Surprised? No.

I am surprised tht they have admitted it.

This is why the right had pushed so hard to delay the bill, to get the lie machine up to speed to block any and all change to the status quo.

Then in a few years when health care costs consume even more of the GDP, and more people are denied care by HMO's and more people are uninsured the cry will be "Why hasn't anything been done?"

Barack Obama tried to calm an angry electorate yesterday by explaining his motives for conducting a government takeover of the health-care system, 15% of the American economy and a deeply personal issue for everyone. Unfortunately, Obama's explanation failed the YouTube test. He told a Portsmouth, New Hampshire audience that he's never said he supported single-payer health care (via Below the Beltway):

I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.

Hope and change and lies

Suckers

Why would anyone lend any credence to an AFL-CIO organizer? Union organizers make trial lawyers and child molesters look like morally-grounded people.

The tea parties purpose is to marginalize legitimate dissent by appearing stupid.

More marketing.

Good God people, common..seriously? In the story click on the link Organizer's Notes and it takes you to the headline:

SEIU's Notes On A Tea Party Strategy Conference Call

yeah, SEIU sorry...how deep are they buried into the Obama Administration? Yes...pretty deep. So gee this must be true....cause you know...nobody associated with the Obama administration would lie.

Tea party activists are against increasing the deficit. What would you expect from them?

There may be a few self-styled "Christians"- their numbers stretched thin by struggling against their own health care, doubts about the site of their president's birth and the unconceived deserving equal rights with the unborn. They are NOT the ones waving the doctored nine-foot bloody fetus photos. I think that we do ourselves a disservice by legitimizing the blind followers of Randall Terry, Fred Phelps, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. They are damfew in numbers, damlow in IQ and damineffective in their misdeeds. herm

Nearly every show on Fox in the Last week has had a Protester on health care as a guest. So what is the plan, get your face YELLING to a Democratic member of Congress an get on the Fox network of shows. Hannity, Greta, Orielly, Fox an Friends all of the shows have had these clowns explaining why they are against a health Bill that isn't even completed yet, fucking Geniuses.....The Emperor has no close people, the JIG is starting to get to even the most BIAS of all viewers of Cable News....The people don't like the result of the Election of President Obama, an they want their country back, what a bunch of Racist Pricks!!!!

Speaking as a cancer survivor who was unemployed and unensured when his cancer was discovered, and who expects to be paying off debt for the next two years.....

.....I do not have the right to demand that someone else pay for my medical expenses, regardless of how nice a person I am.

Having said that, a moral and decent society will do its best to help those in need. In my case the doctors treated knowing payment was unsure, and even my landlord was forgiving (Both have been paid now).

But I have no RIGHT to it.

With the exception of family members (your children for example), no one EVER has the 'right' to the fruits of another person's labor.

It is right and proper that our elected government helps people in need, even in cases where the help will never be 'paid back' (such as help for poor elderly). A decent society DEMANDS that such help be offered. But it is not a 'right'.

I was at a Tea Party. A large group in a small town. It was pretty amazing. I have no idea how many were Democrats, Republicans or others... But the theme here was we need to stop wasteful spending. Please tell me what is wrong with that? We have enough laws on teh books that if they were followed would bring about change and prosperity we all want. So no real change is necessary.

It would take care of illegals, Fraud and such...

Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth and is soon catching on that people and video will come back to haunt you...

If Health care is passed. You know there is some sort of grow the delagation movement (Amnesty) to try and outrun the ourcry.

It is not a sign of morality or ethics to spend money you dont have on a 'good cause'.

In fact, it is among the extreme forms of self deceptive 'feel good' evil actions that a person can commit.

In the short term, some good might be done.

In the LENGTHY long term, all the unpaid money WILL be paid, one way or another. The LIKELY method will be a much much lower ACTUAL quality of care.

The only way to avoid this WITHOUT making the money balance is for those who demand the extra expenses to take up a life long career in health care and then work for free, and sleep in public shelters (and it still wont cover the difference....)

good job NONDLR

the one I went to was also attended by moderates and independents and democrats who see what is happening....
I talked to one man who voted for obama and said he wouldnt again and this BLACK man at the track who I have talked to for the past 7 years about politics is a INTENSE LIBERAL......but he knows when the govt is out of control....

and I know some of you wont believe me but I KNOW what he said...and thats all that matters...

again....maybe this guy said that
if the MOLE or guy who got on there to SPY for the opposition is right

but AGAIN

I have still not recieved ONE SINGLE name of a republican congressman or senator who has said that no reform is what they want..

and in fact at the time of yesterdays obama infomercial.
romny was on radio giving plan about states trying some of it and another congressman was talking about tax credits and other GOOD IDEAS that wont wreck the ENTIRE system to cover a relatively small number of people

I would yak more, but work calls... Damn... Thanks AK, Nice to know we may not be a small majority... Need to name us... Probably get a few suggestions now...

This article is BS.. the "Tea Activists" as he described us, are a diverse lot, holding many views. Most of us work for a living, and don't spend our time as community organizers.. so forgive us for not being professional protesters that the left employs. Most of us do hold one view that's quickly catching on.. ie.. the feds are not to be trusted with taking over health care.. and if that or no reform are the only options... then I too am for no reform..

But those are not the only options.. overall, I'm in favor of reform.. and I'm active in this movement.. I just want sensible reform that doesn't socialize medicine.. like, the very simple action of allowing small businesses and individuals to form interstate associations to purchase insurance, OR to allow folks to purchase insurance outside their state.

That will lower the cost and increase the availability of health insurance, but.. its not supported by the libs because it doesn't permit the feds to take over health care. There are other sensible actions to take.. such as Tort reform.. frivolous lawsuits aren't by any means the only issue in increasing health care costs.. but they are a part, and those that say otherwise are purposely misleading.

Another is separating the problem of those that cannot be insured from those that choose not to buy insurance, preferring to drive a bigger car. Most Americans are sensitive to needy people, but we don't like freeloaders.

Again.. this article is complete hogwash, and is just another reason the libs are losing this argument. Thank God.

Doing nothing for 50,000,000 is better than doing something bad to 250,000,000. It sucks for the uninsured, and something should be done for Americans without insurance, but not at the expense of those with it. If the only options are whats in the bill and no reform at all, I choose no reform at all.

A decent society DEMANDS that such help be offered. But it is not a 'right'.

This statement is pretty much what it boils down too with the system as we know it today. This is what the tea parties want us all to believe.

What health care reform is all about is making it a right. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was all about just what the law defines as our rights, not the indivuals protesting on the streets.

The Constitution gives us the means to define our rights and make changes as needed. Now, it's up to our elected representitives to vote for or against the bill, not the loud mouths in the tea parties.

It's not about what a vocal minority thinks, it's all about what the majority of congress thinks at this point, and guess what, this time around it's a Democrat house and senate.

Boo hoo hoo for the tea baggers.

"it's all about what the majority of congress thinks at this point, and guess what, this time around it's a Democrat house and senate"

sounds a lot like the Republicans in the years before 2006. Not listening to the constituents is a great way to lose the majority.

I suppose you like your Premiums rising every year with No Added Benefit? Or perhaps you are already on a Government Program and Simply Don't Care what Responsible People are Paying for Insurance?!

I hazard to guess which!

But Like I said ---- You People who Listen toUninformed Morons like afkab and the teabaggers Deserve to Get Milked for Every Penny your Dumbasses Own!

Just as soon as this is all Over ---- I'm doubling my Clinical Reporting Fees and the Docs will Simply Pass that Cost on to You, the Insured Premium Payer!

