Page 66 of 71 FirstFirst ... 16566162636465666768697071 LastLast
Results 1,301 to 1,320 of 1405
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1301  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Tell you what....I'll bet you we will never end up in "economic ruin". The hyperbole from the conservatives on this board flies in the face of all reasonable economists and represent nothing but talking points. How can you not see that? What do you think would happen with no change in the system? You really think that would be better?
    First--this goes beyond this Healthcare reform issue. It is merely one piece.

    Talking points? Really? Do you really think that the dollar dropping into the toilet is a talking point? Do you think that unsustainable debt is a talking point? What about 10% unemployment?

    Reasonable economists? Are these the ones who supported idiotic lending practices that drove our economy into a ditch? Are these the brilliant minds like Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Robert Rubin?

    Economic Ruin? I hope to God that this isn't the case, but you act as if this can't happen, when it has happened in the past. Why in the world would you think this can't happen in the United States. I keep hearing from leftists that there is no American Exceptionalism, so why should we not be susceptible to the same devastating economic problems that others are.

    I'm not sure if you are aware, but it is pretty much known that the EXISTING programs (medicare, social security, etc) are not sustainable. Will that cause economic ruin? I don't know--pretending that we can print money without consequences will definitely lead to that, and so far--that's all this administration is doing.

    Ignoring economic realities and just pretending we can keep on pushing an already unsustainable course is idiocy, and no amount of pretending will change that.

    KAM
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1302  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    1. If this panel of smart doctors says I should get an H1N1 shot because they know best about whats good for me and the rest of the population, and I choose not to get one, does that make me stupid or indicate that I know what is best for me?
    I have no problem with said 'panel of smart doctors' telling me what they think, recommend, know, project, warn, etc....

    It's when, based on that panel's 'verdict', a treatment is rationed out of my reach, or taken away as a choice that I or my doctor may have made.... that's a major problem.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. #1303  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I just said "how". It's called common sense. Nuff said, no doctorate required.

    The rest of this has been rehashed over and over again. If you refuse to get it because of your blinders, I can't fix that.
    Common sense. Amazing how often that is a code phrase for "I really don't understand the data". What if I told you that more people might die from screening that isn't needed? Is that "common sense"?

    Lacking the knowledge to understand the positives and negatives of screening patients doesn't really enhance your opinions. Doesn't take a doctorate...and in fact it is common sense. Doing procedures that don't provide a benefit are not appropriate, no matter what dunderheads argue that it is. More care is not the same as good care. When you can comprehend that maxim, you won't even need to go back to school.
  4. #1304  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I have no problem with said 'panel of smart doctors' telling me what they think, recommend, know, project, warn, etc....

    It's when, based on that panel's 'verdict', a treatment is rationed out of my reach, or taken away as a choice that I or my doctor may have made.... that's a major problem.
    And I agree with that. Especially if your doctor knows what they are doing. And you think you should be able to determine if you want an MRI if it won't help your care, if your doctor thinks it won't? Do you mean "I or my doctor" or "I and my doctor"? Or do you just want to provide your own care?
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1305  
    ...I have this mental image of Sen. Joseph Lieberman walking out onto the Senate Floor, dressed as Gandalf, slamming the point of his staff on the podium and yelling "YOOOOU SHALLL NOTT PASSSS!!!!"

    SNL should pick up on that....
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #1306  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    First--this goes beyond this Healthcare reform issue. It is merely one piece.

    Talking points? Really? Do you really think that the dollar dropping into the toilet is a talking point? Do you think that unsustainable debt is a talking point? What about 10% unemployment?

    Reasonable economists? Are these the ones who supported idiotic lending practices that drove our economy into a ditch? Are these the brilliant minds like Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Robert Rubin?

    Economic Ruin? I hope to God that this isn't the case, but you act as if this can't happen, when it has happened in the past. Why in the world would you think this can't happen in the United States. I keep hearing from leftists that there is no American Exceptionalism, so why should we not be susceptible to the same devastating economic problems that others are.

    I'm not sure if you are aware, but it is pretty much known that the EXISTING programs (medicare, social security, etc) are not sustainable. Will that cause economic ruin? I don't know--pretending that we can print money without consequences will definitely lead to that, and so far--that's all this administration is doing.

    Ignoring economic realities and just pretending we can keep on pushing an already unsustainable course is idiocy, and no amount of pretending will change that.

    KAM
    Find me an unbiased economist who says we are facing economic ruin because of the health care bills currently being considered. Do things need to be changed? Sure. They will be.

