Page 132 of 143 FirstFirst ... 3282122127128129130131132133134135136137142 ... LastLast
Results 2,621 to 2,640 of 2855
  1. #2621  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'd like to think that attorneys aren't needed because our health care system is so safe...but I can give you lots of examples that say it ain't so. However, since republicans really seem to think that doctors can't make significant mistakes, and need more protection than patients do, go for it. It just won't make any difference in cost reduction, as proven in Texas.
    I know where you stand on the Tort Reform issue, I was simply making a point that while you seem to enjoy pointing out how Republicans have groups they like to look out for, you act as if democrats don't do the same thing. I'll throw Labor Unions out there as just another example, but stop acting as if democrats are only looking out for the best interest of all Americans, they chase the money just like Republicans do.

    Oh....congrats....looks like the Heels might avoid being in last place!!!!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #2622  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post

    I'm also very confused why you seem to have this inability to deal with views that don't conform to your own. That's a significant character flaw I think. You demonstrate this need to attack and attempt to belittle people that disagree and because you apparently cannot address facts that you dislike, you instead rely on straw-men non-arguments in order to distract and evade. If you are concerned about bandwidth, I suggest you stop wasting time with such dishonest practices.

    KAM
    I have no problem with views I don't like. Your mistake, and it's a huge one, is simply that you don't provide "facts you dislike". You don't provide facts, you provide views based on incorrect facts. When you say insurance companies pass along costs to patients, you are talking about the minority of insurance companies. HMO's are insurance companies, and it's likely that your very own "traditional" insurance company offers HMO plans, so there is essentially no difference when you're talking about companies.

    But the thing I find most interesting about your tone is that you seem to think that making the hospitals and doctors "eat their costs" is a bad thing. In fact, it's not. In fact, it's absolutely necessary for cost controls to work at all. As I have said many times, hospitals are reimbursed by what are called DRG's. They get a certain amount for taking care of a patient based on average costs. Recently they (Medicare) have started doing something very controversial....they will not cover additional costs to the hospitals for infections that are caused by the hospital. Additional costs caused by the hospital acquired infection must be borne by the hospital. Now you can look at this one of two ways. You seem to think this would be awful, that the government is taking advantage of the hospital. In fact, it has caused hospitals to redouble their efforts to decrease hospital acquired infections. While it may not be exactly for the right reason, the outcome is the same....better patient care. Now just how would you describe efforts like that? Governmental meddling in health care? There are many other examples of similar situations that demonstrate that the government is not the horrible evil purveyor of poor medical care, but you are not knowledgeable enough to see it. However, someone from Canada who is married to a physician and has seen both systems work is. You should listen to him, since I don't expect you to listen to me.
    Last edited by davidra; 03/03/2010 at 11:20 AM.
  3. #2623  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I know where you stand on the Tort Reform issue, I was simply making a point that while you seem to enjoy pointing out how Republicans have groups they like to look out for, you act as if democrats don't do the same thing. I'll throw Labor Unions out there as just another example, but stop acting as if democrats are only looking out for the best interest of all Americans, they chase the money just like Republicans do.

    Oh....congrats....looks like the Heels might avoid being in last place!!!!
    To say that I have been disappointed with the democrats caving in to the pharmaceutical companies and other special interests would be a vast understatement....but I do believe that they are much more interested in the health care of all Americans than the republicans are. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
  4. #2624  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    To say that I have been disappointed with the democrats caving in to the pharmaceutical companies and other special interests would be a vast understatement....but I do believe that they are much more interested in the health care of all Americans than the republicans are. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
    Break please.....democrats are interested in one thing, total control. The more they control of our lives (healthcare, retirement, food, housing, etc), the more power they gain. If YOU think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. Like I said in an earlier post, the more dependent we become on the government the greater likelyhood we will fail as a country. Sad.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. #2625  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Break please.....democrats are interested in one thing, total control. The more they control of our lives (healthcare, retirement, food, housing, etc), the more power they gain. If YOU think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. Like I said in an earlier post, the more dependent we become on the government the greater likelyhood we will fail as a country. Sad.
    Right, right. Good thing South Carolina still has those important militias to protect you.

