|
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
This health care thing.
Looks like the pols on both side are agreed that every U.S. citizen should have affordable access to health care. Even if they believe that folks should just die if they can't pay, they won't say it. So I've been hearing the Reps say they prefer gov subsidies to make it happen - folks who currently can't afford to buy private health insurance could then afford it. Might even be mandated. The Dems mostly want the same thing, but with a public option. That's not well-defined as far as I can see. If they said folks could basically buy into Medicare, it could be easily understood. You'd still have the subsidies to pay for it, and still have to address the issues that have Medicare in the red. But it's getting where - maybe already there - all agree that subsidies for lower incomes are necessary no matter which course is taken. Don't see anybody getting down to brass tacks and just saying taxes will go up. Obama got himself in a hole with his "Nobody making less than $250k will see higher taxes." That doesn't make sense. Won't pay the bills. I've said before here that many families are already "taxed" 15-30% for health insurance. Obama would have been smarter to say if your income tax goes up to fix health care, your health care costs will go way down if you're in the lower income brackets. It's not rocket science. But I really don't think he was thinking clearly about the magnitude of the health care problem when he was running for prez. Now he's got himself locked in. Just like the elder Bush did with "Read my lips." Language and the words you choose are important. Of course the Reps have made the same mistake by touting subsidies to pay health insurance companies to counter the Dems call for a "public option." They said it, and they won't be able to retreat. But it has to be paid for whether you're paying it toward Medicare or private health insurance companies. Anyway, just something to think about. I think the health insurance/care situation will get better because they are fighting it out. I watched about 6 hours of Senate finance hearings yesterday, and man, it's a complicated subject. Using bumper sticker bull**** to define it is plain juvenile. --Vic |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... This health care thing. Looks like the pols on both side are agreed that every U.S. citizen should have affordable access to health care. Even if they believe that folks should just die if they can't pay, they won't say it. Maybe. Depends on your definition of "affordable" access. The insurance companies certainly want to insure everyone... for a price. So I've been hearing the Reps say they prefer gov subsidies to make it happen - folks who currently can't afford to buy private health insurance could then afford it. Might even be mandated. I'm suspicious of this, mainly due to the windfall that will ensue for the insurance companies. Sounds like a meal ticket to me. The Dems mostly want the same thing, but with a public option. That's not well-defined as far as I can see. If they said folks could basically buy into Medicare, it could be easily understood. You'd still have the subsidies to pay for it, and still have to address the issues that have Medicare in the red. I think that would be totally fine. We can fix Medicare. But it's getting where - maybe already there - all agree that subsidies for lower incomes are necessary no matter which course is taken. Don't see anybody getting down to brass tacks and just saying taxes will go up. Obama got himself in a hole with his "Nobody making less than $250k will see higher taxes." That doesn't make sense. Won't pay the bills. I think you're probably right, but it could easily be a lower threshhold and that would pay for it. Personally, I'm willing to pay a bit more in tax for my possible benefit and for the definite benefit of others. I was taught to be thrifty and generous, especially toward those who are less well off. I've said before here that many families are already "taxed" 15-30% for health insurance. Obama would have been smarter to say if your income tax goes up to fix health care, your health care costs will go way down if you're in the lower income brackets. It's not rocket science. I agree!! But I really don't think he was thinking clearly about the magnitude of the health care problem when he was running for prez. Now he's got himself locked in. Just like the elder Bush did with "Read my lips." Language and the words you choose are important. I'm not sure he's locked in all that much, but I do agree that it's a huge issue, probably more complex than even he thought. Something is going to happen wrt healthcare. Of course the Reps have made the same mistake by touting subsidies to pay health insurance companies to counter the Dems call for a "public option." They said it, and they won't be able to retreat. But it has to be paid for whether you're paying it toward Medicare or private health insurance companies. Anyway, just something to think about. I think the health insurance/care situation will get better because they are fighting it out. I watched about 6 hours of Senate finance hearings yesterday, and man, it's a complicated subject. Using bumper sticker bull**** to define it is plain juvenile. Whew... I don't think I could do that, even if the alternative is watching the clothes dryer. Hats off to you! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:55:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: This health care thing. Looks like the pols on both side are agreed that every U.S. citizen should have affordable access to health care. Even if they believe that folks should just die if they can't pay, they won't say it. So I've been hearing the Reps say they prefer gov subsidies to make it happen - folks who currently can't afford to buy private health insurance could then afford it. Might even be mandated. The Dems mostly want the same thing, but with a public option. That's not well-defined as far as I can see. If they said folks could basically buy into Medicare, it could be easily understood. You'd still have the subsidies to pay for it, and still have to address the issues that have Medicare in the red. But it's getting where - maybe already there - all agree that subsidies for lower incomes are necessary no matter which course is taken. Don't see anybody getting down to brass tacks and just saying taxes will go up. Obama got himself in a hole with his "Nobody making less than $250k will see higher taxes." That doesn't make sense. Won't pay the bills. I've said before here that many families are already "taxed" 15-30% for health insurance. Obama would have been smarter to say if your income tax goes up to fix health care, your health care costs will go way down if you're in the lower income brackets. It's not rocket science. But I really don't think he was thinking clearly about the magnitude of the health care problem when he was running for prez. Now he's got himself locked in. Just like the elder Bush did with "Read my lips." Language and the words you choose are important. Of course the Reps have made the same mistake by touting subsidies to pay health insurance companies to counter the Dems call for a "public option." They said it, and they won't be able to retreat. But it has to be paid for whether you're paying it toward Medicare or private health insurance companies. Anyway, just something to think about. I think the health insurance/care situation will get better because they are fighting it out. I watched about 6 hours of Senate finance hearings yesterday, and man, it's a complicated subject. Using bumper sticker bull**** to define it is plain juvenile. --Vic When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers, teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain something of any complexity to the public. The Republicans say that they want health care reform but don't want any of what that requires. Several of the most influential Dems are in the HC industry's pocket so they have to play their cards right. Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain. I hope some simple explanations can be mined so the apparently shallow public can get with it. jps |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 22:01:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . This health care thing. Looks like the pols on both side are agreed that every U.S. citizen should have affordable access to health care. Even if they believe that folks should just die if they can't pay, they won't say it. Maybe. Depends on your definition of "affordable" access. The insurance companies certainly want to insure everyone... for a price. The "affordable" part is where the gov subsidies come in. Without gov bargaining power in controlling costs, ala the "public option," insurance companies will have the taxpayer by the balls. The subsidies themselves will be based on income level, whichever way it goes. So I've been hearing the Reps say they prefer gov subsidies to make it happen - folks who currently can't afford to buy private health insurance could then afford it. Might even be mandated. I'm suspicious of this, mainly due to the windfall that will ensue for the insurance companies. Sounds like a meal ticket to me. Of course, but corporate welfare is a long-honored tradition. American as apple pie. The Dems mostly want the same thing, but with a public option. That's not well-defined as far as I can see. If they said folks could basically buy into Medicare, it could be easily understood. You'd still have the subsidies to pay for it, and still have to address the issues that have Medicare in the red. I think that would be totally fine. We can fix Medicare. Right. By raising taxes to pay for it. And going harder after fraud. That has to be admitted. But it's getting where - maybe already there - all agree that subsidies for lower incomes are necessary no matter which course is taken. Don't see anybody getting down to brass tacks and just saying taxes will go up. Obama got himself in a hole with his "Nobody making less than $250k will see higher taxes." That doesn't make sense. Won't pay the bills. I think you're probably right, but it could easily be a lower threshhold and that would pay for it. Personally, I'm willing to pay a bit more in tax for my possible benefit and for the definite benefit of others. I was taught to be thrifty and generous, especially toward those who are less well off. Yes, I felt I was being undertaxed when I was working, given the ever-increasing national debt, my disposable income, and my costs compared to those making a tenth of my salary/benefit package. Wouldn't have minded paying more taxes to set health care straight. It was no secret to me when I went to the cafeteria and bought those company-subsidized meals served by just above min wage workers that they took their kids to the e-room when they got sick, and that I had the best health care for mine without really noticing the paycheck deductions. Some might say "**** them, they should have got your job." Though I don't generally argue much against that sentiment, I don't buy it at all concerning health care. But most folks just resent taxes, even if they ultimately benefit from them. No way around it really. And politicians encourage shallow thought. Gets them re-elected. Understand I'm a hard-ass on wasteful spending, and don't trust the gov to spend wisely and without fraud. But that happens in business too. Seen it first hand. At least I have the ability to raise hell with the pols and toss them out when they get out of hand. I'm not sure he's locked in all that much, but I do agree that it's a huge issue, probably more complex than even he thought. Something is going to happen wrt healthcare. He'll have to backtrack, and take the political hit. We'll see the fragility of his ego. Or its fortitude. I watched about 6 hours of Senate finance hearings yesterday, and man, it's a complicated subject. Using bumper sticker