that study to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that
restrictions on tort liability reduced medical spending. It also found no
difference in per capita healthcare spending between states with and without
limits on malpractice awards. More recently, the Kessler-McClellan study
received another blow when two new authors reassessed their original work.
Unlike the original study, this one looked at the effects of tort reforms
over a longer time period. Just like the CBO review, it concluded that
"Direct reforms (caps on damages, abolition of punitive damages, eliminating
mandatory prejudgment interest, and collateral source offset) did not
significantly reduce payments for Medicare-covered services."
In that same 2004 report, the CBO also took a hard look at the claim that
rising malpractice premiums were driving doctors out of business and thus
cutting access to care. While the report did find instances of reduced
access to emergency surgery and newborn delivery, albeit in scattered, often
rural, areas, it also found that many reported shortages of healthcare
providers could not be substantiated or did not widely affect access to
healthcare. Traditionally, rural areas are where healthcare is scarce
anyway. According to the Council of Graduate Medical Education, "the
relative shortage of health professionals in rural areas of the United
States is one of the few constants in any description of the United States
medical care system." So with or without tort reform, access to care is
likely to stay tight outside of big cities.
It would seem that after all of this, what we're left with is a crisis not
of the medical-legal system, but of the economics of malpractice insurance,
as doctors have seen their premiums skyrocket in recent years. But even that
can't be pinned strictly on the risk of insuring physicians. Public Citizen,
a consumer advocacy group, notes "that a historical pattern has been
established that insurance rates rise also based on the investment market
... Earlier 'crises' (in 1975-6 and 1985-6) similar to today's 'crisis' were
due to declining investment fortunes and failed pricing practices of the
insurance industry rather than an increase in medical malpractice filings
and awards. Then, as now, the insurance industry covered its losses by
raising rates dramatically, then blamed the lawyers of innocent patients
rightfully seeking compensation for negligence-related injuries."
The real tragedy in all of the rhetoric around tort reform is best
illustrated by a personal story. While I was in college, my friend's mother
died on the operating table due to an error by her doctor. I remember asking
my friend if they were going to sue the doctor. "It won't bring my mom
back," he said.
Tort reformers neglect the fact that malpractice reform won't save one extra
life. To make that difference, insurers, doctors and their lobbyists like
the AMA need to find ways to improve patient safety. So for those who push
tort reform as a panacea for a sick healthcare system, working to prevent
injuries is a much more noble pursuit than writing up baseless arguments for
the back pages of a newspaper.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:x7mdnasAU-AQC23X...@giganews.com...
Better you than me. <g> I was going to link to that article, but thought
better of it. The CBO figures, all by themselves, tell the story -- that
tort reform could, possibly, save as much as 1.8% of our health care costs.
That's fine by me, but there are bigger fish to fry. I doubt if they'll ever
make it into the pan, however. Politics won't allow the *real* reform that
could make vast improvements in our health care, while slightly decreasing
the overall costs to our economy: Do what Switzerland did. Make the health
insurers not-for-profit; regulate the hell out of them; and let the rest of
the system run largely by itself.
Of course, like every other civilized country (and most uncivilized ones),
they regulate drug costs. But that, too, produces a smaller benefit that
most people would think. Cutting drug costs in half, IIRC, would cut our
total health care costs by 4%.
--
Ed Huntress
RD (The Sandman)
> I find it ironic that you're on a government-paid insurance system,
> yet you want to deny coverage to all the people who aren't.
Just where did I say I wanted to deny coverage for those on Medicare or
Medicaid? Take all the screens you need. I said that with those going
into the toilet, why add more plans to that.
> I'm not
> impressed by the fact that you're over 65 and therefore got yourself
> on the government insurance dole. You probably don't need it nearly as
> much as many other people.
Perhaps, not, however it is there, it would be foolish to pass it up.
However, in a few years when it runs out of money, something else will
replace it. I have no compunction using until then.....I paid a hell of
a lot of taxes over the years and many who would be on some of those
government programs didn't.
> However, it's not unusual for libertarian types. They tend to be
> extremely short-sighted about their own situation versus those faced
> by other people.
Whatever. You want to be a bleeding heart, send in more money.
> As for all the people who are making "choices," many, if not most,
> really don't have a choice. When I was paying full-boat it cost me
> close to $13,000/yr. Now I'm paying half of that. But a lot of people
> just can't pay $13,000, at today's wages and costs of living. You
> would just leave them to their own devices
There aren't very many who don't have healthcare because they can't or
couldn't afford it. There are only 28 million who don't have health
insurance if don't count illegal aliens and half of those simply don't
want it. For whatever reason, probably young and think that they are
invulnerable, they made the choice to not have it. That leaves around 12
-15 million. So for that and still leave about 6% uninsured, you and
Pelosi want to upheave everyone else?
-- their own "choices" --
> and say screw 'em. Let's wait until they have a heart attack or a
> stroke (think of Gunner again)
You think of Gunner......
, or advanced cancer or pneumonia, and
> then let them into the ER.
When many of them consciously made that choice.....yes. That is where
they are now so that is not an additional cost.
> The short-sightedness you're showing here
> is that if we had a sensible system,
We, pretty much do....for the most part. Are there things that should
be changed? Yes. Is it enough to disrupt everyone else in the country?
Debatable.
> and if Gunner had been going for
> regular stress tests and had a doctor telling him how it really is,
> there's a statistically much better chance that we wouldn't have wound
> up paying $275,000 for his emergency care. Now that he's had a heart
> attack, the chances are higher that we'll wind up paying it again.
Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had healthcare or
insurance in the first place. That would be their choice.
> But the bigger issue, for me, is that you sound like you favor a
> libertarian dystopia, in which it's screw-the-hindmost. Besides the
> economic short-sightedness of that approach, I find it morally
> repugnant.
Fine....then stop replying to me.
That's a difference in our opinion. We may agree on the
> need for reforms in health care, particularly those that would improve
> cost efficiency, but we'll never agree on that. In a civilized
> society, there's no room for that kind of thinking, IMO.
Your choice. Have a nice day........
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
Ed Huntress
Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people. Why should you get
it, while some young adult doesn't? I don't see anything in the definition
of "socialized insurance" that has an age qualification. You're now on the
receiving end of a social contract. But libertarians don't care much for
social contracts involving a transfer of money. To be consistent, they
should forego Medicare. <g>
Society has decided that it will take care of your medical needs in your old
age. Society could just as well decide it will take care of some other
people in their youth. They're often less able than you probably are to
provide for themselves, anyway.