    By the way....we're already failing as a country in terms of health care. And good old Wall Street, the purveyor of capitalism, isn't doing so well either.
  6. #2626  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    OR... maybe there's just a disagreement about how 300,000,000 people can get quality care. Seems more plausible, and more productive, than passing a value judgment on all Americans doesn't it? After all, if we can blame it on the American value system then we don't have to answer any of the hard questions.
    i would suggest, you have placed your own level of value on your own society. The idea that me first has been echoed through out this little debate. The idea of no big bad govt had better stick its nose into my business. Anyone who disagrees with this value system is a left leaning democrat. Just inches away from good old Lennin.
    I did a little reading, much of your govt intrusion comes from simple little things; lets use the FDA for an example, yes it is probably bloated and top heavy with over management, but i might suggest when it was signed in to law by your good ol Teddy Roosevelt, it was for the good of the people, after some fine upstanding American business man poisioned and killed about 100 people. But hey, its buyer beware right, take care of yourself, we dont need no stinking govt sticking their noses into our business or personal lives. Not to mention a bunch of other ones, like that little test drug to stop women from getting sick while pregnant, for the life of me i can not remember the drugs name, but it ended up with kids being born with no arms and or no legs. Now the FDA did ban such things, but, a bunch of american doctors got samples and handed them out, ya the drug company paid them for doing it. But again, its all about me first, buyer beware, yaaaddda yaaadaaa,,

    i would so humbly suggest, if it was not for a lot of govt intervention, there would be one hell of a lot fewer americans in this world.

    But lets let the big corps and your local business man, do what he wants, its the american way. geeeeshhhh, think about the other side of the coin, just for once, long gone are the days, when you could even think about getting away with that crap.
    Whether its 1 person with out health care, or 30 million, you still have a problem. You in some of your latest posts are simply posting to post. Instead of saying NO BIG BAD GOVT FOR ME IN MY HEALTH CARE, give me/us a viable alternative, and no, not remove big govt and let the free market sort itself out, that as i have pointed out repeatedly does not work, as the big hospitals, and insurance companies will use it to rape an pillage even more americans wallets. to bring that home, back in the 80's, you remember them, how does 20,000.00 ashtrays sound, or 5,000.00 hammers. so i wait with some angst, for your answer to your problem with health care.
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2627  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I have no problem with views I don't like. Your mistake, and it's a huge one, is simply that you don't provide "facts you dislike". You don't provide facts, you provide views based on incorrect facts.
    Yes, that's what you keep claiming, but why then aren't you addressing these facts. You aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    When you say insurance companies pass along costs to patients, you are talking about the minority of insurance companies. HMO's are insurance companies, and it's likely that your very own "traditional" insurance company offers HMO plans, so there is essentially no difference when you're talking about companies.
    First, I'm not sure why you can't deal with qualifying statements, and specifics in the context of the discussion at hand. We were talking about hospitals being forced to "eat" costs and I stated that in the case of insurance like mine this was not true. That's a fact, that you want to turn into a falsehood.

    The link you posted listed 64.5 million for HMO vs 61.9 million for PPO. Since YOU listed HMO as different (presumably acknowledging PPO as the minority I was talking about) this remains a very significant percentage--49%, so attempting to dismiss it isn't valid. I happily acknowledged your claim about HMO. So, please tell me how anything I've said is an "incorrect fact."