bull**** to define it is plain juvenile. Whew... I don't think I could do that, even if the alternative is watching the clothes dryer. Hats off to you! I was a computer systems analyst, so it was no problem. It's much more fun seeing real people make spoken arguments than extracting them from silent data flows and technical mumbo-jumbo. Besides, there was absolutely no procedural stuff, just discussion. One argument involved teaching Senator Coburn the meaning of the word "mandate." I initially thought he had some good points, but they were quickly dismantled. After all, he's a doctor. Forgot for a moment he's also a politician. He was arguing that gov health care guidelines were "mandates," since he could be sued for malpractice for simply walking outside the guidelines in treating a patient whose condition and history dictated to his judgement a different treatment. You know, the "gov coming between patient and doctor" argument. As if health insurance companies don't make a living off that. He was allowed to whine for a while, then was instructed by a lawyer type Senator - maybe Schumer - that treatment guidelines are normal medical practice, not rigid rules, and that when defendants go to court charged with malpractice all that is currently and commonly thrashed out. Didn't know that myself. But it shut him up. Subterfuge is an art of the politician, and I have no special immunity from it. That's why you have to listen closely to both sides and get your brain cells working. You can't trust either side to tell the whole truth. Another discussion involved pointing out Coburn's hypocrisy in whining about a seemingly sensible amendment costing $17 billion in lost revenue, when he had proffered one that would cost about $60 billion. His response was since he's basically against everything the Dems are doing, his hypocrisy is irrelevant. But he was ****ed he was cornered into saying that. The amendment costing $17 billion in lost revenue, offered by Dem Bingaman from NM, would lower the penalty for not buying insurance from $1500 to $750. This is for individuals and small business owners. So here you get a Rep arguing against lowering the costs of small businesses. The world is upside down. Interesting to watch. Same type of thing has the Reps offering gov subsidies to buy private health insurance. There is a big sea change in health insurance occurring, behind all the bumper sticker BS. If you're a stock trader and pick right, it's good action. Almost has me wanting to take a stab, but I don't trade equities. Got a feeling the insurance companies are going to get rich in the short term, until the public wises up. That's what the Reps want, and the bought and paid for Dems too. Taxpayer money of course. Corporate Welfare. Ala GM, AIG, BOA, Goldman Sachs, et al. There was discussion about the penalty amendment not being "marked" by the CBO, so the real costs were just a ballpark estimate. The amendment was left up in the air I think. Also discussed about the "penalty for not buying insurance" was the number of employees a small business needed for the kick in. Since it was set at 25 employees, the question was raised whether the 26th employee hired would require all employees to be covered. This could keep companies from hiring beyond 25. The answer was "No, it would only be required that the 26th - or 1 of the 26 be covered." Well, that clearly answered the question, but it doesn't seem to make much sense. Doesn't make sense to me to have 26 employees and provide only 1 coverage. Even worse would be to have 50 and provide 25 of them coverage. Wouldn't do much for employee morale, would it? The red team and the blue team instead of one team. Say, that sounds familiar somehow. Maybe they didn't see this in their sausage making, since they didn't examine it further - or maybe they were tired of all the arguing. But maybe the gov starts picking up the full insurance cost at the 26th employee, through payment to the employer. Don't know. Don't know at what number of employees the gov payments would stop because you're no longer a "small business" either. Whatever that number is, it would present another hiring issue. But I can't make assumptions without more info. Does seem this is a conundrum of employer-based health insurance. Probably all political BS due to the "sacred cow" nature of small business. During the break, a Congressional analyst that C-Span had there explained that the House bill imposed a 2% income penalty for not buying insurance, which would raise much more revenue than the Senate bill - or increase compliance, which is ultimately an expenditure reducer. There was some talk about bringing the fed employee insurance plans into sync with private plans. Apparently the fed plans cut off college attending dependents from coverage at age 23, where most private plans go to age 25. Anyway, it's a huge undertaking, and not yet thoroughly defined since reconciliation and vote counting between House and Senate hasn't happened. And this is all from memory, so I might be off on some things. About the only thing I've got a handle on is that it looks like everybody will have to be insured or suffer a penalty, and gov subsidies will flow. Even that is really just my guess. One thing there is no guessing about: It's gonna cost. But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. --Vic |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:57:51 -0700, jps wrote:
When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers, teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain something of any complexity to the public. They don't even try, which is why I turn to C-Span . Lame asses. But when you watch commercial TV, take some comfort that behind every face you see is a fat salary and excellent health care. And an empty head. Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain. Damn, already!? I just mentioned it! But it makes sense only if it doesn't drive Medicare further in the red. --Vic |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:07:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. Just curious, what do you think about the proposed co-ops? It's my understanding that some form of health insurance, as reform is now proposed, will be mandatory. Without some form of competition to the health insurance companies, mandatory seems very scary to me. The public option would have provided that competition, but I think co-ops, depending on how they are set up, could also work. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me Why is that? -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:07:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Let's just say that a business writing course erased most of my Henry James inclinations. Being a lit major, I thought it would be a waste of time. Surprise! Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. If you start with the premise that the end goal is that everybody will get personally "affordable" quality health care, there are many routes to it. There can be variation in some of the perks, such as a private room, etc, if you pay for that. I believe Germany and Japan - perhaps others - have that. But if you don't agree with that premise, there's no sense even talking about it. The health care providers and insurance companies are not gov staffed. Since this debate started there has been plenty of evidence that Europe and Japan provide equal or better health care than the U.S. at less cost. When you say "government run health care" it raises red flags for me already. Nobody is talking about that, and in fact the health care industry is private and capitalistic, except for the military, prisons, and some state/county hospitals. That's my understanding, anyway. Even the "exalted" Medicare sees little interference by the gov except for billing issues. So the first step is to clear that up. BTW, I still bear a grudge against the Navy Captain who pulled my perfectly good molar in Naples, Italy. THAT was gov health care. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. I would like to hear your views. --Vic |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:14:37 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:07:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. Just curious, what do you think about the proposed co-ops? It's my understanding that some form of health insurance, as reform is now proposed, will be mandatory. Without some form of competition to the health insurance companies, mandatory seems very scary to me. The public option would have provided that competition, but I think co-ops, depending on how they are set up, could also work. On the face of it, it's a sound idea - actually, a little like an HMO in concept which seem to work well. But you pointed out the problem yourself - depending on how they are set up. The simple truth is this - a public option would not be more efficient or cost effective than private plans. You just have to look around at various government run health care systems to see how inefficient they are - the Indian Health Service is one good example. The VA is another, although the VA has cleaned up it's act over the past few years quite a bit and the general care levels are becoming much better. I'm going into the VA system myself shortly - I looked at it hard and was satisfied that my situation will be handled well. So will a co-op work? It does in some states and they seem to be very effective and efficient in patient care. The few that I know about are small, self-contained (all-in-one service centers from testing to care) and being non-profit, the costs are containable and in general, less than standard health plans. I was in a similar system quite a few years ago - it was a non-profit health care system run by Hanneman Hospital in Worcester. To tell the truth, it was high quality care, the specialists were top rank and in general, the feeling was of a small doctors office where people knew who you were - a very nice. Everything was contained within one facility - you see the doctor, get an x-ray (or CAT/PET/MRI) on the spot readings, go back and see the NP or PA and if they needed to get the doc, they got the doc. It was good. So in my experience, the co-op seems like a good idea. Run by the government though? No - I can't see that. The very nature of government does not allow for efficiency, cost containment and effective. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:39:40 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: BTW, I still bear a grudge against the Navy Captain who pulled my perfectly good molar in Naples, Italy. THAT was gov health care. ROTFL!!! I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. I would like to hear your views. Thunder talked about one that I like - the co-op. That seems to be a very effective and efficient way to provide quality health care. Another idea is open up the competition between companies and stop protecting them with legislation that virtually ensures monopolies in individual states. I also like the PPO system - preferred provider option. Insurance companies can negotiate with health care centers in terms of costs. Mrs. Wave is in a PPO system that seems to work really well - they have a system where the Town self-insures with a re-insurance option for the more costly members. The state of CT has a similar system for the state employees and it seems to work well enough that the state is considering extending their system to towns to participate in. Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect doctors from malpractice claims. That's a few to start with. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:50:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On the face of it, it's a sound idea - actually, a little like an HMO in concept which seem to work well. But you pointed out the problem yourself - depending on how they are set up. It's my understanding that Blue Cross/Blue Shield started as a co-op. In some states it is still the dominate player in health insurance. Don't quote me on these numbers, but I believe collect 90% of the premiums in North Dakota, and 70% in Iowa and South Dakota, clearly the big player. I wonder how well they perform in keeping costs down. The simple truth is this - a public option would not be more efficient or cost effective than private plans. You just have to look around at various government run health care systems to see how inefficient they are - the Indian Health Service is one good example. The VA is another, although the VA has cleaned up it's act over the past few years quite a bit and the general care levels are becoming much better. I'm going into the VA system myself shortly - I looked at it hard and was satisfied that my situation will be handled well. So will a co-op work? It does in some states and they seem to be very effective and efficient in patient care. The few that I know about are small, self-contained (all-in-one service centers from testing to care) and being non-profit, the costs are containable and in general, less than standard health plans. I was in a similar system quite a few years ago - it was a non-profit health care system run by Hanneman Hospital in Worcester. To tell the truth, it was high quality care, the specialists were top rank and in general, the feeling was of a small doctors office where people knew who you were - a very nice. Everything was contained within one facility - you see the doctor, get an x-ray (or CAT/PET/MRI) on the spot readings, go back and see the NP or PA and if they needed to get the doc, they got the doc. It was good. So in my experience, the co-op seems like a good idea. Run by the government though? No - I can't see that. The very nature of government does not allow for efficiency, cost containment and effective. It's my understanding that it wouldn't be run by the government, but set up as a non-profit, owned by the subscribers. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/he...n.html?_r=2&hp |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect doctors from malpractice claims. I could see some sort of threshold before allowing a suit. That would keep the minor and frivolous law suits at bay, but generally what people talk about when addressing tort reform, is the high end payouts. Personally, I wouldn't want that touched. If some incompetent doctor screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know my family is taken care of. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:39:40 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: BTW, I still bear a grudge against the Navy Captain who pulled my perfectly good molar in Naples, Italy. THAT was gov health care. ROTFL!!! I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. I would like to hear your views. Thunder talked about one that I like - the co-op. That seems to be a very effective and efficient way to provide quality health care. Another idea is open up the competition between companies and stop protecting them with legislation that virtually ensures monopolies in individual states. I also like the PPO system - preferred provider option. Insurance companies can negotiate with health care centers in terms of costs. Mrs. Wave is in a PPO system that seems to work really well - they have a system where the Town self-insures with a re-insurance option for the more costly members. The state of CT has a similar system for the state employees and it seems to work well enough that the state is considering extending their system to towns to participate in. Not real familiar with PPO's although they used to be touted over HMO's. Yet I rejected my company's PPO offering as less flexible and selected the HMO, which actually cost me more in premium. A work mate I'm friendly with still mocks HMO's because you go to a primary care physician first. I haven't found that to be an issue, and he readily refers me to specialists when called for, actually - since I have some blarney in me - all I have to do is ask. Guess my pal thinks he knows more than any primary doc. I have heard that there are no successful medical co-ops delivering the quality care expected by most, but I'm not sure about that. I do see a problem with many scattered entities and state legislatures determining what health care is available, because it can limit mobility and is just plain confusing. You mentioned medical coders once, and I see the non-stardardization of too many players just adding to cost. BTW, another thing I learned watching the C-Span Senate hearings was an issue raised by the Rep Senator from Wyoming - Inzi. This kind of ties in with the above. He cautioned that dumping people into Medicaid could have disastrous results for the states, since they pay a significant portion of Medicaid. Just another "minor complication." Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect doctors from malpractice claims. I recently saw a program - I think on C-Span, maybe with Brian Lamb interviewing a journalist named Reid, who had sought out health care around the world for a PBS film - where a Japanese doctor was asked what he paid for malpractice insurance. The doc had to think a moment to understand what is meant by "malpractice insurance" then it came to him. "Oh, that's included in my medical association dues." The dues? $30 a year. So I agree with you there. This isn't to say that a malpractice suit can't be pursued, but that there are caps on punitive damages, and loser pays. Doesn't mean you can't get legit compensatory damages. Still severe reform. England has loser pays I think. Thank the trial lawyer lobby for no action here. Shame on Obama. --Vic |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
|