>
>> I'm not
>> impressed by the fact that you're over 65 and therefore got yourself
>> on the government insurance dole. You probably don't need it nearly as
>> much as many other people.
>
> Perhaps, not, however it is there, it would be foolish to pass it up.
I don't disagree. But unless you're pitching to put an end to it, it does
leave you in a philosophical conundrum. <g>
> However, in a few years when it runs out of money, something else will
> replace it. I have no compunction using until then.....I paid a hell of
> a lot of taxes over the years and many who would be on some of those
> government programs didn't.
Except for the puny fees you're paying now, you didn't pay a nickel for your
Medicare. You paid for the *previous* generation's Medicare -- just like
those of us who are younger than 65 are paying for yours now.
>
>> However, it's not unusual for libertarian types. They tend to be
>> extremely short-sighted about their own situation versus those faced
>> by other people.
>
> Whatever. You want to be a bleeding heart, send in more money.
My heart bleeds for you, RD. That's why I don't object to paying for your
Medicare. d8-) If we all become libertarian Neanderthals, maybe we'll decide
to cut you off...
>
>> As for all the people who are making "choices," many, if not most,
>> really don't have a choice. When I was paying full-boat it cost me
>> close to $13,000/yr. Now I'm paying half of that. But a lot of people
>> just can't pay $13,000, at today's wages and costs of living. You
>> would just leave them to their own devices
>
> There aren't very many who don't have healthcare because they can't or
> couldn't afford it. There are only 28 million who don't have health
> insurance if don't count illegal aliens and half of those simply don't
> want it. For whatever reason, probably young and think that they are
> invulnerable, they made the choice to not have it. That leaves around 12
> -15 million. So for that and still leave about 6% uninsured, you and
> Pelosi want to upheave everyone else?
No upheaval. I did do the calculations and I see that just under half of the
people in the US are now running on government-subsidized health care
insurance (142 million, assuming the national average of 3.14 people per
family). So what a reformed system would do is to unify the entire system,
so there aren't millions of people running to emergency rooms for a head
cold.
>
> -- their own "choices" --
>> and say screw 'em. Let's wait until they have a heart attack or a
>> stroke (think of Gunner again)
>
> You think of Gunner......
>
> , or advanced cancer or pneumonia, and
>> then let them into the ER.
>
> When many of them consciously made that choice.....yes. That is where
> they are now so that is not an additional cost.
There wouldn't be as many of them if they had insurance and went to a
clinic, and if they got some kind of regular care, to begin with.
>
>> The short-sightedness you're showing here
>> is that if we had a sensible system,
>
> We, pretty much do....for the most part. Are there things that should
> be changed? Yes. Is it enough to disrupt everyone else in the country?
> Debatable.
A well-designed system won't disrupt anyone. The current proposal falls
short, mostly because the insurance industry has gutted some of the big
things that could save serious money.
So now the Republicans are focusing on things like tort reform (1.8% saving,
at most), and cross-state insurance (costs will level across states as soon
as people start to use it).
The system proposed by the Democrats is much tougher but it's full of holes
because of politics. The systems proposed by the Republicans are just a
giveaway to the insurance industry -- again.
>
>> and if Gunner had been going for
>> regular stress tests and had a doctor telling him how it really is,
>> there's a statistically much better chance that we wouldn't have wound
>> up paying $275,000 for his emergency care. Now that he's had a heart
>> attack, the chances are higher that we'll wind up paying it again.
>
> Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had healthcare or
> insurance in the first place. That would be their choice.
Great. So it costs all of us more because of their "choice." What do you
think drives your health insurance costs, anyway? Oh, excuse me, you don't
*have* any health insurance costs. I forgot. <g>
>
>> But the bigger issue, for me, is that you sound like you favor a
>> libertarian dystopia, in which it's screw-the-hindmost. Besides the
>> economic short-sightedness of that approach, I find it morally
>> repugnant.
>
> Fine....then stop replying to me.
You may be following a morally repugnant political philosophy, but at least
you aren't threatening anyone with guns. <g>
>
> That's a difference in our opinion. We may agree on the
>> need for reforms in health care, particularly those that would improve
>> cost efficiency, but we'll never agree on that. In a civilized
>> society, there's no room for that kind of thinking, IMO.
>
> Your choice. Have a nice day........
I *am*, thank you. It was beautiful today and I got out for a while when the
sun was up.
--
Ed Huntress
RD (The Sandman)
Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is only the
VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is actually a hybrid
since the actual hands on is done by the private sector.
> Why should you
> get it, while some young adult doesn't?
Costs at this time. If they wished to discontinue Medicare/Medicaid,
they can go ahead and do it. I will survive with private insurance, but
since it is there.......
> I don't see anything in the
> definition of "socialized insurance" that has an age qualification.
Nor do I. It is simply trying to add it at this time.
> You're now on the receiving end of a social contract. But libertarians
> don't care much for social contracts involving a transfer of money. To
> be consistent, they should forego Medicare. <g>
As I noted above.......
> Society has decided that it will take care of your medical needs in
> your old age. Society could just as well decide it will take care of
> some other people in their youth. They're often less able than you
> probably are to provide for themselves, anyway.
Yes, and that would be up to society, not me. I am only expressing a
concern about costs of doing socialized medicine with the economy as it
is. I don't see anyway to do it without increased costs and that means
more taxes or reduced services.
>>> I'm not
>>> impressed by the fact that you're over 65 and therefore got yourself
>>> on the government insurance dole. You probably don't need it nearly
>>> as much as many other people.
>>
>> Perhaps, not, however it is there, it would be foolish to pass it up.
>
> I don't disagree. But unless you're pitching to put an end to it, it
> does leave you in a philosophical conundrum. <g>
Not really, it doesn't. It is like walking down a highway during a
rainstorm. I have been wet before, but if someone offers me a
ride....why not?
>> However, in a few years when it runs out of money, something else
>> will replace it. I have no compunction using until then.....I paid a
>> hell of a lot of taxes over the years and many who would be on some
>> of those government programs didn't.
>
> Except for the puny fees you're paying now, you didn't pay a nickel
> for your Medicare. You paid for the *previous* generation's Medicare
> -- just like those of us who are younger than 65 are paying for yours
> now.
Seems fair to me although someone just went to prison for that type of
scheme. Hmmmmm, let's see.......
>>> However, it's not unusual for libertarian types. They tend to be
>>> extremely short-sighted about their own situation versus those faced
>>> by other people.