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    But the thing I find most interesting about your tone is that you seem to think that making the hospitals and doctors "eat their costs" is a bad thing. In fact, it's not. In fact, it's absolutely necessary for cost controls to work at all.
    I made no such claim, and your reading of my "tone" is your mistake. My factual statements were in response to the specific issue at hand, in my discussion with ryleyinstl. If you want to insert yourself into it, that's your right--this being an open discussion board, but I'm not responsible for your choice to ignore the context of the existing discussion segment. If you want to enter relevant additional points, feel free.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As I have said many times, hospitals are reimbursed by what are called DRG's. They get a certain amount for taking care of a patient based on average costs. Recently they (Medicare) have started doing something very controversial....they will not cover additional costs to the hospitals for infections that are caused by the hospital. Additional costs caused by the hospital acquired infection must be borne by the hospital. Now you can look at this one of two ways. You seem to think this would be awful, that the government is taking advantage of the hospital. In fact, it has caused hospitals to redouble their efforts to decrease hospital acquired infections. While it may not be exactly for the right reason, the outcome is the same....better patient care.
    All very interesting, but you are responding to something I didn't address and a claim you ASSUMED I made, but did not.
    As a side note, control of prices is something that I'm a strong advocate of. I happen to favor the free market system--which is the most dynamic and effective method to do this, opposed to the price manipulation system that we currently have, and which has led us to our current state.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Now just how would you describe efforts like that? Governmental meddling in health care? There are many other examples of similar situations that demonstrate that the government is not the horrible evil purveyor of poor medical care, but you are not knowledgeable enough to see it. However, someone from Canada who is married to a physician and has seen both systems work is. You should listen to him, since I don't expect you to listen to me.
    Apparently, you haven't been following things very well. I WAS listening to ryleyinstl, and addressing what he said, before you inserted yourself and made it into an argument.

    The specific point which apparently sent you over the edge was ryleyinstl's statement that practices that force a hospital to "eat" costs would influence which test they ordered--leading to the less optimal one. So, if you have issues with that, take it up with him. All I was doing was looking at which situation caused hospitals to "eat" the costs and which did not--which apparently is somehow "100% incorrect" to you.

    If you want to take what I say out of context of the conversation, and run off on tangents addressing things I didn't say, that's your issue.

    The fact is, that I've listened to all the information people have given me, and specifically to yours at many points in this (and other threads). I've acknowledged your position as a medical professional. I've not attempted to refute any of your experience in the medical field. I simply disagree with your political views and I think you've demonstrated a distinct lack of realism in regards to economic issues.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/03/2010 at 12:05 PM.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2628  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    By the way....we're already failing as a country in terms of health care. And good old Wall Street, the purveyor of capitalism, isn't doing so well either.
    That's Crony capitalism you're pointing to, a distortion of Capitalism. Bailouts and "too big to fail" isn't capitalism--its the destruction of capitalism.

    KAM
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2629  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Instead of saying NO BIG BAD GOVT FOR ME IN MY HEALTH CARE, give me/us a viable alternative, and no, not remove big govt and let the free market sort itself out, that as i have pointed out repeatedly does not work, as the big hospitals, and insurance companies will use it to rape an pillage even more americans wallets. to bring that home, back in the 80's, you remember them, how does 20,000.00 ashtrays sound, or 5,000.00 hammers. so i wait with some angst, for your answer to your problem with health care.
    Actually, the free market DOES work--pretty much every time it is tried. We are already being pillaged--and it isn't under a free market system in regards to healthcare. It is a highly MANIPULATED system--already involving government.

    I'm not sure what is unclear about this. The US government is heavily involved in the healthcare system, and in cooperation with insurance companies led us to where we are today. They have established this manipulated system which is pillaging us.

    Free market practices are not in effect, or more accurately very effectively blocked in most cases. Test cases that increase free market forces have proven to be effective. (as referenced in the link I had a while back--here is is again: Mitch Daniels: Hoosiers and Health Savings Accounts - WSJ.com)

    This sort of thing IS the viable alternative, that is working to the extent it is allowed, and will work even better if we allow it to.

    By the way--the GOVERNMENT is the one who supposedly paid the $5000 for a hammer or toilet seat or whatever. In the free market that simply will not happen.

    KAM
  10. #2630  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post

    Free market practices are not in effect, or more accurately very effectively blocked in most cases. Test cases that increase free market forces have proven to be effective. (as referenced in the link I had a while back--here is is again: Mitch Daniels: Hoosiers and Health Savings Accounts - WSJ.com)

    This sort of thing IS the viable alternative, that is working to the extent it is allowed, and will work even better if we allow it to.