    "Economic ruin" is the "death panels" of the literate. Hyperbolic and misleading.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1307  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And I agree with that. Especially if your doctor knows what they are doing. And you think you should be able to determine if you want an MRI if it won't help your care, if your doctor thinks it won't? Do you mean "I or my doctor" or "I and my doctor"? Or do you just want to provide your own care?
    You're determined to remove my choice. I'm not worthy, or smart enough. It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with self determination and the value of the individual. I don't know if you realize that that's really what this is all about.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #1308  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Find me an unbiased economist who says we are facing economic ruin because of the health care bills currently being considered. Do things need to be changed? Sure. They will be.

    "Economic ruin" is the "death panels" of the literate. Hyperbolic and misleading.

    Earlier this week, the Office of Management and Budget reached out to 23 of the nation's most prominent economists -- a group that included Republicans, Democrats, former Bush administration officials and Nobel laureates -- to get views on the four elements critical to reducing long-term health care costs while improving the quality of care for all Americans. Each of the steps endorsed by this bipartisan group is embodied in the legislation under consideration.

    The first is deficit neutrality, which -- according to the CBO -- is achieved in both the House and Senate bills.

    The second is an excise tax on the highest-cost insurance plans. The Senate's proposed tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans will do more than help pay for reform. It also will curtail the growth of private health insurance premiums -- by providing employers with an incentive to seek higher-quality and lower-cost health benefits that will generate higher take-home pay for American workers and their families. In other words, this reform would slow health-care cost growth and give Americans a pay raise.

    Third, a bill must include a way for the health system to keep pace with innovation and the dynamic health care marketplace. An independent Medicare commission of medical experts would be able to give the system that flexibility. It will ensure that reforming the health care system is not a one-time event but an ongoing process that implements the most recent progress in medical science with the goal of improving care and lowering costs.

    Finally, reform needs to create incentives to improve the way health care is delivered to patients throughout the country. We need to put in place incentives that reward higher quality for patients rather than more quantity in health care. Already, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we made historic investments in health-information technology and research into which medical treatments work best so that doctors have the most recent, science-based information to help them and their patients make the best medical decisions. Health reform must build on this by providing the tools and incentives for physicians, hospitals and other providers to improve the quality of care for all Americans.

    For example, bundled payments and accountable-care organizations, as well as incentives to prevent harmful and avoidable readmissions and health-facility-acquired infections, will induce physicians and hospitals to innovate and redesign the way they deliver care through better coordination that will keep people healthy and avoid unnecessary complications.

    In addition, laying out a clear and rapid pathway for biogeneric drugs to come to market -- such as was proposed in our budget -- will lower prices and help contain future health care costs.

    With well-designed pilot projects, we also can test what works to put these programs in place, rapidly evaluate them and quickly adopt the best strategies throughout the health care system -- and the Medicare commission could help to facilitate the movement from pilot programs to full practice as we learn more.

    As we enter the homestretch, the greatest risk we run is not completing health reform and letting this chance to lay a new foundation for our economy and our country pass us by. We have the building blocks to construct a health care system that provides the highest quality of care while embodying a process of continuous improvement -- a leap forward for the health of Americans and the fiscal health of the entire nation.
    link
  9. #1309  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You're determined to remove my choice. I'm not worthy, or smart enough. It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with self determination and the value of the individual. I don't know if you realize that that's really what this is all about.
    I'm determined to try and get you to answer the question: do you think if you want an MRI you should be able to just order it if your physician disagrees? Why won't you answer that question? Are there any limitations on your "choice"?
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1310  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Nice OPINION piece.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1311  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Find me an unbiased economist who says we are facing economic ruin because of the health care bills currently being considered. Do things need to be changed? Sure. They will be.

    "Economic ruin" is the "death panels" of the literate. Hyperbolic and misleading.
    I just said that this goes beyond these bills. Perhaps you missed that. The costs (whatever they turn out to be) will add to the problem that already exists, due to many, many years of government schemes, harkening back to the New Deal.

    It isn't misleading to realize that rising debt is a problem, a falling dollar is a problem. One need not be an economist to understand simple economic principles. Having Debt isn't a problem per se. Having debt that is increasing rapidly with ZERO plan on how to stem that tide is.

    Unbiased Economist. No. Perhaps the problem is that we are too busy listening to "experts" who distracts us from the simple facts of the matter. Instead of relying on "unbiased" experts--examine the facts for yourself. Look at history and other practices.

    Further--I'm curious, did you support the TARP idea? Isn't it our expert politicians and economists that said we would be in economic RUIN if we didn't do that? Aren't these same politicians who you trust to handle healthcare the same people that run around predicting economic RUIN if we don't bail out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, GM, etc?

    You can't have it both ways. When big government predicts economic ruin to justify what they want, then its totally reasonable, but when someone who is against this does so, well, then its hyperbole.

    KAM
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1312  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You have got to be joking. You are referencing Peter Orzag--Administration hack as an unbiased source?

    That's like referencing the coach of one team to adjudicate a call on the field against his team.