>>
>> Whatever. You want to be a bleeding heart, send in more money.
>
> My heart bleeds for you, RD. That's why I don't object to paying for
> your Medicare.
And I didn't object to those on SS and Medicare that I paid for. Now the
worm has turned......I am now on the other end.
d8-) If we all become libertarian Neanderthals, maybe
> we'll decide to cut you off...
Perhaps.....I don't have much time left anyway. My string is pretty
close to being played out.
>>> As for all the people who are making "choices," many, if not most,
>>> really don't have a choice. When I was paying full-boat it cost me
>>> close to $13,000/yr. Now I'm paying half of that. But a lot of
>>> people just can't pay $13,000, at today's wages and costs of living.
>>> You would just leave them to their own devices
>>
>> There aren't very many who don't have healthcare because they can't
>> or couldn't afford it. There are only 28 million who don't have
>> health insurance if don't count illegal aliens and half of those
>> simply don't want it. For whatever reason, probably young and think
>> that they are invulnerable, they made the choice to not have it.
>> That leaves around 12 -15 million. So for that and still leave about
>> 6% uninsured, you and Pelosi want to upheave everyone else?
>
> No upheaval. I did do the calculations and I see that just under half
> of the people in the US are now running on government-subsidized
> health care insurance (142 million, assuming the national average of
> 3.14 people per family). So what a reformed system would do is to
> unify the entire system, so there aren't millions of people running to
> emergency rooms for a head cold.
My idea of kicking them out unless it is a real emergency would do the
same. ;) Of course, if they were truly down and out through no fault of
their own, I have no problem with helping them. I simply have a big
problem doing stuff for ol' Fat Albert who simply sits over at his baby
mama's house playing video games instead of going out and getting a job
or contributing to society. There are a lot of those out
there.....unless they are all in my family.
>> -- their own "choices" --
>>> and say screw 'em. Let's wait until they have a heart attack or a
>>> stroke (think of Gunner again)
>>
>> You think of Gunner......
>>
>> , or advanced cancer or pneumonia, and
>>> then let them into the ER.
>>
>> When many of them consciously made that choice.....yes. That is
>> where they are now so that is not an additional cost.
>
> There wouldn't be as many of them if they had insurance and went to a
> clinic, and if they got some kind of regular care, to begin with.
We agree.......and that was a choice many of them made. Hell, why get
health insurance when I am feeling good and those new Nikes would sure
look good on my feet.
>>> The short-sightedness you're showing here
>>> is that if we had a sensible system,
>>
>> We, pretty much do....for the most part. Are there things that
>> should be changed? Yes. Is it enough to disrupt everyone else in
>> the country? Debatable.
>
> A well-designed system won't disrupt anyone. The current proposal
> falls short, mostly because the insurance industry has gutted some of
> the big things that could save serious money.
You are very quick to show that stuff like tort reform is a small
percentage.....how about the report in Fortune 500 that shows that the
profit margin in healthcare insurance is about 2.2%? Do you have figures
that show different?
> So now the Republicans are focusing on things like tort reform (1.8%
> saving, at most),
Over the entire healthcare, that is true. However, it is a great cost to
the individual doctor and the people (or insurance company) who have to
pay for all that defensive medicine. Why stick with two tests when a
couple more (paid by insurance) will block me from a remote possibility
of a malpractice suit?
and cross-state insurance (costs will level across
> states as soon as people start to use it).
Yep. Why should a health plan stop at a state line?
> The system proposed by the Democrats is much tougher but it's full of
> holes because of politics. The systems proposed by the Republicans are
> just a giveaway to the insurance industry -- again.
See above.
>>> and if Gunner had been going for
>>> regular stress tests and had a doctor telling him how it really is,
>>> there's a statistically much better chance that we wouldn't have
>>> wound up paying $275,000 for his emergency care. Now that he's had a
>>> heart attack, the chances are higher that we'll wind up paying it
>>> again.
>>
>> Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had
>> healthcare or insurance in the first place. That would be their
>> choice.
>
> Great. So it costs all of us more because of their "choice."
No, it doesn't...not if you go with the rest of what I said. Unless it
is a real emergency, no care unless you pay for it or get insurance.
> What do
> you think drives your health insurance costs, anyway? Oh, excuse me,
> you don't *have* any health insurance costs. I forgot. <g>
Yes, I did.....now I still use Medicare Advantage....however, it isn't
about me.....I am less than 1% of the cost of healthcare, don't you know.
;)
>>> But the bigger issue, for me, is that you sound like you favor a
>>> libertarian dystopia, in which it's screw-the-hindmost. Besides the
>>> economic short-sightedness of that approach, I find it morally
>>> repugnant.
>>
>> Fine....then stop replying to me.
>
> You may be following a morally repugnant political philosophy, but at
> least you aren't threatening anyone with guns. <g>
And never will unless they threaten me or mine first. Then they may need
all the healthcare they can find or, at least, a cremation.
Anyway, nice way to handle my outburst. ;)
>> That's a difference in our opinion. We may agree on the
>>> need for reforms in health care, particularly those that would
>>> improve cost efficiency, but we'll never agree on that. In a
>>> civilized society, there's no room for that kind of thinking, IMO.
>>
>> Your choice. Have a nice day........
>
> I *am*, thank you. It was beautiful today and I got out for a while
> when the sun was up.
Clear blue skies, current temp 91 degrees, mild evenings.....at least
that is what it is like here. I should be out working on my trucks....
Enjoy....
tankfixer
not...@donttry.com says...
>
> > > >>
> > > >> What do you think of voting for a plan you haven't read?
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who votes yes without reading it is not only a fool but is
> > > > criminal
> > >
> > > Not completely true. Both sides need to read it before they vote on it.
> >
> > At the very least it is 1800 pages too long...
>
>
> No bill is ever too long for Congress. There's plenty of room in there
> for everyone's porky pet projects.
All the more reason that none who are there now should be returned in
the future...
Curly Surmudgeon
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
> coverage they already have.
How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
Observer
YOU agree with Hawke. So why do you support the ObamaCare, which is
opposed to what you just agreed with?
>TMT
__
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
Observer
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
><rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
>> coverage they already have.
>
>How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
Perhaps 84% of folks have coverage. But happy with it? I spend $4000
a year with a $5000 deductable. i.e. Out of pocket $9000, before I
can claim any remuneration. Then I get 15% on the next $6000.