    KAM
    Sorry, but relying on HSAs is a joke. Yes, your test case worked just fine with state workers who by definition are a low risk population. You know, the kind that insurance companies love to insure because they are HEALTHY WORKERS without significant illness. And the cost savings are interesting, and minor changes in behavior may decrease some costs, but not most. One serious illness and admission will more than wipe out an HSA. Is it a reasonable alternative to commercial insurance? Maybe....but in your test case the state put up the money. Would you have employers put up the money? Who should initially finance it? Do you favor employee-sponsored insurance or not? And do you want the federal government to fund everyone's HSA, given they are the devil incarnate? Really, throwing HSAs around as a solution to anything is just like most of the other solutions you have....short on details. The percentage of people that HSA's would help is minimal....and they are the people that don't need much help under the current system. But then again you're not worried about the rest.
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2631  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sorry, but relying on HSAs is a joke. Yes, your test case worked just fine with state workers who by definition are a low risk population. You know, the kind that insurance companies love to insure because they are HEALTHY WORKERS without significant illness. And the cost savings are interesting, and minor changes in behavior may decrease some costs, but not most. One serious illness and admission will more than wipe out an HSA. Is it a reasonable alternative to commercial insurance?
    To my knowledge HSA are only available WITH high deductible insurance. I'm not sure what you are talking about about a "serious illness and admission" wiping out an HSA. It isn't JUST an HSA.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Maybe....but in your test case the state put up the money. Would you have employers put up the money? Who should initially finance it?
    In terms of free market benefit, it doesn't matter who finances it. I tend towards wanting to separate insurance coverage from employment however, and that would include the HSA contribution. But like I said--it isn't necessary to make it work.
    There are a number of available variations.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you favor employee-sponsored insurance or not?
    Do you mean employee owned? Not provided by the employer? If so, then yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And do you want the federal government to fund everyone's HSA, given they are the devil incarnate?
    Why would they fund everyone's HSA? On the other hand they would have to fund the poor's HSA in my plans--just the same as they would pay for their insurance premiums (using Medicaid funds). I take that back--States can manage this for their own poor without need for the Federal government to be involved as a possibility as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Really, throwing HSAs around as a solution to anything is just like most of the other solutions you have....short on details. The percentage of people that HSA's would help is minimal....and they are the people that don't need much help under the current system. But then again you're not worried about the rest.
    Wow, you just really love running your mouth don't you. Perhaps HSAs don't work as well for some as others...fine.

    Guess what--EVERYONE needs help in the current system except the independently wealthy, and HSAs is a step in the right direction.

    You say the percentage of people with HSAs would help is minimal? Really? What is that percentage? Why?

    Not worried about the rest. Well, if you think that then you really are stupid, because In EVERY plan I've ever talked about, it includes providing assistance for the poor, in fact providing them the same level of healthcare coverage that I have. So...stick it. You're really being an *****.

    Just try for once to make a point without your pathetic lies about my actual position. You just can't do it can you?

    Also--I notice that you slink away from the other post--which is also typical of you. You rush in, throw you bombs, waste my time and then skulk away. I guess I should be grateful for that, because any answer you give would likely be as equally dishonest, and I know you just don't have it in you to admit your mistakes, distortions and lies.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/03/2010 at 01:11 PM.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2632  
    Well, it looks like I'll lose my job soon after this Healthcare monstrosity gets shoved down out throats. Thanks for going back on your word Obama.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2633  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Well, it looks like I'll lose my job soon after this Healthcare monstrosity gets shoved down out throats. Thanks for going back on your word Obama.
    What are you referring to?

    KAM
  14. #2634  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Well, it looks like I'll lose my job soon after this Healthcare monstrosity gets shoved down out throats. Thanks for going back on your word Obama.
    Yes, but you healthcare executives have been making so much money over the years, that you should have no problem retiring at this point, right?

    Holy Cow.....listening to Obama.....good grief.....what a *****. Oops, can I say that in here? Well, I said it. I do enjoy the hypocrisy of the "up and down" vote in the Senate. It goes on both sides, I agree, but to see on video tape both Obama and Biden saying the up and down vote in the Senate was wrong (back when they were the minority) and now seeing it differently, would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that they have now changed the course of the Senate. When the Republicans take the Senate back over....and they will at some point....I hope they cram things back down the democrats throats all for the sake of the American people.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #2635  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    When the Republicans take the Senate back over....and they will at some point....I hope they cram things back down the democrats throats all for the sake of the American people.
    You mean like they did under the Bush admin?