God Bless America and ALL the Idiots who Populate it!

It's not about what a vocal minority thinks, it's all about what the majority of congress thinks at this point, and guess what, this time around it's a Democrat house and senate.

Boo hoo hoo for the tea baggers.

#17 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-08-12 05

please archive this statement for when that worm has turned all the way around and I believe more each day

the 2nd tuesday of november 2010 will be "VALENTINES DAY" for democrats

LET ME repeat that

its not what a vocal minority thinks

AH so majority rules...is THAT what you are saying

gee...didnt hear that when california voted against gay marriage
or other issues of the sort...

interesting...

sounds a lot like the Republicans in the years before 2006. Not listening to the constituents is a great way to lose the majority.

#18 | Posted by GreenDad at 2009-

SHIT AND DAMN IT TO HELL

I wish I could argue this point....but I cant...

when the obama/dem congress NIGHTMARE is over..republicans had better have learned a lesson or we just might see a real third party..

I guess it COULD Happen

Hope and change and lies

Suckers

That's it in a nut shell isn't it...

They believed and got screwed. Obama is no dif than the rest of the money grabbing bastards

God Bless America and ALL the Idiots who Populate it!

#19 | Posted by Redneckville at 2009

you always have an option

"gee...didnt hear that when california voted against gay marriage"

Well, let us know when the Dems try to deny a right to a group of people, and you'll have an actual point.

they are doing that all over the country
as we speak...

and I do have a point when it comes to gross hypocricy of the left

how do you think I get so much material for the

LIBERAL HISTORICAL HYPOCRICY MOMENT.....

I wonder if this back and forth is worth the effort... My party is better than yours... No my party is better...

I am waiting for the old "I know you are but what am I"

Six Marines KIA in afghanistan this week... Not a word from the left....

They were screaming in the past though...

B.O. is so great that when Marines die they don't mind... Only under Bush was a death a bad thing... Not even mentioned here... And that is Obamas general in there.

"you always have an option"

I know ----- I go to the Bank and Make a deposit every week!

Just as soon as this is over, and I hope it's defeated soundly, (just like you do) I as well as the Industry I work in will have been emboldened.
Any threat of future competition will have already been removed, and then you will see premiums really rise by unimaginable amounts.
And there won't be any other option, except of course, to go uninsured.

Thanks in Advance, you boobs do all the hard werk, I reap all the Rewards!

Toodles!

"Doing nothing for 50,000,000 is better than doing something bad to 250,000,000. It sucks for the uninsured, and something should be done for Americans without insurance, but not at the expense of those with it. If the only options are whats in the bill and no reform at all, I choose no reform at all.

#16 | Posted by Greendad"

I'm going to admit my ignorance here, but is there something in this proposed legislation that forces people to give up their private insurance?

I suppose you like your Premiums rising every year with No Added Benefit?

#19 | Posted by Redneckville at 2009-08-12 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I suppose you like your salary to increase every year with your employer getting no added benefit?

See how it works shithead? There is a cost of living increase in everything so you can expect your premiums to rise each year without added benefit. Did you pay more for a gallon of milk last week than you did last year? Did you get more vitamin D in your milk than last year?

"I suppose you like your salary to increase every year with your employer getting no added benefit?
See how it works shithead?"

You obviously don't: the employer gets to increase their prices in accordance with inflation. But medical inflation increases at higher rates than core inflation, and when the baby boomers retire, we're going to see a spike.

See how it works, shithead?

Redneck,

You are a non sequitur. You claim to work in the industry that will suffer if the government takes over health care. You claim to have plans to really sock it to us if the bill that will put you out of business does not pass. If the plan does pass, you will be a part of the "evil masses" that are uprooted and kicked into the street. Your business (that has to at least break even) will not be able to compete with the government that can operate at a loss. But you want the bill that will lead to your demise to pass.

Forgive me....I think the lady doth protest too much!

the employer gets to increase their prices in accordance with inflation.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-12 06:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yep - like I said no added benefit - just covering the costs of the increase in your salary - it's called pass through SHITHEAD. Unless they raise their prices higher than THE CORE INFLATION - then they can increase their profits.

It was a simple explanation to show inflation in everything - not just healthcare. Do healthcare costs increase greater than core inflation? Yes - but so do a lot of other industries - don't see any threads on them.

Greendad says..."Doing nothing for 50,000,000 is better than doing something bad to 250,000,000."

Then he goes on to say..."It sucks for the uninsured, and something should be done for Americans without insurance, but not at the expense of those with it.

Like what? Euthanasia? Free pamphlets on do it yourself kidney transplants? Classes on how to obtain controlled substances without a prescription?

I hate to bust your bubble, but unless you can qualify your illogical statements it's just more of the same old 'I don't want to sound crass, but I don't really give a shit' attitude.

I hate to bust your bubble, but unless you can qualify your illogical statements it's just more of the same old 'I don't want to sound crass, but I don't really give a shit' attitude.

#34 | Posted by RingMaster

Ring Master, What is illogical about the statement "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?" Essentially the statement with which you take issue.

"Yep - like I said no added benefit"

But UNlike what you said, increased revenue.

"just covering the costs of the increase in your salary"

Which makes your point about salary increases worthless.

"it's called pass through"

No, it's not. You're wrong, again.

"Do healthcare costs increase greater than core inflation? Yes - but so do a lot of other industries-don't see any threads on them."

Feel free to post them. I'd particularly like to see industries which have experienced higher-than-core inflation on an annual basis without fail. This thread, however, concerns medical costs.

"I'd particularly like to see industries which have experienced higher-than-core inflation on an annual basis without fail."

College tuition.

"College tuition."

You're absolutely right (and I think it's unconscionable).

Any others?

How many need to be provided? If cost explosions are the impetus for government takeover, then we need "single payer" college tuition too.

"How many need to be provided? "

How many do you have?

the article is PR. politics as usual. i believe in hope and change, but i don't believe it's possible. the thing that is getting many obama supporters hung up is that some of us have been talking about wasteful spending from washington for about 20 years, and wondering how and when change would come. it seemed like it could, and would.
the average obama supporter has a lot in common with the stated gripes of more eloquent protesters of the tea bag variety in this regard.
difference being, many of us also disliked the wasteful spending of the previous administration as well, y'know the one that bankrupted the planet?
where were you, then?
how were all the tea baggers trying to curb the wasteful spending and the "reforms" of the last 8 years? (i don't blame anything on bush, he's a moron. besides, our congress and senate are to blame moreso for the wasteful spending than ANY presidential administration could ever hold sway over. except maybe jackson.) so how were all these concerned citizens mobilizing in the past 8 years with two unending wars, a spiraling foreign national debt, and the removal of personal freedoms? oh, in front of the television?
watching NASCAR?
fuck that.
just as wasteful.

"'I don't want to sound crass, but I don't really give a shit' attitude.

#34 | Posted by RingMaster"

well I don't want to sound crass, but if the only option is save the care of 250 million+ or destroy the care of every American, then yeah, sorry I don't give a shit about the uninsured.

"How many need to be provided?"

Enough to make it a trend, and not a rare anomaly.

But reread ElCid's original post, and see if we're drifting from the point.

"if the only option is save the care of 250 million+ or destroy the care of every American"

Who said that was the only option? And why the bogus fear-mongering?

Yes green, we already know who owns you.

No green, we don't give a shit.

Any others?

Automobile industry and until recently real estate.

Six Marines KIA in afghanistan this week... Not a word from the left....

They were screaming in the past though...Posted by BashThis

One major difference...Bin Laden is hiding in Afghanistan. Remember him? He's the guy responsible for 9/11. Was he ever hiding in Iraq?