This ain't "medical" insurance, it's "bankruptsy" insurance.
Happy with it? No. More secure, yes.
Course, if I made $75 an hour (including travel time) like Gunner, I'm
sure I'd have much better coverage.
Dan
He agrees with Hawke about what the Republican health care plan is, not
that he agrees with the Republican lack of a health care plan ("Don't
get sick").
Dan
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, for
>whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, why fine
>them? It is their choice.
So why are we paying for gummer?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
It has to be lower than that as their insurance preimums to cover
lawyers & liability are.
About 0.5% ?
Most errors never get them sued in any case.
But the patients pay dearly & the hospitals get their
customers back PDQ.
>In other words, tort reform is good, but it's also trivial. Don't think that
>putting it at the top of your list will make it any better. <g>
>
>> No state line boundaries for health plans
>
>Pretty much meaningless, in terms of total health care costs. You're just
>talking about squeezing the balloon. The air is still there, just in another
>place.
>
>> No pre-existing conditions for refusal
>
>You've just blown your savings in other categories, probably by a factor of
>five. <g>
>
>> No loss of healthcare if one loses their job
>
>Another big multiplier.
>
>> No loss of healthcare when one really needs it
>
>Another big multiplier.
>
>> Emergency care limited to emergencies or urgent need
>
>That's a good one, which has the potential to save some money. But it
>depends on having universal, or near-universal coverage.
>
>> Plans available for catastrophic occurrence
>
>They're mostly available now. They don't save anything in terms of total US
>healthcare costs. They just save money out of insurance and then take it
>away again, in your out-of-pocket expenses.
>
>It's not a bad idea, and it's one I'd like to see, but don't think it will
>save a nickel overall. It won't, except for a really trivial amount of
>administrative cost.
Which is well over 30% just in billing.
>And the people who pay out-of-pocket pay through the
>nose, because they have no bargaining power. Just ask Gunner.
>
>>
>> The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, for
>> whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, why fine
>> them? It is their choice.
>
>Because it winds up costing the rest of us. That's the paradox. We'll either
>pay for their care, because they can't,
Traps people into welfare & takes their assets ...
As it is in so many other nations .... which also have better outcomes.
>All of those things you listed above sound good, but most don't
>produce any significant net savings.
But the rethugs are happy !!
>The only thing that will is a complete
>overhaul of the insurance system, building in incentives to keep costs down.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>
I doubt that the cancer would be treated. Same with many other
diseases & conditions.
>The
>short-sightedness you're showing here is that if we had a sensible system,
>and if Gunner had been going for regular stress tests and had a doctor
>telling him how it really is, there's a statistically much better chance
>that we wouldn't have wound up paying $275,000 for his emergency care. Now
>that he's had a heart attack, the chances are higher that we'll wind up
>paying it again.
>
>But the bigger issue, for me, is that you sound like you favor a libertarian
>dystopia, in which it's screw-the-hindmost. Besides the economic
>short-sightedness of that approach, I find it morally repugnant. That's a
>difference in our opinion. We may agree on the need for reforms in health
>care, particularly those that would improve cost efficiency, but we'll never
>agree on that. In a civilized society, there's no room for that kind of
>thinking, IMO.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> and if Gunner had been going for
>> regular stress tests and had a doctor telling him how it really is,
>> there's a statistically much better chance that we wouldn't have wound
>> up paying $275,000 for his emergency care. Now that he's had a heart
>> attack, the chances are higher that we'll wind up paying it again.
>
>Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had healthcare or
>insurance in the first place. That would be their choice.
Tax gummer & be sure he pays.
Why should I pay for him?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.
>
>Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is only the
>VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is actually a hybrid
>since the actual hands on is done by the private sector.
That's true in many nations with universal coverage.
There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better
results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Why should you
>> get it, while some young adult doesn't?
>
>Costs at this time. If they wished to discontinue Medicare/Medicaid,
>they can go ahead and do it. I will survive with private insurance, but
>since it is there.......
Your "private insurance" will cost you 20X as much ... age risk ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>I am only expressing a
>concern about costs of doing socialized medicine with the economy as it
>is.
You don't want to save any money, eh?
Or put more medical staff to work.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> A well-designed system won't disrupt anyone. The current proposal
>> falls short, mostly because the insurance industry has gutted some of
>> the big things that could save serious money.
>
>You are very quick to show that stuff like tort reform is a small
>percentage.....how about the report in Fortune 500 that shows that the
>profit margin in healthcare insurance is about 2.2%? Do you have figures
>that show different?
If it gets high just give more bonus money ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> states as soon as people start to use it).
>
>Yep. Why should a health plan stop at a state line?
Actually, few do.
Get sick somepace out of state & still get treated.
But the states regulate their own carriers.
State's rights, right?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>Odd...the Democrats control all three branches of the government dont
>they?
>
>And have for at least 3 yrs.
Gee, more lies from gummer !!
--
Cliff
Dan
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:56:37 -0500, "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CB871020...@216.196.97.130...
>>> No state line boundaries for health plans
>> Pretty much meaningless, in terms of total health care costs. You're just
>> talking about squeezing the balloon. The air is still there, just in another
>> place.
MUCH worse than that; this provision will basically sidestep all state
regulation and requirements, without lowering costs significantly and
quite possibly raising costs dramatically (notice what happened when all
the credit card companies used the South Dakota (?) rules nationwide).
This has got to be the STUPIDEST proposal from a Republican in a long
time! Well, stupidest for its effects on us, at least.
>>> No pre-existing conditions for refusal
>> You've just blown your savings in other categories, probably by a factor of
>> five. <g>
The Republican plan completely ignores any reform on pre-existing
conditions WRT purchasing coverage, which makes it essentially fluff.
There is a small section on not being able to deny some people coverage
for not-actually-pre-existing-conditions (which practice is currently
well-documented) while they already own the policy, but there are lots
of loopholes around that which an expensive staff of diligent examiners
can counter (thus raising insurance costs).
Hell, even Mark Twain understood insurance, as practiced today, is
nothing but a scam. It COULD be a helpful, useful, healthy
well-regulated industry, but greedy people get in the way.
>>> No loss of healthcare if one loses their job
>> Another big multiplier.
We already have that, so it has, essentially, no effect at all!
>>> No loss of healthcare when one really needs it
>> Another big multiplier.
See above.
>>> Emergency care limited to emergencies or urgent need
>> That's a good one, which has the potential to save some money. But it
>> depends on having universal, or near-universal coverage.