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills, the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed.. It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his hoods... Oooh, the Small Business Health Reform Act?? It only addresses a very few issues and problems, first of all. And hey, you dismissed Obama's speech to school kids as propaganda and indoctrination before you ever knew what was in it! |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills, the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed.. It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his hoods... Oooh, the Small Business Health Reform Act?? It only addresses a very few issues and problems, first of all. And hey, you dismissed Obama's speech to school kids as propaganda and indoctrination before you ever knew what was in it! Nope again. This is getting old, I think you only read what you want to read. I clearly noted my concern with the lesson plans and the teachers personal agendas that will follow the speech, and of course the collection of letters to the president and eventual use of those as political props like the little girl in Mass. at the Obama health care forum. -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills, the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed.. It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his hoods... Oooh, the Small Business Health Reform Act?? It only addresses a very few issues and problems, first of all. And hey, you dismissed Obama's speech to school kids as propaganda and indoctrination before you ever knew what was in it! Nope again. This is getting old, I think you only read what you want to read. I clearly noted my concern with the lesson plans and the teachers personal agendas that will follow the speech, and of course the collection of letters to the president and eventual use of those as political props like the little girl in Mass. at the Obama health care forum. You didn't say he wanted to indoctrinate children?? Take her to the track on the 8th. That's the BO school kid indoctrination speech. Happens at 11 am, eastern. If Jesse's lucky, she'll be at lunch where their are no TV's. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect doctors from malpractice claims. I could see some sort of threshold before allowing a suit. That would keep the minor and frivolous law suits at bay, but generally what people talk about when addressing tort reform, is the high end payouts. Personally, I wouldn't want that touched. If some incompetent doctor screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know my family is taken care of. A number of reputable sources state that malpractice insurance and payout adds maybe 2% to medical costs. I've seen a survey that claims it approaches 7%. Meanwhile, many health insurers are earning profits of more than 25%, and for what? It's not as if they add value. In fact, they increase costs dramatically for businesses and individuals. When the monster-sized private insurers force hospital and doctors to accept rates that don't cover costs, who do you think makes up the difference? The smaller insurers and those who insure themselves. I like the Swiss schema. There's mandatory national health insurance for everyone, and it isn't free, and there are private supplemental programs you can buy or not buy. Taking the profit out of health insurance will dramatically lower costs. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills, the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed.. It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his hoods... Oooh, the Small Business Health Reform Act?? It only addresses a very few issues and problems, first of all. And hey, you dismissed Obama's speech to school kids as propaganda and indoctrination before you ever knew what was in it! Nope again. This is getting old, I think you only read what you want to read. I clearly noted my concern with the lesson plans and the teachers personal agendas that will follow the speech, and of course the collection of letters to the president and eventual use of those as political props like the little girl in Mass. at the Obama health care forum. You didn't say he wanted to indoctrinate children?? Take her to the track on the 8th. That's the BO school kid indoctrination speech. Happens at 11 am, eastern. If Jesse's lucky, she'll be at lunch where their are no TV's. Nope, she will be there. She knows already her History teacher is a Bush Basher so she will just have to play the game for another semester. She saw what an intolerant teacher can do to a kid a couple of years back, she felt real bad for her friend but was just a small child. If there is any bullying this year, I am sure she will stand up and be noted;) I can't even begin to tell you how strong and confident she has become in the last year. I have not been posting too much about her MX but this kid is just driven, like her older sister. The other thing I am noticing is she is not dreaming pie in the sky, she has a very good understanding of reality and what is possible, she still aims pretty high, but so far is on schedule to achieve her short and long term goals. Maybe ahead of schedule, but not to her. Today is day 4 of the 6 day marathon practice session... ugh, I am getting tired...;) -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:22:48 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect doctors from malpractice claims. I could see some sort of threshold before allowing a suit. That would keep the minor and frivolous law suits at bay, but generally what people talk about when addressing tort reform, is the high end payouts. Personally, I wouldn't want that touched. If some incompetent doctor screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know my family is taken care of. I don't disagree with you, but the case has to have some merit. In this case, I'd be in favor of a review panel type of situation to decide on merit. The problem is, and will always be, what rates as "merit" and what rates as "frivilous". I've told the story of my own run in with malpractice as a paramedic - to my mind, the lawyer should have just told the plaintiff that her kid was lucky to be alive, but... I think, and I would hope that most rational people would think this way, that the whole issue needs careful deliberation - not radical change in the space of two months. This is going to take years to fix. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:44:12 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: So I agree with you there. This isn't to say that a malpractice suit can't be pursued, but that there are caps on punitive damages, and loser pays. Doesn't mean you can't get legit compensatory damages. Still severe reform. England has loser pays I think. That idea has been around for a while and it does have some value. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:14:11 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:50:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On the face of it, it's a sound idea - actually, a little like an HMO in concept which seem to work well. But you pointed out the problem yourself - depending on how they are set up. It's my understanding that Blue Cross/Blue Shield started as a co-op. In some states it is still the dominate player in health insurance. Don't quote me on these numbers, but I believe collect 90% of the premiums in North Dakota, and 70% in Iowa and South Dakota, clearly the big player. I wonder how well they perform in keeping costs down. The simple truth is this - a public option would not be more efficient or cost effective than private plans. You just have to look around at various government run health care systems to see how inefficient they are - the Indian Health Service is one good example. The VA is another, although the VA has cleaned up it's act over the past few years quite a bit and the general care levels are becoming much better. I'm going into the VA system myself shortly - I looked at it hard and was satisfied that my situation will be handled well. So will a co-op work? It does in some states and they seem to be very effective and efficient in patient care. The few that I know about are small, self-contained (all-in-one service centers from testing to care) and being non-profit, the costs are containable and in general, less than standard health plans. I was in a similar system quite a few years ago - it was a non-profit health care system run by Hanneman Hospital in Worcester. To tell the truth, it was high quality care, the specialists were top rank and in general, the feeling was of a small doctors office where people knew who you were - a very nice. Everything was contained within one facility - you see the doctor, get an x-ray (or CAT/PET/MRI) on the spot readings, go back and see the NP or PA and if they needed to get the doc, they got the doc. It was good. So in my experience, the co-op seems like a good idea. Run by the government though? No - I can't see that. The very nature of government does not allow for efficiency, cost containment and effective. It's my understanding that it wouldn't be run by the government, but set up as a non-profit, owned by the subscribers. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/he...n.html?_r=2&hp Well, then it's a good idea that needs some investigation. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:01:07 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
I don't disagree with you, but the case has to have some merit. In this case, I'd be in favor of a review panel type of situation to decide on merit. It might work, but I would think it might be difficult to set up. The problem is, and will always be, what rates as "merit" and what rates as "frivilous". I've told the story of my own run in with malpractice as a paramedic - to my mind, the lawyer should have just told the plaintiff that her kid was lucky to be alive, but... I would agree things should be done to keep malpractice insurance costs down. There are clearly cases that are brought that aren't malpractice, and they shouldn't have been brought. OTOH, there are doctors that live in court rooms, constantly being sued. Perhaps, pulling a few specific licenses would keep the insurance rates down. All in all, it is going to be a tough and interesting debate. I think, and I would hope that most rational people would think this way, that the whole issue needs careful deliberation - not radical change in the space of two months. This is going to take years to fix. You know, I've heard several pundits say that this isn't going to be fixed all at once. No one is going to get everything they want, but, the Sacred Cow will be popped. Health care reform will be being tweaked for decades. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills, the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed.. It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his hoods... Oooh, the Small Business Health Reform Act?? It only addresses a very few issues and problems, first of all. And hey, you dismissed Obama's speech to school kids as propaganda and indoctrination before you ever knew what was in it! Nope again. This is getting old, I think you only read what you want to read. I clearly noted my concern with the lesson plans and the teachers personal agendas that will follow the speech, and of course the collection of letters to the president and eventual use of those as political props like the little girl in Mass. at the Obama health care forum. You didn't say he wanted to indoctrinate children?? Take her to the track on the 8th. That's the BO school kid indoctrination speech. Happens at 11 am, eastern. If Jesse's lucky, she'll be at lunch where their are no TV's. Nope, she will be there. She knows already her History teacher is a Bush Basher so she will just have to play the game for another semester. She saw what an intolerant teacher can do to a kid a couple of years back, she felt real bad for her friend but was just a small child. If there is any bullying this year, I am sure she will stand up and be noted;) I can't even begin to tell you how strong and confident she has become in the last year. I have not been posting too much about her MX but this kid is just driven, like her older sister. The other thing I am noticing is she is not dreaming pie in the sky, she has a very good understanding of reality and what is possible, she still aims pretty high, but so far is on schedule to achieve her short and long term goals. Maybe ahead of schedule, but not to her. Today is day 4 of the 6 day marathon practice session... ugh, I am getting tired...;) Scotty, I quoted you, those were your words. Neal Boortz who is very conservative although he calls himself Libertarian has quite the article about how Republicans are burying themselves deeply because they lie about things like the speech, his healthcare reform etc. either without knowledge of what it says, or outright lies. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... Whew... I don't think I could do that, even if the alternative is watching the clothes dryer. Hats off to you! I was a computer systems analyst, so it was no problem. It's much more fun seeing real people make spoken arguments than extracting them from silent data flows and technical mumbo-jumbo. sorry for the big snip Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. Hey, I read it! Nice thoughts. I have a light day sleeper here, so I can't really watch TV even if I wanted to.. also, my head might explode. I can only take so much political speak in one year. Many people bitch/moan about high taxes, but we pay so many hidden taxes, I'd rather just get it all done at once. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
"thunder" wrote in message
t... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:50:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On the face of it, it's a sound idea - actually, a little like an HMO in concept which seem to work well. So will a co-op work? It does in some states and they seem to be very effective and efficient in patient care. The few that I know about are small, self-contained (all-in-one service centers from testing to care) and being non-profit, the costs are containable and in general, less than standard health plans. I was in a similar system quite a few years ago - it was a non-profit health care system run by Hanneman Hospital in Worcester. To tell the truth, it was high quality care, the specialists were top rank and in general, the feeling was of a small doctors office where people knew who you were - a very nice. Everything was contained within one facility - you see the doctor, get an x-ray (or CAT/PET/MRI) on the spot readings, go back and see the NP or PA and if they needed to get the doc, they got the doc. It was good. So in my experience, the co-op seems like a good idea. Run by the government though? No - I can't see that. The very nature of government does not allow for efficiency, cost containment and effective. It's my understanding that it wouldn't be run by the government, but set up as a non-profit, owned by the subscribers. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/he...n.html?_r=2&hp This would be similar to what Congress has... they pick and choose among plans all run by regular insurance companies? I think that's the focus off the "public option" that's gotten so much attention lately. It's not gov't run. Re co-ops... they would work if they have enough bargaining power with the insurance companies. Most aren't big enough to have much impact on costs. That would be a major efficacy stumbling block. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:57:51 -0700, jps wrote: When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers, teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain something of any complexity to the public. They don't even try, which is why I turn to C-Span . Lame asses. But when you watch commercial TV, take some comfort that behind every face you see is a fat salary and excellent health care. And an empty head. Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain. Damn, already!? I just mentioned it! But it makes sense only if it doesn't drive Medicare further in the red. --Vic I believe it's projected to go into the red in 2019. The first report whereby it would draw more than 45% of its money from the general fund happened in 2006 (legislated reporting mandate). The big problem is the looming baby-boomer bulge. I think we need some death panels sooner vs. later. lol -- Nom=de=Plume |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:31:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:57:51 -0700, jps wrote: When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers, teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain something of any complexity to the public. They don't even try, which is why I turn to C-Span . Lame asses. But when you watch commercial TV, take some comfort that behind every face you see is a fat salary and excellent health care. And an empty head. Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain. Damn, already!? I just mentioned it! But it makes sense only if it doesn't drive Medicare further in the red. --Vic I believe it's projected to go into the red in 2019. The first report whereby it would draw more than 45% of its money from the general fund happened in 2006 (legislated reporting mandate). The big problem is the looming baby-boomer bulge. I think we need some death panels sooner vs. later. lol Let's just off some of the elderly GOP. They've already predicted we'd do it so what's the harm? |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:11:02 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:57:51 -0700, jps wrote: When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers, teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain something of any complexity to the public. They don't even try, which is why I turn to C-Span . Lame asses. But when you watch commercial TV, take some comfort that behind every face you see is a fat salary and excellent health care. And an empty head. Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain. Damn, already!? I just mentioned it! Collective consciousness. You get credit for being on the vanguard of a good idea. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com