I, like many others, think that we should find him to pay for his actions. You might not.

"Automobile industry"

Huh? The workers, or the owners?

"until recently real estate."

Then that would be a "no".

I see you have not answered my post. If exploding costs is the impetus for government takeover, do you support single-payer college tuition?

"do you support single-payer college tuition?"

We don't have a crisis in education costs, with third parties deciding who will and who won't be educated. You'll have to try a different tack.

"Who said that was the only option? And why the bogus fear-mongering?

#44 | Posted by Danforth "

You're right, they aren't the only options, just the only options that are being presented to us.

Have you tried reading the Bill for this nonsense? I have... its so long and written in such a way that no one can truly understand it. Why? Could it be a method of control? A way to stop people from protesting it since they don't know what is really in it? Of course, its just another way to control the people and to me that sucks.

Healthcare is far too important to be written in this legal speak bullshit. It should be plain english so anyone can understand it. That it isn't tells me its full of bullshit that's going to absolutely wreck the system that we have and works for over a quarter billion people.

Huh? The workers, or the owners?

Neither. I don't buy workers or owners. The prices of the automobiles themselves have outstripped core inflation.

Then that would be a "no".

Depends on where you live. Home prices are still rising in San Antonio, so with virtually no inflation, real estate does outpace core inflation.

"Have you tried reading the Bill for this nonsense? I have... "

How many pages is it?

It is funny to see almost any argument that states any one who complains now about spending is automatically attributed to have looked the other way in the last eight years. That should only support the arguement that it is worse now and is "still" wrong, yet they happily support this careless direction we are heading. Look at the debt clock. It os speeding up, not slowing down...

"Yes green, we already know who owns you.

No green, we don't give a shit.

#45 | Posted by Shawn"

I think Democrats and everyone on the left are going to really regret ignoring those who have legitimate concerns about this bill. Convincing yourself that everyone wants the government to take over healthcare, or that since the Democrats are in the majority so they should just hammer through whatever they want was the mantra of the last party to hold the Congress and White House.

How'd that work out for them?

"How many pages is it?

#53 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN "

1015 I believe... somewhere around there.

Sorry, it was 1018 to be exact

It is funny to see almost any argument that states any one who complains now about spending is automatically attributed to have looked the other way in the last eight years. That should only support the arguement that it is worse now and is "still" wrong, yet they happily support this careless direction we are heading. Look at the debt clock. It os speeding up, not slowing down...

"Home prices are still rising in San Antonio"

Maybe in your particular neighborhood, but the overall numbers seem to disagree:

How many pages is it?

#53 | Posted by nullifidian

More than the number of sheets on a new roll of ass-wipe.

Maybe in your particular neighborhood,

As I said, depends on where you live. In general, real estate prices in Texas haven't crashed as spectacularly as in places like California where they were artificially high to begin with.

"We don't have a crisis in education costs, with third parties deciding who will and who won't be educated."

Really? I was under the impression that many people could not afford college tuition or qualify for loans, and that "third party" admission boards decide who gets into college and who does not. Correct me if this system has changed.

"Correct me if this system has changed."

Nice trolling, but you missed the insurance link in the chain, and the profit motive to deny claims.

Look, I realize this is all fun and good to deflect to 'something shiny over there', but do you actually have any worthwhile suggestions addressing the current problems?

"As I said, depends on where you live."

And then you said San Antonio was an exception.

It wasn't.

It wasn't.

So sue me

"you missed the insurance link in the chain, and the profit motive to deny claims."

It was "missed" because it was not part of your argument. Your only argument (a stupid one) was that the college "industry" doesn't involve third parties who decide who will and will not be educated.

Even when introducing the "profit motive to deny claims," the analogy still works. Universities deny admission to stupid people and those who cannot afford tuition or qualify for scholarships because (a) stupid graduates will make the university look bad, and will decrease profits, and (b) poor people who do not qualify for scholarships will not pay their tuition bills, which will decrease profits.

Educational institutions aren't in this for fun. They are in it for profit. Who they let into their schools is related to that profit.

"So sue me"
#65 | Posted by goatman

Translation: I lost.

Round 1 goes to Danforth in a laugher.

Give him the other 14 rounds as well. I don't care if I have the points or not. I'll send him $4 to go with it so he can get a mocha caramel latte at Starbucks with his newfound fame.

The US spends 16% of GDP on health care. Other modern democracies spend 10% and they rank much higher on the WHO rankings of health care systems.
There is no question whether we do need to change our system, the only question is what do we want to change it to.
If a "socialistic" Medicare type system could reduce the percentage of GDP dedicated to health care we would all be better off. Why is that so difficult to understand?????

"Educational institutions aren't in this for fun. They are in it for profit. Who they let into their schools is related to that profit."

Okay.

But since government isn't on the hook to pay for the education of the elderly through the baby boomer years, any ideas on what to do to address the health care crisis upon us?

Translation: I lost.

I lost. I was wrong. Whatever. Either is a good enough translation for me.

Too bad you can't admit when you are in error and have to continue calling people names when proven wrong Mr. "Should have went"

Take a lesson here, nully. LOL

I always complain that in the polls, "no one has ever talked to me," well I literally just got off the phone with the people who do the Pew polls... pretty cool. Hammered everyone on Healthcare. I'll be interested to see the results next month.

"any ideas on what to do to address the health care crisis upon us?" - Dantforth

"And why the bogus fear-mongering?" - Danforth

There are adjustment suggestions that have been made, the basic premise being no need to change the whole system when small tweeks will do, but go ahead plug your ears close your eyes and complain about no ideas.

I have proffered in previous threads six or seven ideas.

"Round 1 goes to Danforth in a laugher."

I wasn't trying to "win". I'm trying to focus the discussion. Regardless what goes up higher than inflation, health care is the champion. And we're in for even worse spikes as the baby boomers retire. Anyone have any actual suggestions? Or are we going to continue with 'gotcha' trolling, which I admit I'm guilty of all too often.

But this is too big an issue to get bogged down in left/right, Dem/Rep distractions. We're all going to sink, and soon, if we don't all figure a way to address the problems. The macro numbers tell me if we continue with status quo, we're going to see less and less people able to afford health care, until the average American is priced out of the market because the baby boomer demand will have changed the landscape so dramatically. I'd gladly trade any supposed "win" for some good, well-considered ideas.

Any takers?

"when small tweeks will do"

Macroeconomic failure. Small tweaks won't suffice.

Any takers?

I've said it before, although not today, that I think we need to fix the current system -- not invent a new one.

When the transmission goes out in my car, I have it fixed. I don't get a brand new car. Seems more prudent to me that way.

Danforth do you agree with protecting doctors from civil penalties so that they can stop practicing so called "defensive medicine?" That's a pretty expensive practice that would probably drop costs a lot. Not to mention that if doctors weren't just walking lottery tickets for a lot of people they wouldn't have to pay as much in malpractice insurance the costs of which are passed onto us.

"Okay."

Translation: I bit off more than I can chew. Can we talk about something else?

"since government isn't on the hook to pay for the education of the elderly through the baby boomer years, any ideas on what to do to address the health care crisis upon us?"

Sounds like we need to raise taxes to pay for Medicare. Shouldn't take 1100 pages of legislation to do that.

I think Democrats and everyone on the left are going to really regret ignoring those who have legitimate concerns about this bill. Convincing yourself that everyone wants the government to take over healthcare, or that since the Democrats are in the majority so they should just hammer through whatever they want was the mantra of the last party to hold the Congress and White House.