Which the plan totally avoids... The plan has two purposes: show (see,
we DO TOO have a plan) and industry protection.
>>> Plans available for catastrophic occurrence
>> They're mostly available now. They don't save anything in terms of total US
>> healthcare costs. They just save money out of insurance and then take it
>> away again, in your out-of-pocket expenses.
Bingo.
>> It's not a bad idea, and it's one I'd like to see, but don't think it will
>> save a nickel overall. It won't, except for a really trivial amount of
>> administrative cost.
>
> Which is well over 30% just in billing.
Not to mention lawyers and claims deniers...
>> And the people who pay out-of-pocket pay through the
>> nose, because they have no bargaining power. Just ask Gunner.
Depends on a lot of circumstances" mostly, yes, sometimes, not really
(claims amounts are often inflated to wring the last possible nickel out
of the insurance company [i.e., to hit their maximum reimbursement
rates], then "adjusted" when the final bill is sent out to the patient).
Some providers offer cash discounts and such.
>>> The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, for
>>> whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, why fine
>>> them? It is their choice.
>> Because it winds up costing the rest of us. That's the paradox. We'll either
>> pay for their care, because they can't,
>
> Traps people into welfare & takes their assets ...
And precludes the pre-existing conditions reform that is desperately needed.
>> or they'll squeeze the balloon again
>> and shove the costs up the age scale. In total, we wind up paying the same
>> thing.
A huge saving is to be had by getting rid of the insurance industry
itself, which exists only to serve itself. Actual reasoned tort reform
based on real data (not the stupid schemes of the Republicans) can be a
part of that. Turning a majority of medical practitioners into
professionals instead of incompetent small-businessmen is another big
step. Consolidating expensive equipment ownership is the last major
necessary step.
Pharmaceutical reform is a separate, but related, issue, and really
needs a dedicated effort all its own.
>>> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
>>> coverage they already have.
>> That includes the 87 million people who receive Medicare or Medicaid, or
>> both. <g> (The "dual eligibles," who receive both, are not counted twice in
>> the 87 million figure.) They tend to be happy, as do the people who aren't
>> worried about their jobs and who have employer-provided (or heavily
>> assisted) health insurance. That number is in the neighborhood of 166
>> million -- which includes all government employees (including teachers) and
>> their families. I'll take the time to break that out if you want but you can
>> see that the number who are getting government-paid insurance is huge. And
>> they don't want any changes. Thus, 84% are happy with what they have. And
>> we're paying for a hell of a lot of it.
That 84% is a totally made-up number...
>> And that's the political problem. People who get Medicare or Medicaid don't
>> want any changes. Neither do the people who have something provided by their
>> employers, including the government. But they aren't the problem. The rest
>> of the population is the problem, and the costs of taking care of them
>> produce various kinds of fallout -- all of it bad.
Yet that is the actual ultimate purpose of insurance, NOT to make a
small handful of people rich (and provide employment for a bunch more,
which is the real problem of insurance reform)...
Insurance works on spreading risk. I see no big problem with virtually
any other form of insurance (I'm sure there are some niche markets that
can be lambasted). Insurance companies cherry-pick their clients, scare
the clients into purchasing, then deliver incomprehensible coverage that
cannot be compared with any competing product. It is a shell game, pure
and simple. And not all of the shell game is conspiratorial, just
convergent (though the lack of anti-trust protection has certainly been
abused, as well).
>>> Medicare/Medicaid is already 14% of the budget and will be insolvent in
>>> 2019 without an infusion of funds. If you look at Medicare/Medicaid,
>>> Social Security and the interest in the debt, you are looking at 62% of
>>> the entire budget. That only leaves 38% for *everything* else and they
>>> wish to add a public option?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sleep well tonight,
>>>
>>> RD (The Sandman)
>> The whole system is fraught with trouble for taxpayers. The biggest problem
>> is that there are few incentives anywhere in the system to make care more
>> economical.
>
> As it is in so many other nations .... which also have better outcomes.
>
>> All of those things you listed above sound good, but most don't
>> produce any significant net savings.
>
> But the rethugs are happy !!
>
>> The only thing that will is a complete
>> overhaul of the insurance system, building in incentives to keep costs down.
Agreed (which itself contains the term "greed...").
Dan
Dan
And yet, using the REPUBLICAN'S estimates, the current plans only cost
over ten years (ignoring any savings) about 8 months of the military
budget for one year...
And that military budget DOES NOT include the costs of prosecuting the
current wars-du-jour.
THe entire package, as written, could be paid for by cutting the defense
budget to what the Pentagon actually requests, pre-pork.
Dan
Dan
2.2% OF WHAT???
Dan
Dan
Expect LOTS of troubles when the insurance companies can sidestep state
regulations.
Dan
Dan
For some small subset of the definition of "control."
Dan
RD (The Sandman)
news:92j5f5lkq0ckna2tq...@4ax.com:
Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in the
US.
RD (The Sandman)
news:r5j5f59ab0hp0nfps...@4ax.com:
Not really. I was on private insurance not long ago.
RD (The Sandman)
news:r7j5f5pc4e24gd8cq...@4ax.com:
Not if my grandkids have to pay for it in addition to what they are being
taxed on.
RD (The Sandman)
Dan, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and just the interest on the debt
is 62% of the budget. That does not agree with your statement. The cost
of the wars, AFAIK, is an off budget item.
RD (The Sandman)
news:bcj5f59g3dj3ik1vn...@4ax.com:
Noted.....no figures that show different.
RD (The Sandman)
Do you know what a profit margin is?
RD (The Sandman)
news:kej5f59p69l7519cn...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> states as soon as people start to use it).
>>
>>Yep. Why should a health plan stop at a state line?
>
> Actually, few do.
> Get sick somepace out of state & still get treated.
At a different cost.
> But the states regulate their own carriers.
But not Medicare or the VA or the military. For example one state may
have 10 or 15 choices for healthcare, the state next to it may have only
one.
> State's rights, right?
--
RD (The Sandman)
Not if they are overridden by federal regs.
RD (The Sandman)
@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
>> coverage they already have.
>
> How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with what
they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?
RD (The Sandman)
news:sjh5f5191sid2oo69...@4ax.com:
Go ask Gummer.
RD (The Sandman)
news:8ri5f5l4p9fkp208i...@4ax.com:
You are a Democrat.
Observer
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in news:hcqs7n$1mr$10
>@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
>>> coverage they already have.
>>
>> How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
>
>That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with what
>they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?