    Evan Thomas of Newsweek referred to this Healthcare reform as a "fiscal fraud", despite supporting it.

    KAM
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1313  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'm determined to try and get you to answer the question: do you think if you want an MRI you should be able to just order it if your physician disagrees? Why won't you answer that question? Are there any limitations on your "choice"?
    First off, there's two different things at play here. Research info and recommendations from panels of doctors that are informational, and politically appointed panels that will use that data to determine who gets what treatment and when. I'm against the later. (e.g., my daughter can still determine to be screened for breast cancer, even if she falls outside of the 'recommended' demographics for screening)

    But I'll try to answer your question: If I do my own research and determine that I want an MRI, and my doctor disagrees, I have three options:

    1) I can share my research data and try to convince this doctor to support my wish for an MRI
    2) Doctors are like everyone else. Opinions vary. I can look for a different doctor that shares my view
    3) I can pay for the MRI out of pocket (negotiating for cash will probably yield some savings)

    If I really believed that my treatment would be better served with the data results of an MRI, I'd do anything and everything I could to get those results.

    I don't need political appointed panels to determine these options for me.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1314  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    First off, there's two different things at play here. Research info and recommendations from panels of doctors that are informational, and politically appointed panels that will use that data to determine who gets what treatment and when. I'm against the later. (e.g., my daughter can still determine to be screened for breast cancer, even if she falls outside of the 'recommended' demographics for screening)

    But I'll try to answer your question: If I do my own research and determine that I want an MRI, and my doctor disagrees, I have three options:

    1) I can share my research data and try to convince this doctor to support my wish for an MRI
    2) Doctors are like everyone else. Opinions vary. I can look for a different doctor that shares my view
    3) I can pay for the MRI out of pocket (negotiating for cash will probably yeild some savings)

    If I really believed that my treatment would be better served with the data results of an MRI, I'd do anything and everything I could to get those results.

    I don't need political appointed panels to determine these options for me.
    If anyone doubts that the government can and will make decisions for you, only need look at GM for an example or the bank bailouts. This is the EXACT justification--that they are protecting the taxpayer investment (that you will never reap a reward from and didn't agree to--some investment) they use when they fire the CEO of GM or tell banks what to do.

    How stupid are we to expect that when government Pays for things (which is of course another lie--WE pay for things) they decide how that money will be spent. If they want to control what happens they will, and you will have ZERO to say about it. Will this happen? I cannot predict that, but it HAS happened in the past with other things, so let's not fantasize that this is some impossible thing--it isn't.

    And what is your recourse? Nothing. If the government wants you to lose, you lose, period. There is no third party to appeal to. That third party role is the proper place of the government--as an independent arbiter.

    KAM
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1315  
    Hello Everyone,

    Let's cut to the chase--I'm happy to call this leftist bluff. All you have to do is put a Sunset Clause in this--so that when these promises are not met, the entire thing goes away.

    This shouldn't be a problem--as long as they are telling the truth, and their numbers are good. I'll even give them a variance--let's say 10%. So, if after 4 years it doesn't do as promised--we throw it out. What could be more fair?

    KAM
  16. #1316  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    First off, there's two different things at play here. Research info and recommendations from panels of doctors that are informational, and politically appointed panels that will use that data to determine who gets what treatment and when. I'm against the later. (e.g., my daughter can still determine to be screened for breast cancer, even if she falls outside of the 'recommended' demographics for screening)

    But I'll try to answer your question: If I do my own research and determine that I want an MRI, and my doctor disagrees, I have three options:

    1) I can share my research data and try to convince this doctor to support my wish for an MRI
    2) Doctors are like everyone else. Opinions vary. I can look for a different doctor that shares my view
    3) I can pay for the MRI out of pocket (negotiating for cash will probably yield some savings)

    If I really believed that my treatment would be better served with the data results of an MRI, I'd do anything and everything I could to get those results.

    I don't need political appointed panels to determine these options for me.
    And how many average consumers in this country (or any country) will take those steps? Essentially, again I agree with what you wrote. It sounds like you agree with having the physician determine what will be done and not done, at least in terms of having it paid for, is that correct? And if you want something outside of those recommendations, you will pay for it yourself, right?

    Sounding more and more like Canada to me....especially if US doctors go by suggested (but not required) guidelines.
  17. #1317  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I just said that this goes beyond these bills. Perhaps you missed that. The costs (whatever they turn out to be) will add to the problem that already exists, due to many, many years of government schemes, harkening back to the New Deal.

    It isn't misleading to realize that rising debt is a problem, a falling dollar is a problem. One need not be an economist to understand simple economic principles. Having Debt isn't a problem per se. Having debt that is increasing rapidly with ZERO plan on how to stem that tide is.