--------

1. I'm not a democrat.

2. You get paid. Good for you.

3. Go fuck yourself.

#80 | Posted by JOE

Makes sense to me. I'm one of the people who are going to get nothing out of this. Have my own insurance that cost a small fortune and what they are trying to do will not lower my premiums, my taxes or improve my plan. If they truly want to address the issues fix Medicare. What they are attempting is more of an obvious power grab to forward every progressive idea that has been shot down for the last 100 years.

I have proffered in previous threads six or seven ideas.

#74 | Posted by AndreaMackris

It's all or nothing with President Pelosi and her sidekick, Bic ball point.

"1. I'm not a democrat.

2. You get paid. Good for you.

3. Go fuck yourself.

#81 | Posted by Shawn"

Well at least you can see the other side of the argument and can act like an adult in this debate. That's commendable.

Oh you poor Republicans....

WAAAAH!!! I don't want to pay for someone elses healthcare!!!!

Know what??? I didn't want to pay for your war for oil... I didn't want to pay for your trillion dollar Wall Street bail-out, which only "bailed-out" the top .01% of the richest of the rich... There's a lot of things I don't agree with paying for, and I'll be paying for the last eight years untill the day I die, and then some...

Now we have these same whinners obstructing a solution to the biggest crisis we, as Americans, presently face... And, what is there plan? What is there BIG counter offer? The best that these whinners can come up with?

-NOTHING-... Just not this...

Sometimes we all just have to pay for things we don't like... So, shut up and go sit on a pickle...

How much have you paid out of pocket, anus?

What if I'm a Democrat who didn't want to pay for Iraq or your healthcare?

Do you support protecting doctors from civil lawsuits so that they can stop practicing defensive medicine, malpractice insurance can be lowered and therefore lower costs on patients?

Does anybody? I'm pretty sure I know the answer but I'll just keep asking so that maybe some of you realize that you aren't really serious in dealing with this situation.

"Translation: I bit off more than I can chew. Can we talk about something else?"

On the contrary, Joe. Let's keep talking about ANYTHING except health care costs, so we can talk about anything BUT health care costs. I mean...that's what you want, right? Or are you actually going to proffer any solutions?

I didn't want to pay for your war for oil...

Are we finally stealing that oil we went to war for? Good. It's about time.

Does anybody?

I do.

"Any takers?

#75 | Posted by Danforth"

I would start with figuring out how to save the billions and billions of dollars that are currently spent deciding whether some health care cost will be paid, how much will be paid, and by whom. That tremendous overhead is strangling the system. Entities like Kaiser save 90+ percent of these costs.

"Do you support protecting doctors from civil lawsuits "

I'm not for giving anyone carte blanche. There are too many medical mistakes as it is.

There are too many medical mistakes as it is.

#92 | Posted by Danforth

Are you talking about Doctors, or last November?

"I'm not for giving anyone carte blanche. There are too many medical mistakes as it is.

#92 | Posted by Danforth "

So doctors have to continue ordering unnecessary "cover your ass" tests and malpractice costs have to stay high, and all the costs to pay for that gets passed onto us.

Awesome.

***"Do you support protecting doctors from civil lawsuits so that they can stop practicing defensive medicine, malpractice insurance can be lowered and therefore lower costs on patients?" #87 | Posted by GreenDad at 2009-08-12 09:04 PM

I "support" the sick and injured being taken care of regardless of their ability to pay...

And, I support Healthcare that doesn't cost a third to half the average American's income...

And, I support healthcare that doesn't deny coverage in my time of need because it's cheaper to pay a civil settlement to my family after they let me die...

And, I support a public option for healthcare because then, and only then, will the insurance cartels have to compete for my business, rather than me having to beg them to take it...

What is it that you "support" again???

I'm not for giving anyone carte blanche. There are too many medical mistakes as it is.

So you feel we need more defensive medicine, not less?

I feel we have hit the point of dimishing returns. Humans need to accept the fact that we are indeed mortal and we will one day die. They also need to understand that we (in the industrialized world) live 50 years longer than our ancestors only a few generations back. I'm sorry, but I just can't get all worked up that I might live a couple of years less because I didn't spend half my savings and time inside an MRI machine and have blood tests run twice a day.

I accept the fact that I live much better and will live longer than my g'g'grandparents did and I will not whine because I can't squeeze an extra year or two out of it unless I threaten to sue a doctor for alleged malpractice (read: not enough defensive medicine, not true malpractice)

***"How much have you paid out of pocket, anus?" #86 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-08-12 09:01 PM

I don't get sick WizGod...

what do you expect from bible totin rednecks?

Welfare is the real issue here. Totally reform welfare,stop illegal immigration and we wouldn't and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

There.

"So you feel we need more defensive medicine, not less?"

That wasn't the question.

"So doctors have to continue ordering unnecessary "cover your ass" tests and malpractice costs have to stay high, and all the costs to pay for that gets passed onto us."

That wasn't the question, either.

***"I will not whine because I can't squeeze an extra year or two out of it unless I threaten to sue a doctor for alleged malpractice (read: not enough defensive medicine, not true malpractice)" #96 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-12 09:24 PM

If the purpose of medicine is to keep you alive and healthy, then losing "a year or two" of your life would be the definition of "malpractice"...

And, I guarantee that if you were on death's door step you'd whine, threaten or sue to live longer...

"So you feel we need more defensive medicine, not less?"

That wasn't the question.

???

Indeed it was. It was my question. Greendad asked it several times before I did and no one will answer.

Do you or do you not feel we need more defensive medicine ddanforth?

You know what's humorous to me about the malpractice insurance costs?

It's an insurance company screwing another insurance company - through the doctors and the patients.

Perhaps the Doctors should have a public plan for malpractice insurance? Get the malpractice insureres out of the picture?

Oh I know, there's debate over how much malpractice lawsuits cost us - the Insurance industry says one thing (they have the most to make off of lower payouts, (and the high premiums) but generally we're talking

"That wasn't the question, either.

#100 | Posted by Danforth"

Uh, well actually it was, because if doctors aren't protected from massive civil penalties then they have to keep ordering unnecessary MRIs or admit patients overnight for no reason and order all sorts of other things we as patients don't need, and they have to pay for malpractice insurance which is also very expensive and all those fun, fun costs get passed onto us.

So if you're not for protections for physicians from lawsuits then you're not really for fixing the system we have now... oh well.

If the purpose of medicine is to keep you alive and healthy, then losing "a year or two" of your life would be the definition of "malpractice"...

No it wouldn't. I don't expect the doctor to go to extraordainary measures to eke an extra year out of my life anymore than I expect my grocer to make sure I eat foods that do the same.

And, I guarantee that if you were on death's door step you'd whine, threaten or sue to live longer...

???

How the hell can you say that? You don't know me. I know exactly what I would do in that situation and I know for a fact you are wrong. I dare you to tell me otherwise.

I've seen lingering death. It's not pretty and I want no part of it. How you can pretend to know my heart is the acme of arrogance and presumption.

#95 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus

Your concerns can be addressed with a minimum amount of regulating in the market.

---

Tort reform to bring the costs down and the doctors won't run every damn test so as not to get sued.

Allow every person to search for insurance from any state--they will choose the lowest or the highest--but allow it across state lines.

Allow association of groups to pool together--business group of 30 or 12 or 150 or 2000--all together into a plan because they are the same type of risk. This would bring rates down. Include individuals to join these groups with themselves and their families as well.

Increase HSA for people to use for their insurance premiums and make it tax deductible.