    Seriously, I think once these changes are in place most reasonable people will see they're improvements for most everyone and not the socialist-bogey-man certain factions have made it out to be.
  16. #2636  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You mean like they did under the Bush admin?



    Seriously, I think once these changes are in place most reasonable people will see they're improvements for most everyone and not the socialist-bogey-man certain factions have made it out to be.
    Ah...but it's the "reasonable people" part that makes it a challenge. After all, some of those people want to do away with unemployment benefits. Or Medicare. Those on the right should be afraid, because once these get enacted, they will be very hard to do away with. Why? Because they HELP people, just like Medicare does. But of course, not everybody considers that to be a bad thing.
  17. #2637  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yes, but you healthcare executives have been making so much money over the years, that you should have no problem retiring at this point, right?

    Holy Cow.....listening to Obama.....good grief.....what a *****. Oops, can I say that in here? Well, I said it. I do enjoy the hypocrisy of the "up and down" vote in the Senate. It goes on both sides, I agree, but to see on video tape both Obama and Biden saying the up and down vote in the Senate was wrong (back when they were the minority) and now seeing it differently, would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that they have now changed the course of the Senate. When the Republicans take the Senate back over....and they will at some point....I hope they cram things back down the democrats throats all for the sake of the American people.
    Sure. And that's less hypocritical than the republicans claiming that reconciliation should never be used for such a thing when they jammed tax cuts down everyone's throat using the exact same methods? There's hypocrisy on both sides....but one side has the best interests of the people in mind, and not quite as many special interests. Notice I said "quite" as many.
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2638  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You mean like they did under the Bush admin?



    Seriously, I think once these changes are in place most reasonable people will see they're improvements for most everyone and not the socialist-bogey-man certain factions have made it out to be.
    Yeah, you know--it is possible that there can be some good parts of this. The question is about the bad parts, and the costs, and whether it is actually Constitutional.

    That's why people advocate a more direct, less cumbersome (2000+ pages) approach, instead of this albatross. You might also want to consider that people don't trust it, because the process has been thoroughly unethical in its approach. The special favors and payoffs aren't the change that people wanted in this country.

    So, while you blame "bogey-man" stuff (which does exist, and I dislike), you can't rightfully discount that this process was a mess--and people are fed up with it.

    Now, despite the lack of popular support, Democrats are using a legislative process (designed to deal specifically with budget issues--of which this is far beyond) to ram this through. You answer seems to be little more than "Trust us, it will be great." Well, sorry--they've lost my trust by their own actions.

    KAM
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2639  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Ah...but it's the "reasonable people" part that makes it a challenge. After all, some of those people want to do away with unemployment benefits. Or Medicare. Those on the right should be afraid, because once these get enacted, they will be very hard to do away with. Why? Because they HELP people, just like Medicare does. But of course, not everybody considers that to be a bad thing.
    You are right--these things are almost impossible to get rid of--because they create dependency--which is of course the best outcome for politicians. They BUY people. They buy their vote, their liberty--and all with someone else's money. It's a brilliant and extremely deceptive plan, and of course horribly destructive to a free society. But hey--who cares, right?

    KAM
  20. #2640  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yeah, you know--it is possible that there can be some good parts of this. The question is about the bad parts, and the costs, and whether it is actually Constitutional.

    That's why people advocate a more direct, less cumbersome (2000+ pages) approach, instead of this albatross. You might also want to consider that people don't trust it, because the process has been thoroughly unethical in its approach. The special favors and payoffs aren't the change that people wanted in this country.

    So, while you blame "bogey-man" stuff (which does exist, and I dislike), you can't rightfully discount that this process was a mess--and people are fed up with it.

    Now, despite the lack of popular support, Democrats are using a legislative process (designed to deal specifically with budget issues--of which this is far beyond) to ram this through. You answer seems to be little more than "Trust us, it will be great." Well, sorry--they've lost my trust by their own actions.

    KAM
    One has to admit that the reason this process was a mess is because of the Republican strategy of OBSTRUCT AT ALL COSTS. And yes, I'm saying trust us, it will be great. Just preventing the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions will be a major improvement.

Posting Permissions