    Unbiased Economist. No. Perhaps the problem is that we are too busy listening to "experts" who distracts us from the simple facts of the matter. Instead of relying on "unbiased" experts--examine the facts for yourself. Look at history and other practices.

    Further--I'm curious, did you support the TARP idea? Isn't it our expert politicians and economists that said we would be in economic RUIN if we didn't do that? Aren't these same politicians who you trust to handle healthcare the same people that run around predicting economic RUIN if we don't bail out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, GM, etc?

    You can't have it both ways. When big government predicts economic ruin to justify what they want, then its totally reasonable, but when someone who is against this does so, well, then its hyperbole.

    KAM
    Although my posts were close in location, I was not suggesting that Orzag is unbiased. He is part of the administration. It's just that his "opinion" piece has a lot of truth to it based on what I see.

    I do not claim to know anything about TARP and whether or not it was a good thing. I also fail to see what evidence you have that we would NOT have been in economic ruin without TARP? I have to admit I think that the responses of the bailout S and L's was pathetic, and that they still don't get it, but that doesn't really surprise me, since the same thing is true of big business. Given the lifelong support of Wall Street by republicans, including removing significant controls, why would one expect anything different?
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1318  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Although my posts were close in location, I was not suggesting that Orzag is unbiased. He is part of the administration. It's just that his "opinion" piece has a lot of truth to it based on what I see.
    That's fine if you think that is relevant, but considering your dismissive attitude towards "biased" sources, I found that interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I do not claim to know anything about TARP and whether or not it was a good thing. I also fail to see what evidence you have that we would NOT have been in economic ruin without TARP? I have to admit I think that the responses of the bailout S and L's was pathetic, and that they still don't get it, but that doesn't really surprise me, since the same thing is true of big business. Given the lifelong support of Wall Street by republicans, including removing significant controls, why would one expect anything different?
    "Lifelong support of Wallstreet by Republicans." You really believe that? Ever hear of a guy named Robert Rubin..."Brilliant" Treasury Secretary under President Clinton...you know the same guy that drove Citibank into the ground. How about Larry Summers--current economic adviser to President Obama. Your mantra about Republicans and big business is VERY outdated. Democrats aren't the party of the poor working man--they are every bit as intertwined in big business as Republicans are.

    Back to the point--as you seem to confirm here--you are perfectly willing to believe that economic ruin is possible (without TARP), but somehow economic ruin is not possible for other reasons. The point, if I'm not being clear enough is that economic ruin is not hyperbole, or fantasy--it might very well be reality if we keep on making stupid, unsustainable economic choices.

    KAM
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1319  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    When will conservatives accept that the government IS us? It's not some monolithic, scary beast--it's made up of citizens who represent the rest of the citizens. Sure, when the government pay, we pay--but the government isn't trying to undermine America, it steps in when the alternatives are failing.
    Hmmm, I wonder how you'd be supporting that notion about a year ago. The Bush administration was "you" huh?

    Let's not pretend that we are being well represented by our government. Theoretically, yes we are a government of, by and for the people. Ask how many people feel that is really the case.

    Actually, it is a scary beast, because our politicians have become far too distant from their constituents in my view.

    Is government's goal to undermine America? No, I don't believe that, and in general, I WANT to be trusting of my government, but blind trust is idiotic. We are supposed to be overseeing our government to make sure this is happening, and power-hungry people are doing their best to make sure that doesn't happen.

    Don't be naive about government vs the citizens. We have a great system, built on high ideals, but it isn't perfect, and it isn't uncorruptible, and can be under the control of those that I think are harming the country.

    I'd be really interested in hearing how trusting you were of the past administration. I somehow doubt that you simply said "Oh, its the government of the people--no reason to worry about anything."

    When will you learn the lesson that government MUST be carefully watched, because individuals alone cannot oppose it, and when we mindlessly go along with our "leaders" it is a very bad thing potentially.

    Many people out there don't even have a basic understanding of how our system of government is supposed to work. Add into that politicians who are more than happy to forward that notion, and we're already on the edge.

    Just change the word "conservative" to "liberal" in your post and imagine how well that would be received addressing that to some liberal during the Bush administration. I'm sure I'd be hearing "not my President" in a heartbeat (things I don't say).

    KAM
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1320  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And how many average consumers in this country (or any country) will take those steps? Essentially, again I agree with what you wrote. It sounds like you agree with having the physician determine what will be done and not done, at least in terms of having it paid for, is that correct? And if you want something outside of those recommendations, you will pay for it yourself, right?

    Sounding more and more like Canada to me....especially if US doctors go by suggested (but not required) guidelines.
    Thats a different issue... the choice of where I get, or if I get, insurance. We were on panels. How you got from there to Canada is a bit of a stretch, as far as I'm concerned. You're shifting on me.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posting Permissions