Put all people with high risk ailments or who have pre-existing conditions to be wheeled into the system--they must be taken and given affordable rates. Just like car insurance and high risk drivers--they are wheeled into the system and insured.

This would be a start.

"Tort reform to bring the costs down and the doctors won't run every damn test so as not to get sued."

A complete fabrication. There is no such thing.

But, when you're diagnosed with cancer, stop your doctor from performing every test available.

Prove your beliefs with your actions.

Do you support protecting doctors from civil lawsuits so that they can stop practicing defensive medicine, malpractice insurance can be lowered and therefore lower costs on patients?

Does anybody? I'm pretty sure I know the answer but I'll just keep asking so that maybe some of you realize that you aren't really serious in dealing with this situation.

#87 | Posted by GreenDad

It is not just the bs tests that doctors run so they are extra extra sure that nothing is wrong--

It involves the frivolous lawsuits against doctors or hospitals that have the premiums so high.

The insurance has to pay for the cost of defending the doctor--and it is not cheap.

Tort reform to bring the costs down and the doctors won't run every damn test so as not to get sued.

can you tell us what portion of our health care costs are attributed to law suits?

#109 | Posted by truthsetyoufree

It is not involving running tests on people with cancer. You have cancer--you should be moving on to treatment.

Although under this health care destruction plan--if you have cancer--forget about getting much care if over a certain age.

Check out what they did to Barbara Wagoner in Oregon.

The gov't of OR sent her a good bye letter --refusing to pay for the expensive pill to extend her life but offering a pill that cost 50 bucks to end her life.

This is going on right now in the UK and France and Canada--rationing care and dying while waiting.

"It is not just the bs tests that doctors run so they are extra extra sure that nothing is wrong--"

Bullshit.

"It involves the frivolous lawsuits against doctors or hospitals that have the premiums so high."

Bullshit.

"The insurance has to pay for the cost of defending the doctor--and it is not cheap."

Bullshit.

In addition to the tests--there needs to be a cap on settlements for whatever the category is involving a suit.

LF--I am not sure what the percentage is--but if the trial lawyers are against--it is likely half or more of the equation.

"Although under this health care destruction plan--if you have cancer--forget about getting much care if over a certain age."

Bullshit.

"In addition to the tests--there needs to be a cap on settlements for whatever the category is involving a suit."

Bullshit.

"The insurance has to pay for the cost of defending the doctor--and it is not cheap."

Bullshit.

#113 | Posted by truthsetyoufree

You have your opinion--

But who pays for defending the doctor or the hospital in a med mal lawsuit??

"LF--I am not sure what the percentage is--"

Of course you don't.

Which is why I say, to every single one of your comments...

BULLSHIT

The gov't of OR sent her a good bye letter --refusing to pay for the expensive pill to extend her life but offering a pill that cost 50 bucks to end her life.

I know I have a much different outlook than most people on this, but I'm not afraid of dying. If I had a choice of taking medicine that would allow my cancer ridden body to live a few months longer or take the poison pill option, I'd do the latter.

It is especially perplexing to me as I am an atheist. Christians know that they have a better thing waiting for them. You'd think it would be they, not me, who would welcome death over living in pain and agony a few months longer.

I don't get it.

***"Your concerns can be addressed with a minimum amount of regulating in the market" #108 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-08-12 09:45 PM |

"Minimum amount of regulation"???

Yeah, worked out on Wall Street real well...

Say we regulate, who is it that will be writing the legislation?

Lobbyists maybe? For the insurance cartels and big pharma? Ya think?

They've raped the nation long enough, no thanks...

How about frivolous lawsuits in general?
Some moron flies a Piper Cub made in 1938 into the side of a mountain and Piper gets sued; And eats a million dollar judgement.

It's absurd.

Certainly doctors are sometimes guilty of malpractice. Certainly some manufacturers should be held responsible for poor product design. But what we actually have is some absurd perversion of justice; A self-parody in this comedic insane asylum.

I used to listen to the BBC on shortwave before they stopped. ;*(

One night a story began with, "Why does the United States have seventy percent of the world's lawyers?"

#118 | Posted by truthsetyoufree

So you wonder bread must know the answer?

But who pays for defending the doctor or the hospital in a med mal lawsuit??

#117 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-08-12 10:02 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Again I ask

can you tell us what portion of healthcare is attributed to law suits? i'm talking about a percentage not just a number you pull out of your ass...

"Uh, well actually it was, because if doctors aren't protected from massive civil penalties then they have to keep ordering unnecessary MRIs or admit patients overnight for no reason and order all sorts of other things"

That wasn't your original scenario. It's tough to answer if you keep moving the goalposts.

"So you wonder bread must know the answer?"

Why is it that Americans are so afraid of their fellow Americans?

Just like a jury of your peers.

Just like "term limits."

The answer is always: "Fuck my fellow Americans. I know better..."

... about your Representative, Senator, President.

"I know better..."

...about what you must say in a jury.

Mr. Reagan, in a restatement of a past position, said the limitation interfered with the right of the people to ''vote for someone as often as they want to do.''

"So if you're not for protections for physicians from lawsuits then you're not really for fixing the system we have now"

Bogus blather. Choose one scenario, and stick to it, if you can.

Maybe it is high--maybe low--

But when the hospital gets a bill for their malpractice premium over a million dollars for one year--they are going to pass those costs onto the folks who come to their place of business.

#127

Nice, Murphy...you posted something from over six years ago. Anything from this half of the decade?

LF--I am not sure what the percentage is--but if the trial lawyers are against--it is likely half or more of the equation.

#114 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-08-12 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

If you don't know then don't guess.

Go and find the answer if you think it's relevent then prove what you are saying....

Otherwise it's BULLSHIT

"But when the hospital gets a bill for their malpractice premium over a million dollars for one year--"

Context.

If that same hospital nets one hundred million dollars, what's a million dollars (of tax deductible) insurance premiums?

If that same hospital nets one hundred million dollars, what's a million dollars (of tax deductible) insurance premiums?

#130 | Posted by truthsetyoufree at 2009-08-12 10:13 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

It confuses some people... Hang in there... you may get something soon from Aflackbulshit

And to be fair--the med mal insurance industry probably needs some reform too.

Base the premiums on experience, like worker's comp--or

If claims are capped for damages they could hold down the costs of the premiums too.

Rate the injuries like worker's comp.

Leave a sponge in the patient--get X amount of dollars. Get the cost of the surgery to remove it and wage loss to get better and something for pain and suffering and be done with it.

"Do you or do you not feel we need more defensive medicine ddanforth?"

I'd like to see less, and help cover it with caps on things like pain and suffering, with a multiplier if the damage was willful. That's a completely different animal from "protecting doctors from civil penalties", which was the original phrase.

Again I ask

can you tell us what portion of healthcare is attributed to law suits? i'm talking about a percentage not just a number you pull out of your ass...

#123 | Posted by lfthndthrds

ever seen an itemized hospital bill?

It's crazy. How does the hospital justify those charges? and many are hurting financially.

follow the money.

#107 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-12 09:43 PM
***"How the hell can you say that? You don't know me. I know exactly what I would do in that situation and I know for a fact you are wrong. I dare you to tell me otherwise."

I can say it because that is human nature...

And, you CANNOT know "for a fact" what you would do in that situation...

***"I've seen lingering death. It's not pretty and I want no part of it. How you can pretend to know my heart is the acme of arrogance and presumption."

I watched my father die of colon cancer in the late 60s, they sent him home with a morphine drip. I was six...

I don't have to know your heart to say that if you had the chance to live an extra few years you'd most likely jump at the opportunity...