Er, no. I have health insurance, costs a shitload, and has a huge
deductable. It's more of a bankruptsy insurance. Happy? Hardly.
__
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
Ed Huntress
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBAA6528...@216.196.97.130...
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:bcj5f59g3dj3ik1vn...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> A well-designed system won't disrupt anyone. The current proposal
>>>> falls short, mostly because the insurance industry has gutted some
>>>> of the big things that could save serious money.
>>>
>>>You are very quick to show that stuff like tort reform is a small
>>>percentage.....how about the report in Fortune 500 that shows that the
>>>profit margin in healthcare insurance is about 2.2%? Do you have
>>>figures that show different?
>>
>> If it gets high just give more bonus money ...
>
> Noted.....no figures that show different.
Take comfort in this delusion, RD. It's about all the insurance industry has
left. <g>
Here's the truth of the situation: The insurance industry churns a lot of
money. In the case of health care insurers, 83% of it passes right through
their hands to the health care providers -- doctors, hospitals,
pharmaceutical companies, etc. This has a close parallel in the way that
traditional advertising agencies used to work: 85% of their "revenue" passed
right through to the media in which they advertise.
The "real" revenue of health care insurers, in other words, is the remaining
17% of the total cash that runs through their hands. Thus, the 2.2%, which
is figured on the total cash that passes through (their nominal "gross
revenue") is more accurately something like 13% net profit on real
revenue -- the revenue they hold on to, to provide services and to run their
companies. Unlike most companies, in which the costs of production or the
internal costs of providing services would be where most of the 83% goes, in
the insurance industry, that 83% just goes out to external service
providers. The insurance companies have nothing to do with all of that
production. They aren't producing anything, except a lot of paper, and
internal services, like marketing, which help them run their companies.
Not bad at all. And that explains why their assets are a relatively high
multiple of their book value. In other words, their stock value reflects a
large amount of "goodwill," which, in this case, is another way of saying
that all of that "company value" which has nothing to do with their tangible
assets is really a sort of illusion. It's the difference between what
they're making on their initial investment, and what the stock is worth
based on its current and projected profits.
For those who aren't into reading balance sheets with a jaundiced eye, what
all this means is this: The health care insurance business is a pretty solid
money-making machine. Thus, their stock values are high relative to the
tangible-asset values of the companies. But when those insurance companies
are liquidated, there's nothing much there but a lot of wind and noise.
For that, we pay a bundle.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in news:hcqs7n$1mr$10
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
>>> coverage they already have.
>>
>> How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
>
> That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with what
> they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?
Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy with it?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery Good, Gays Bad, Snakes Talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:92j5f5lkq0ckna2tq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.
>>>
>>>Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is only
>>>the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is actually a
>>>hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private sector.
>>
>> That's true in many nations with universal coverage.
>> There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better
>> results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).
>
>Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in the
>US.
The costs of health care in the other industrialized nations have been
in every major newspaper (courtesy of AP) and on every major network
news. Of course I can't speak for Faux Commentary (and news).
But I'll help you out:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997469
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2005/Jul/Health-Spending-in-the-United-States-and-the-Rest-of-the-Industrialized-World.aspx
"In 2002, the United States spent $5,267 per capita on health care�53
percent more than Switzerland, the next-highest-spending country, and
140 percent more than the median OECD country."
And here...I'll make it even easier..here's a pretty picture
http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/images/demographic%20change_health%20care%20costs%20per%20country_96dpi_1.jpg
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:92j5f5lkq0ckna2tq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.
>>>
>>>Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is only
>>>the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is actually a
>>>hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private sector.
>>
>> That's true in many nations with universal coverage.
>> There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better
>> results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).
>
>Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in the
>US.
"In many", eh? S oin others it's lower.
BTW, Do you care if you pay for health care with a 5% tax or
a 20% insurance fee?
--
Cliff
RD (The Sandman)
news:g868f5tjsq31qrh80...@4ax.com:
Yep, because if I pay for it with an insurance fee it stops when I stop.
Those tax hits get passed on to my kids and their kids.
RD (The Sandman)
news:4af38557$0$4976$607e...@cv.net:
I agree with what you wrote......however, look at your last statement.
For everything the government runs, we pay a bundle. Medicare/Medicaid
close to being insolvent, the post office had to farm out work to UPS and
FedEx, Amtrak is a sinkhole instead of being a viable commodity, Social
Security (another Ponzi scheme) is soon going to have many more problems
when the baby boomers go on it instead of paying into it. The government
has no way of producing revenue. All they can do is increase taxes on
the private sector (or cut services) and that is a problem if there are
less jobs and less people earning money to pay taxes. All government
employees are a cost, not a revenue producer so as government numbers
increase, the cost of that government goes up and the private sector has
more of a load with over 10 unemployment. The estimates on the cost of
the health care bills are based on conjecture about what can be done to
eliminate waste and fraud (makes you wonder why nothing was done before
if all that was known) and not concrete numbers. So far, the government
has a poor record of hitting its estimates.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in
>> news:hcqs7n$1mr$10 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
>>>> coverage they already have.
>>>
>>> How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
>>
>> That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with
>> what they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?
>
> Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy with
> it?
>
Huh? You don't read very well, Curly. The statement was that of people
with health insurance, 84% are happy. Where do you get 100% out of that
comment?
Lookout
Neither of those numbers mean shit to anyone but you.
TinLizziedl
Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> says...
Your statement about eliminating waste and fraud making us wonder why
nothing was done before is interesting. Waste and fraud are huge
revenue streams that pour money on companies who do not actually provide
any kind of service except jobs to their employees. Cut waste, fraud,
and abuse and there will be a pretty good jump in the numbers of those
collecting unemployment. We'll be switching the red ink from one
department to another in the vast beaurocratic maze of our government.
Government does not exist to produce revenue, it exists to provide
services. Ideally, those services provide some measure of safety and
security via a framework of regulations and taxes imposed upon the
private sector, ie: Each company does not have to raise its own military
to enforce individual company law at each company storefront.
Unfortunately, the lawyers found this to be fertile soil....
--
Tin Lizzie
"To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the
captain, and a positive crime in the statesman." - George Santayana
Curly Surmudgeon
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in
> news:hd09md$spf$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in
>>> news:hcqs7n$1mr$10 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health insurance
>>>>> coverage they already have.
>>>>
>>>> How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
>>>
>>> That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with
>>> what they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?
>>
>> Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy with
>> it?