And, it's the "acme" of obstinance to deny that...

"-I am not sure what the percentage is--but if the trial lawyers are against--it is likely half or more of the equation."

Time for the waders, folks. Pretty soon Ishkabibble will be claiming he "heard that" somewhere.

Time for the waders, folks

Dan, had mine on for a while now.

Granny taught: better to have and not need than to need and not have...

"How does the hospital justify those charges? "

Somebody has to pay for the uninsured who follow Bush's advice and go to the ER for a sore throat.

"I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."
~GWB

"If claims are capped for damages they could hold down the costs of the premiums too."

Bullshit.

When claims are capped, who gets the "savings"?

Doctors?

Insurance companies?

You're kidding yourself if you answer "the patients."

Meanwhile, patients with a sponge left inside of them.... get a "cap." ("get X amount of dollars..")

Honestly, I haven't a clue what percentage of our healthcare costs go to law suits. But I'd never claim it was 50% if I didn't have solid proof.

I'd also never want to live in a place where i could be harmed and have no recourse.

There are different links--but this one has it at 10%

Somebody has to pay for the uninsured who follow Bush's advice and go to the ER for a sore throat.

Okay,.....tell us then, what %of a hospital bill is represented by covering the uninsured?

Truth--

If you are injured on the job--your injury is determined and rated by WC doctors.

Then you are awarded the amount of the rating.

It is capped.

It depends on what your injury is.

So 10 cents of every dollar charged goes to MM.

#141 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-08-12 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

So this is what pays for a guy or gal whose wrong leg was amputaited?

"So 10 cents of every dollar charged goes to MM."

So?

Say MM is cut to 5 cents of every dollar.

Who gets the 5 cent "savings"?

Doctors?

Insurance companies?

You're kidding yourself if you answer "the patients."

Meanwhile, patients with a sponge left inside of them.... get a "cap." ("get X amount of dollars..")

"If you are injured on the job--your injury is determined and rated by WC doctors."

You're moving the goal posts.

"If claims are capped for damages they could hold down the costs of the premiums too."

Nothing in there about being injured on the job.

When claims are capped, who gets the "savings"?

Doctors?

Insurance companies?

You're kidding yourself if you answer "the patients."

Meanwhile, patients with a sponge left inside of them.... get a "cap." ("get X amount of dollars..")

I can say it because that is human nature...

If it was human nature, people would not make living wills or sign DNRs.

And, you CANNOT know "for a fact" what you would do in that situation...

Wrong again. I've been in that situation and specifically asked for no extraordainary life saving efforts.

I watched my father die of colon cancer in the late 60s, they sent him home with a morphine drip. I was six.

???

And this has what to do with my views on life and death?

I don't have to know your heart to say that if you had the chance to live an extra few years you'd most likely jump at the opportunity...

Not if that time was spent in pain or wheelchair bound or blind. You can sit and rant all day about what I would do and tell me you know everything about how I feel about my own mortality, but all you do is make yourself look like an arrogant prick.

So go ahead. Tell me how I fell. Tell me how I will react (or have reacted) to these situations. Prove me wrong when I think it is not possible for you to make a bigger ass of yourself than you already have. LOL

Are you in some sort of competition with boyd? He likes to tell me what I feel and assign positions to me. How sad to be paralleled with that piece of blog debris.

So this is what pays for a guy or gal whose wrong leg was amputaited?

#144 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Jesus, contact the CBO and make sure these estimation of costs for ObamaCare take these daily occurances into account. I'm sick and tired of meeting women named Ilene.

So now the doctors make too much money?

I suppose some would pass the savings onto their patients.

And caps are in worker's comp claims--they could be used for MM claims as well.

I'm sick and tired of meeting women named Ilene.

#148 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-08-12 10:32 PM |

Spending too much time at IHOP?

LF--it is all the doctors that pay in the pool that pay for the doctor who takes off the wrong arm or leg or other appendige...

Life insurance--accidental insurance and dismemberment insurance all have caps to what is paid to people.

Somebody has to pay for the uninsured who follow Bush's advice and go to the ER for a sore throat.

Why would someone go to the doctor for a sore throat anyway? Whenever I get a sniffle, sore throat, or cough, I wait a few days and it goes away. Doesn't everyone? Doctors can't cure those things any better than time can

Spending too much time at IHOP?

#150 | Posted by crispee_oc

Hee hee. I took Bob swimming last weekend. Drove home alone.

"I suppose some would pass the savings onto their patients."

I suppose you're naive.

I suppose that most would pass the savings onto their Mercedes dealer.

Granny taught: better to have and not need than to need and not have...

Does that pertain to guns, too?

I suppose that most would pass the savings onto their Mercedes dealer.

#154 | Posted by truthsetyoufree

Or the DNC if President Pelosi backs down.

"Okay,.....tell us then, what %of a hospital bill is represented by covering the uninsured?"

I don't know. All I know is going to the ER like Bush suggested is the highest cost-to-health ratio we have. And everyone's bill, and everyone's premiums reflect that.

But you knew that, too.

Truth--

This is a thread on the GOP not wanting reform.

I disagree with this logic and believe there are ways to reform health insurance without wreaking the entire friggin country's health care.

I am throwing ideas out there.

If all you have to contribute is bs and the same question your last 7 posts--I guess there is nothing to discuss with you.

??

"When claims are capped, who gets the "savings"? Doctors? Insurance companies? You're kidding yourself if you answer "the patients."

That's why we need a public option, since single-payer seems to be doomed until that's all we can afford.

You have to understand that every product and service a hospital purchases is loaded with product liability costs.

needles, gauze pads, x-ray machines, beds, monitors, wheelchairs.....those products are very expensive.

Is is because they are that expense to produce or because there is so much cost attributed to the potential liability assigned to these products.

Suppliers to a hospital are also exposed to litigation as well as MDs.

The total cost of "litigation" in the healthcare industry is insane.

"without wreaking the entire friggin country's health care"

If hyperbole was a commodity, you'd be rich.

#154 | Posted by truthsetyoufree

And what in the HR 3200 bill addresses costs?

I'll give you a hint--nothing.

The only thing this present bill does is raise taxes for everyone and screws us over.

Later gaters..

The total cost of "litigation" in the healthcare industry is insane.
#160 | Posted by eberly

Its definitely more than it needs to be, but no politician is going to seriously suggest a cap for jury awards. They'll complain about the problem to undermine reform efforts, but they won't be willing to suggest that compensation for daddy's death is worth x when recent juries have said he's worth 10x.

"The total cost of "litigation" in the healthcare industry is insane.'

Don't forget the 1800 mandates required by law Insurance Companies must comply with. Imagine if the Gov. expanded that to 3000. How long would private Insurance Companies last competeing against the governement?

#147 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-12 10:30 PM
***"If it was human nature, people would not make living wills or sign DNRs"

Sure they would and it is human nature, pure and simple... However, that is a completely different thing than consciously not excepting treatment to prolong your life...

***"Wrong again. I've been in that situation and specifically asked for no extraordainary life saving efforts."

That is a completely different thing...

***"And this has what to do with my views on life and death?"

And I quote: "I've seen lingering death. It's not pretty and I want no part of it"

I just felt like sharing... (jagoff)

***"Not if that time was spent in pain or wheelchair bound or blind. You can sit and rant all day about what I would do and tell me you know everything about how I feel about my own mortality, but all you do is make yourself look like an arrogant prick"

Bravado... Stare Death in the face, then tell me how easy it is for you to let go of life...

And, I can afford to be an "arrogant prick"... I'm the Captain of Uranus...

***"So go ahead. Tell me how I fell. Tell me how I will react (or have reacted) to these situations. Prove me wrong when I think it is not possible for you to make a bigger ass of yourself than you already have. LOL"

Blah, blah, blah...

***"Are you in some sort of competition with boyd? He likes to tell me what I feel and assign positions to me. How sad to be paralleled with that piece of blog debris."

I don't know "Boyd" but if your "goat" is this easy to get "man", I can understand some wanting to do so...

However, you won't have problems with me; I don't shoot fish in a barrel... No sport in it...

Danforth, you keep whining about no suggestions. You never answered #80.

but if your "goat" is this easy to get "man",

???

I've still got my goat. But you may feel like you got it if you desire. It seems to make you feel better thinking so and it doesn't matter one way or the other to me.

However, you won't have problems with me

duh. That goes without saying. Anyone who has a problem with anyone else based solely on a blog experience needs to have their head examined. But obvious as it was, I will give you credit for getting one point in your post right. Congrats on that!

"I suppose you like your salary to increase every year with your employer getting no added benefit?
See how it works shithead?"

You obviously don't: the employer gets to increase their prices in accordance with inflation. But medical inflation increases at higher rates than core inflation, and when the baby boomers retire, we're going to see a spike.

See how it works, shithead?

#31 | Posted by Danforth

They don't understand BASIC economics. Do you actually think they understand compounding and the time value of money?

If you were making 50K in 2000 and inflation is 3% a year for the breadbasket of goods and service you buy.. that is not a linear 3%, its an exponential 3%.

Lets say you haven't received many raises due to whatever reason. You lost spending power and your real wage has dropped in dollar actual dollars.

Now factor in health care rates growing 2X inflation rate.. At some point it becomes a burden only the wealthy can afford.

"They don't understand BASIC economics."

I hear you, Legio. All too often I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall in a classroom of third-graders. I've yet to see more than a miniscule handful of posters even addressing the macro numbers. Thanks for that.

#168 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-12 11:37 PM

Boy, you sure told me...

Last word...

Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah!!!

Boy, you sure told me...

Fish in a barrel, baby. Fish in a barrel. LOL

Congress can pass any health care law it wants, and it will accomplish NOTHING unless actual costs for PROVIDERS are all covered.

In fact, any such law that does not cover costs for PROVIDERS will only make things worse.

(as for covering those costs, this could be accomplished both by providing proper payment and/or by reducing costs by tort reform, etc...)

Exactly what I've been saying all along,

the current Republican Party = the
Obstructionist Party...

they are in an absolute hissy fit and
cannot allow a Black President to succeed
where they could not...it's like they were
with Clinton...but now on steroids...

It's absolute tyranny or nothing for them,
all racially motivated of course...
fanning the fires of hatred and mistrust of
government...

why racially motivated? because the current
G.O.P. absolutely thrives on racist attitudes.
It's the lowest common denominator in a party
that has had few if any good ideas in the last
30 years. If they cannot legitimately rule,
they destroy any and all that stand in their way
of resuming their lackluster and lack witted return...

hate to say I saw this coming.

Amerika...still as racist as it used to be...
not ready to "grow up" yet...

the current Republican Party = the
Obstructionist Party...

If they are trying to Obstruct the kind of Progressive Socialist state you are trying to Construct, I say more power to them!

I hear you, Legio. All too often I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall in a classroom of third-graders. I've yet to see more than a miniscule handful of posters even addressing the macro numbers. Thanks for that.

#170 | Posted by Danforth
-------------------
Any body that thinks the Government is going to save them money must be banging their head against a wall that is the only way they could come to that conclusion.

"Any body that thinks the Government is going to save them money must be banging their head against a wall that is the only way they could come to that conclusion."

Or maybe they could have looked around the world and asked how and why so many other countries cover more people at a lower percentage of GDP with better health outcomes.

But we're Amurika, and we do everything the best, and can't learn from anyone else...right?

You want to really reform health care, improve treatment and lower costs? Stop secret settlements.
The medical industry opposes open knowledge of malpractice because they don't want to look bad, and they would actually have to improve the system and fix the mistakes. The legal industry opposes it because they would lose the leverage of revealing the mistake and embarrassing the hospital, and the status quo allows lawyers to extort huge private settlements with big commissions. We're being screwed by both sides.

"In addition to the tests--there needs to be a cap on settlements for whatever the category is involving a suit.

LF--I am not sure what the percentage is--but if the trial lawyers are against--it is likely half or more of the equation.

#114 | Posted by MURPHY"

You are talking straight out of the hole at the bottom of your corpulent ass, Murph. More than half the equation? Are you completely insane?

"It's absurd.

Certainly doctors are sometimes guilty of malpractice. Certainly some manufacturers should be held responsible for poor product design. But what we actually have is some absurd perversion of justice; A self-parody in this comedic insane asylum.

#121 | Posted by Zatoich"

The system you find so absurd is called the jury system. Juries make these decisions after hearing the testimony of lay and expert witnesses. What do you propose as an alternative? A panel of experts? A panel of gov't officials? A Star Chamber?

When folks like Zat fall for the insurance industry propaganda, things are dicey.

"The system you find so absurd is called the jury system. "

Quote from a law suit: "But he needs the money."

#174 | Posted by earthmuse at 2009-08-13 08:49 AM | Reply | Flag

claims of racism by someone who used the word racist or black 5 times in 5 short paragraphs.

"And caps are in worker's comp claims--they could be used for MM claims as well.
#149 | Posted by MURPHY"

"Life insurance--accidental insurance and dismemberment insurance all have caps to what is paid to people.
#151 | Posted by MURPHY"

Those are completely different animals, sMurphy. Are you really this obtuse? This much of a shill for the hugely profitable insurance industry? Workers comp pays the injured worker whether there was any negligence involved or not - even if the worker himself negligently caused his own injury. Same with life insurance. Are you proposing that people injured in hospitals get paid for their damages, even if no doctor or hospital was negligent? If you think the costs are high now...

"What do you propose as an alternative?"

An omniscient, benevolent dictator.
I'll let you know when I find one.

""But he needs the money."

#181 | Posted by Zatoichi"

Objection.
Sustained. The jury is to disregard that testimony.

Big fucking deal.

By the way, Zat. I liked Gran Torino. Clint Eastwood at the beginning reminded me of some of the posters around here.

AGAIN

this has never been about health care as each plan WONT COVER EVERYONE ...at least thats the report..

its about POWER in the hands of a radical leftwing agenda put forth by a neo marxist president who LIES TO US all the time

the town hall is prime example
LIE AFTer lie and after lie and now a day later..
YOU KNOW IM right..
aarp comment was not a MISPOKEN thing
IT WAS A LIE>...

" I liked Gran Torino."

Me too, especially the reading of the will.

"The jury is to disregard that testimony."

It was a comment by a juror in the deliberation.

"It's absurd.

Certainly doctors are sometimes guilty of malpractice. Certainly some manufacturers should be held responsible for poor product design. But what we actually have is some absurd perversion of justice; A self-parody in this comedic insane asylum.

#121 | Posted by Zatoich"

Newsworthy

"It was a comment by a juror in the deliberation.

#187 | Posted by Zatoichi"

That does happen. But it also happens where the jury does not award full damages because they are worried it will ruin some 18 y/o's life who negligently caused a crash. (Because the court does not allow the jury to know that insurance will be paying any award.)

I find the 'Obama is saying one thing and doing another' crowd rather amusing.