>>
>>
> Huh? You don't read very well, Curly. The statement was that of people
> with health insurance, 84% are happy. Where do you get 100% out of
> that comment?
Simple subtraction. 100% of the people minus 16% without insurance is 84%
which is equal to the 84% you said are happy with theirs. 84/84 = 100%.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:43:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in
>> news:hd09md$spf$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:38 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in
>>>> news:hcqs7n$1mr$10 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Over 84% of the folks out there are happy with the health
>>>>>> insurance coverage they already have.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can that be when more than 16% have no health insurance?
>>>>
>>>> That number is of people with health insurance, 84% are happy with
>>>> what they have. Now, do you have a handle on it?
>>>
>>> Do you really think 100% of those with health insurance are happy
>>> with it?
>>>
>>>
>> Huh? You don't read very well, Curly. The statement was that of
>> people with health insurance, 84% are happy. Where do you get 100%
>> out of that comment?
>
> Simple subtraction. 100% of the people minus 16% without insurance is
> 84% which is equal to the 84% you said are happy with theirs. 84/84 =
> 100%.
As I said, you don't read very well. If the 84% was of people *WHO HAVE*
health insurance, how can you subtract 16% for people *WHO DO NOT HAVE*
health insurance? It is like me saying that 90% of all Honda owners are
happy with their Hondas and you claiming that can't be true because 55%
of Jaguar owners are unhappy. ;)
Curly Surmudgeon
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Read the requested explanation for content.
> If the 84% was of people *WHO HAVE*
> health insurance, how can you subtract 16% for people *WHO DO NOT HAVE*
> health insurance? It is like me saying that 90% of all Honda owners are
> happy with their Hondas and you claiming that can't be true because 55%
> of Jaguar owners are unhappy. ;)
--
Dan
You did not say that. You said: "Over 84% of the folks out there are
happy with the health insurance coverage they already have." which
includes those with zero health coverage (zero is the health coverage
they have).
What you meant to say was something along the lines of: "84% of the
people with health insurance coverage are happy with what they have."
We can still debate that statements, because it would take a bit of
investigation as to the actual questions and how people were chosen, who
did the survey, and what "with health insurance coverage" means in the
context of the survey, and some other statistics which may or may not be
able to be teased out of the survey raw data.
Dan
Dan
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:g868f5tjsq31qrh80...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:17:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>> news:92j5f5lkq0ckna2tq...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.
>>>>> Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is
>>>>> only the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is
>>>>> actually a hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private
>>>>> sector.
>>>> That's true in many nations with universal coverage.
>>>> There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better
>>>> results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).
>>> Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in
>>> the US.
>> "In many", eh? S oin others it's lower.
>>
>> BTW, Do you care if you pay for health care with a 5% tax or
>> a 20% insurance fee?
>
> Yep, because if I pay for it with an insurance fee it stops when I stop.
> Those tax hits get passed on to my kids and their kids.
>
Um, no, your medical debts get passed along to your kids quite nicely...
Dan
Ed Huntress
None of that has anything to do with their efficiency in providing services.
Insolvency, if it were the actual case (it isn't -- it's all a matter of how
much we're assessed to pay for it, because their revenue is based on
political decisions, not business decisions), is an illusion. Those things
are the result of many government services being political footballs. Their
efficiency, particularly in the case of Medicare and Social Security,
actually is quite high. And don't bother to bring up the sophistic arguments
we hear from the right-wing pundits and black-hole economists who like to
argue the point. We've heard them all, and they're a pile of crap.
> The government
> has no way of producing revenue. All they can do is increase taxes on
> the private sector (or cut services) and that is a problem if there are
> less jobs and less people earning money to pay taxes.
Nonsense. There is an optimum ratio of public services to private ones; the
public ones being those that are necessary but which the private sector
can't, or won't, provide.
The legitimate argument, and the subject that should be the permanent debate
over government in the US, is about which services should be provided by
government and which should be provided by private business -- or, in a few
cases, which shouldn't be provided at all. The answer is ever-changing as
the world and technology change. But I'm not going to get into that debate
here. That's impossible to sort out in this venue.
> All government
> employees are a cost, not a revenue producer so as government numbers
> increase, the cost of that government goes up and the private sector has
> more of a load with over 10 unemployment.
Your underlying assumption here is that the government services don't
provide a net benefit to the private sector. But they do, in most cases, by
providing a range of services from protection of the food supply to security
of the country, that are essential preconditions for a stable and efficient
private sector. You're shoehorning public services into a private-sector
model, looking at it as a revenue/expenses business proposition. It doesn't
work that way.
> The estimates on the cost of
> the health care bills are based on conjecture about what can be done to
> eliminate waste and fraud (makes you wonder why nothing was done before
> if all that was known) and not concrete numbers. So far, the government
> has a poor record of hitting its estimates.
This really is an endless argument, RD. Your opinions are interesting
because of their political implications but not because we have any
particular insights into the economics -- not that you couldn't, but your
positions are so doctrinaire and cliched that they're not useful in
themselves.
The "small government" position, which really was popularized by Barry
Goldwater and that generation of conservatives, and which was brought to
political fruition by Reagan, is mostly a myth. We had that debate in the
1960s through the 1980s. It was a populist revival of a debate that was held
on different terms in the 1920s. It was put into practice, or an attempt was
made to do so, in the 1980s. It failed dismally.
And the reason it failed is because of unyielding special-interest
constituencies -- the ones who vote conservative. Farmers in Iowa who
survive on price controls and other subsidies; manufacturers in Ohio;
bankers on Wall Street; international traders in everything; wholesalers and
shippers who depend on subsidized transportation; defense contractors --
these are the real hard-core of power on K Street and in Washington. If you
don't agree with this, you haven't read "The Education of David Stockman,"
about Reagan's budget director, who was the purest small-government,
supply-side politician who had the brains and the power to do anything about
it. He hit that brick wall. And he came to realize that there is no
constituency for small government or reduced spending, because the powerful
conservatives who should be ideologically on board all have convenient
justifications of their own to overlook their own transgressions of the
small-government model. And the ones who keep mouthing the platititudes
(like you and most of the self-styled conservatives here) have neither the
power to do anything about it, nor the awareness of what happens when they
elect someone who they think will promote their small-government desires.
They didn't bother to look at the budgets, for example, at the beginning and
the end of Reagan's terms.