These are the same people who still cheer the war in which Bush sent 5000 American soldiers to die after telling us that Saddam was linked to 9/11....only to say that 'I never said that' 6 years later.

Any body that thinks the Government is going to save them money must be banging their head against a wall that is the only way they could come to that conclusion."
Or maybe they could have looked around the world and asked how and why so many other countries cover more people at a lower percentage of GDP with better health outcomes.
But we're Amurika, and we do everything the best, and can't learn from anyone else...right?

#177 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
Amazing how France (#1 in healthcare).. the most reviled country the Repubs can muster can do this at 1/2 the cost with a dual system.

#186 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-08-13 11:22 AM
***"its about POWER in the hands of a radical agenda put forth by a neo {fascist} president who LIES TO US all the time"

Dude, the Bush administration was booted out of office by landslide last year... Move-on...

from above...

If they are trying to Obstruct the kind of Progressive Socialist state you are trying to Construct, I say more power to them!

#175 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2009-08-13 09:01 AM

Sorry, card carrying capitalist all my life.
Never applied for a Socialist anything...

(STIRSUM) is a "Case in Point" of someone on the Right using fear mongering tactics, misrepresentations, and out and out lies, of someone
they don't even know to try and sway public opinion.

Thanks STIRSUMUP for being the quintessential PROOF
of my post above.

from above...(lol...shakes head--
"here's a sharp one" alright)...

#174 | Posted by earthmuse at 2009-08-13 08:49 AM | Reply | Flag

claims of racism by someone who used the word racist or black 5 times in 5 short paragraphs.

#182 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-08-13 11:17 AM

lol. roflmao. So like if I say the word Nazi, in a sentence, or 4 times in a paragraph, that makes me (POOF!@!) magically a Nazi? What planet do you live on?

What is your I.Q. slickster? Three?

slicksterWilly at 2009-08-13 11:17 AM Reply |
Flag: Complete and utter Moron...

"You see what I'm dealing with here?", looks at the camera...

"Amazing how France (#1 in healthcare).. the most reviled country the Repubs can muster can do this at 1/2 the cost with a dual system."

I didn't hear it directly, but my bride told me NPR reported yesterday that it's 6%, versus our 17%. So it's closer to 1/3rd.

It that doesn't make you feel "healthy", what will?

It that doesn't make you feel "healthy", what will?

#195 | Posted by Danforth

I feel better now knowing that my physician has a new home in the islands and that insurance companies can now increase their dividend and executive bonus. Thanks.. that is better than the best health care in the world.

It that doesn't make you feel "healthy", what will?

Knowing that someone else in the country has it worse than I do. Because they deserve it. Calvinist Schadenfreudecare.

I feel better now knowing that my physician has a new home in the islands and that insurance companies can now increase their dividend and executive bonus. Thanks.. that is better than the best health care in the world.

#196 | Posted by Legio

Well, let us know when the Dems try to deny a right to a group of people, and you'll have an actual point.

#25 | Posted by Danforth
boy you have been living in a cave havn't you how about gun bans, prayer in school, free speech, and historically illiterate tard, it was the republicans that passed civil rights and freed the slaves

Historically, reformers turned out to be real scoundrels. The only reform that's required is to cut government spending and interference in free markets. I believe that Ron Paul suggested something along these lines...

Perfect Karma will be every one of these protesters losing their jobs and having to find out what it's like to not have employer provided health care. No doubt they'll whine about something else when that happens.

Does that pertain to guns, too?

#155 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-12 10:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

youbetcha

If I were a cop, hunting or just buying crack downtown i'd want a peice with me.

I didn't hear it directly, but my bride told me NPR reported yesterday that it's 6%, versus our 17%. So it's closer to 1/3rd.

It that doesn't make you feel "healthy", what will?

#195 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-08-13 03:06 PM

I guess it is time to trot out the mystical friend of a cousin of a neighbor who had to come to America for healthcare because of the "broken" socialist system.

Dude, the Bush administration was booted out of office by landslide last year... Move-on...

#192 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus

eye eye capt..........get it get it get it

sounds like good advice and now that tom delay is in jail,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,OOPS!!!!!!
!!!

and now that bush is not there.....OOPS>>>>>>!!!!!

sorry I guess you were interested in fair and balanced reporting here...LOL

Why can't libs and dems just admit the truth, that Obama wants to wield the power of life and death? He wants the government in control of the most personal aspect of our lives. How anyone can be in favor of this is beyond me.

Our founding Fathers and Mothers formed this country precisely for the same reasons that people are rising up currently. To keep government as much out of their lives as possible. Most liberals will look to government for the same things our founders looked to from God.

We're coming

"Most liberals will look to government for the same things our founders looked to from God."

Except, of course, that our founders didn't look to God for anything. They looked to themselves to create a government "for the people".

Yes.. they certainly didnt mention God in any of our greatest documents. They wrote down that there are rites granted by God, only certain things provided by government, and the rest was up to our communities. Not really rocket surgery

We're coming

"We're coming"

We're waiting.

Thats the big divide. I believe there are things granted by God that no government can infringe upon. If you dont believe in God, then, those same rites can be taken away by government. Kinda hard to be mad at Clinton for breaking his oath to God to tell truth if you dont believe in God in the first place.

oh well.. we may never agree

We're still coming

Seems to be a popular opinion thus far...

Obama Sucks!

You cant see us? We're right here in your face. We're the angry mob you see bringing their wheelchair bound loved ones to argue for their medical security. We're the ones hoisting the colors born by our forefathers and mothers. We're the ones who made this all happen.

We're coming

#212 | Posted by cannabisneocon

You forgot "singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic".

I just ate..but if you want my nasty breath in your face then sure.. I'll sing

We're coming

Well hurry it up then. We're not waiting forever.

Those army guys on youtube can do a much better job than me.. maybe you should listen to it comrade

Dont worry those goosebumps will go away in about 20 minutes

We're coming

"I believe there are things granted by God that no government can infringe upon. If you dont believe in God, then, those same rites can be taken away by government."
#210 | Posted by cannabisneocon

Only we aren't a theocracy. So, yep, those rights can be taken away by government - if they can prove their case constitutionally. And if you try to overthrow it, the government is well within its rights to blow you away.

THE SAME PLAN OR NO PLAN.

We require the same health care plan that federal employees get or for get it, go home, and stay there.

End of debate.

if its called reform...it has to be good

One thing about the health care issue is that I cannot recall hearing from the religious community to any extent.

As an atheist I would ask why is not the concept of the question "Am I my brothers keeper?" brought up?

As an atheist I would ask why is the concept of the good Samaritan not brought out?

As an atheist I would ask why is not the story of the loaves and fishes of feeding a large crowd with only a few loaves of bread and a few fishes raised? That is, as giving to all no matter how few your resources?

In this regard I am reminded of a quote from Gandhi who said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.".

To me as an atheist the moral position is universal health care for all.

To me as an atheist it is immoral to profit from health care issues. It is immoral to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions.

Finally it is particularly interesting to me that the Republican party which is said to be dominated by what is known as the "religious (christian) right" is apparently against these supposed christian concepts as applied to universal health care for all. And these Republicans present a narrow stingy attitude of "I got mine and let those who do not have health care or are denied coverage to "let them eat cake!".

As an atheist I do not think these (religious right) are necessarily bad or immoral people. They just are not thinking of health care, as they should put it, as I understand those perspectives via Christianity, as a 'values issue'.

As an atheist I ask is there not any room at the inn?

=====
As an atheist...

the dark side: anger, fear, aggression.

fosters ignorance.
fosters control.
fosters enslavement.

the dark side = evil.
========