So you're having an argument that's no longer relevant. The world has passed
it by. That doesn't even address the point that it never had any significant
reality, having been based on ideas that have never been tested, except that
some half-witted attempts have failed -- hands-off policies at the beginning
of the Great Crash, which whipped us into the Great Depression, and
anti-regulation policies that just drove us into the greatest financial
crisis of modern times.
This debate would be worthwhile if it was conducted on a plane that takes
real experience into account, rather than the myths and delusions that
underlie almost all of the discussion that goes on here about economics and
the proper role of government. I strongly recommend that anyone who is
interested in the realities read the Stockman interview as a start:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/budget/stockman.htm
It's old now, but it's amazing that nothing much has changed in all that
time. Recognizing the workings of power in our government is a prerequisite
for discussing the theories, IMO. Without it, we're just playing in a
sandbox.
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner Asch
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had healthcare
>>>or insurance in the first place. That would be their choice.
>>
>> Tax gummer & be sure he pays.
>> Why should I pay for him?
>
>You are a Democrat.
Now if I were an illegal alien..or a minority member..he would be all
for other people paying for my medical care.
Because Im a white male citizen..all bets are off.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:sjh5f5191sid2oo69...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, for
>>>whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, why fine
>>>them? It is their choice.
>>
>> So why are we paying for gummer?
>
>Go ask Gummer.
Because I payed for 45 yrs.
And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets medical
care.
Notice the House pulled all the amendments that would prevent illegal
aliens from getting medical care on the new "health care plan"?
Gunner
Michael A. Terrell
Makes you wonder what planted Cliffie and Hawkie are from, doesn't
it?
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
PLMerite
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:cq2af55m8oh7tce2v...@4ax.com...
Exactly. Your job in this Brave New World is to be quiet and pay taxes to
support the freeloaders.
> Gunner
Regards, PLMerite
--
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
money."
- Dame Margaret Thatcher
Curly Surmudgeon
Most likely sprouts of their Mama's and Dad's...
Curly Surmudgeon
<stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
> "Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
> news:cq2af55m8oh7tce2v...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:28:43 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had
>>>>>healthcare or insurance in the first place. That would be their
>>>>>choice.
>>>>
>>>> Tax gummer & be sure he pays.
>>>> Why should I pay for him?
>>>
>>>You are a Democrat.
>>
>> Now if I were an illegal alien..or a minority member..he would be all
>> for other people paying for my medical care.
Bullshit, you are seeing karma in action. The lack of compassion you've
shown through the years is coming back at you.
>> Because Im a white male citizen..all bets are off.
Doesn't matter what color you are, you're a reprehensible piece of lying
shit.
> Exactly. Your job in this Brave New World is to be quiet and pay taxes
> to support the freeloaders.
Gummer's job is to pay for his own sloth, poor planning and
irresponsibility just as he rants about against others.
Cliff
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:27:02 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
><rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>news:sjh5f5191sid2oo69...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, for
>>>>whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, why fine
>>>>them? It is their choice.
>>>
>>> So why are we paying for gummer?
>>
>>Go ask Gummer.
>
>Because I payed for 45 yrs.
Welfare Queen.
>And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets medical
>care.
So cause their employers to pay for it.
>Notice the House pulled all the amendments that would prevent illegal
>aliens from getting medical care on the new "health care plan"?
Good for them !!
>Gunner
--
Cliff
Cliff
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
No doubt both of us pay for health care & insurance & taxes.
Unlike gummer.
--
Cliff
PLMerite
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:vonaf5d2ikdvpmf89...@4ax.com...
>
> So cause their employers to pay for it.
Reality 101: Businesses do not pay for anything. They pass costs on to
their customers, reduce payroll expenses, or close.
> --
> Cliff
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Scott
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4af4f2e2$0$22540$607e...@cv.net...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html#printMode
Lookout
First, we lose the White House. And the Senate. And the House of
Representatives.
Then we................................let Faux News , Lush Dimbaugh
and Ann Coulter fight for us.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Gunner Asch
* The Wall Street Journal
* OPINION
* NOVEMBER 7, 2009, 9:58 A.M. ET
What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.
* Article
* Comments (399)
more in Opinion �
* Email
* Printer
Friendly
* Share:
facebook ? More
o StumbleUpon
o Digg
o Twitter
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Fark
o Reddit
o LinkedIn
o del.icio.us
o MySpace
*
Save This ? More
* smaller Text larger
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote
(H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to
know.
What the government will require you to do:
� Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified
plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a
"grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan
designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your
own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a
qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the
co-pay, deductible or benefit.
� Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified
plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it.
That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then
filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
View Full Image
McCaughey2
Associated Press
Protestors wave signs in front of the Capitol on Thursday.
McCaughey2
McCaughey2
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will
likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases
his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated
$2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is
17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes
will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300
out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income.
Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be
eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
� Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified
plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all"
variety. The bill claims to offer choice�basic, enhanced and premium
levels�but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles
differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government
is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
� Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must
include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be
fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this
requirement.
� Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan"
for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of
family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with
payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500
billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and
hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
� Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment
system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are
paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical
home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A
primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and
diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that
patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a
physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with
demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to
"disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical
homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago
if cost control was a priority.
� Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants
in overseeing care for hospice patients.
� Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments
for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the
country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the
standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New
York and Florida.
� Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans
(used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result
in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
� Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness
research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors
electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions
of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs
with vague standards of accountability.
� Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with
no required qualifications except having "documented community activity
and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide,
and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse,
poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker
program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the
cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the
program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize
health services and health related social services under Federal, State
and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility
. . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including
transportation and translation services.
� Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and
linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care
workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an
interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
� Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic
preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating
secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for
nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for
improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the
demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants
should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds
including racial and ethnic minorities."
� Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of
newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see
www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths
and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.
Scott
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:26:55 -0800, "Scott" <nu...@bidneth.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:4af4f2e2$0$22540$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html#printMode
Socialism on the March.
RD (The Sandman)
news:Kt3Jm.15048$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad:
I agree I could have stated it better. However, in the clarifications to
Curly, I did say that. He continued to misread it. Additionally, if one
says that 84% of Democrats are happy with Obama that doesn't mean that
the other 16% are Republicans.
> We can still debate that statements, because it would take a bit of
> investigation as to the actual questions and how people were chosen,
> who did the survey, and what "with health insurance coverage" means in
> the context of the survey, and some other statistics which may or may
> not be able to be teased out of the survey raw data.
Yep, but that doesn't change what I said in my statement.