[KAM1138]

Nope, not ever going to run for any office.

Here's a 1972 Time article on McGovern's inheritance tax proposal. He got slammed really hard on it. He was messing with family fortunes.

POLITICAL REPORT: What McGovern Would Mean to the Country - TIME

Thanks--I'll read that over when I get some time.

KAM

[KAM1138]

In the interest of dignity and integrity, I'll just ignore the false statements you just made in ascribing to me things I've never said, implied, or done.

Yes, that's correct, what I "just said" (what you quoted) does not apply to you...because it was a direct response to someone else. Awesome demonstration of the quality of your posts.

KAM

[Toby]

Simple question _ do you trust the government?

Simple answer: no. Answer to the direct corollaries, I have not trusted any government since I've been old enough to think for myself. When you start trusting government, you start down the path of subjugation. Citizens must be eternally vigilant. Why would you trust anyone who spends more acquiring a job than they will ever make legally at that job?

[Toby]

[...] I believe someone in here said the median income of physicians was $140,000. [...]

I'd be curious what the mean is.

[Toby]

I think people that work should be rewarded. As I said, I believe in a planned economy, rather than an unplanned economy. In a planned economy you eliminate risk. In an unplanned economy you create risk.

Please explain to me why you don't consider yourself a socialist?

Here's a nightmarish thought for you. If you were brought up the same way either John Edwards or I were brought up, you'd probably be a Democrat today!

There's a flaw in your premise. I was brought up by working class Democrats. My paternal grandfather was a true Yellow Dog. I am not a Democrat (nor a Republican for that matter). We are not robots programmed to think exactly like our parents (or at least we shouldn't be).

[1thing2add]

Yes, that's correct, what I "just said" (what you quoted) does not apply to you...because it was a direct response to someone else. Awesome demonstration of the quality of your posts.

KAM

Since you've plainly called be a liar (though lacking any supportive evidence), and I've referred to you as as being obstructionist by demonstrating how you have met its definition, we should call it a draw?

I'm unsure I've ever seen a case of someone who is so deathly allergic to a simple question before. Either that or simple math scares the bloody hell out of you. Thanks for clarifying!

Just because you would like to ignore the question into oblivion does not mean it goes anywhere.

[KAM1138]

Simple question _ do you trust the government?

That's a really good question. My answer is that I trust our system of government (sometimes that's hard too), but that doesn't mean that I will just accept anything they want, nor does it mean that I follow them blindly.

My view is that citizens have a never-ending responsibility to manage our government--after all, they derive their power from us, work for us, and are a government "of the people." I think its easy for that to get lost, especially amongst career politicians.

So, I'd say its more a situation of trust but verify.

KAM

[clemgrad85]

No. It's the difference between someone with real skin in the game and those who treat healthcare like it's a game on their Pre.

LOL....wow....another person who woke up a little bit cranky. Grab some coffee....think of ways to defend all of Obama's lies.....and relax.....serenity now....serenity now!

[KAM1138]

Since you've plainly called be a liar (though lacking any supportive evidence), and I've referred to you as as being obstructionist by demonstrating how you have met its definition, we should call it a draw?

I'm unsure I've ever seen a case of someone who is so deathly allergic to a simple question before. Either that or simple math scares the bloody hell out of you. Thanks for clarifying!

Just because you would like to ignore the question into oblivion does not mean it goes anywhere.

Yes, I believe I answered that question in post 1998. Apparently you missed that as well. You're two for two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
Do you even acknowledge that you already pay for the care of the uninsured? That is a very fundamental yes or no question that is being skirted by every naysayer.

My response:
Certainly. I have taxes taken directly to pay for Medicare, as well as money from my general taxes taken for other programs (like Medicaid). As someone who pays for medical care, I also pay the elevated costs passed on. Or at least that is my understanding. No one has actually ever billed me with a line item that said "payment for the uninsured" but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

As you can see--I answered your "fundamental" question. Of course this is even more strange given that you've claimed you don't need to ask me questions.

Originally Posted by 1thing2add
One needn't "ask" anything when your positions are plainly expressed for all to read.

So, let's review. You say there is no need to ask questions, and then ask me questions. I answer the question and you accuse me of avoiding answering. That's not just dishonest--that's totally incoherent. You say that I've said nothing, but claimed that my views are "plainly expressed."

I find your behavior to be really, really bizarre as well as incoherent.

KAM

[clemgrad85]

I think people that work should be rewarded. As I said, I believe in a planned economy, rather than an unplanned economy. In a planned economy you eliminate risk. In an unplanned economy you create risk. Are you saying that if I work my arse off for 1 hours, my labor isn't worth as much as yours because you are that much better than me? Pay you $100 an hour and pay me $10 an hour? You think that's fair?

Wow....so many crazy statements in this one. Yes, whether it is you making $100 an hour or me making a $100 an hour, it is quite fair if someone is willing to pay you or me that. It's called.....what's that word....capitalism. What wouldn't be right is palandri determining what a fair wage should be....the market place will determine that....and I trust the market place more than palandri.

Life is a learning experience and I believe behavior is learned. I was brought up in a blue collar, working class, union family. Organizations like the AFL-CIO have had a great influence in my life. They place a great emphasis on things like brotherhood, unity and on emphasis on "we" rather than "me".

Well....I'll tell my Dad, who was in the military early in his career, then sold tires (he actually went around with a tires to parking lots to try and sell them), then got into financial sales later in life, that he isn't working class. Why is it that folks like you who brag about being blue collar and the working class, seem also to be jealous of others? You obviously seem to have a problem with folks who work hard AND find great financial success (unless, of course, they are democrats like the Kennedys and John Edwards...please....is John Edwards the best example to use as someone to look up to?)

Let's look at one of your home boys, John Edwards. Of course he now lives in North Carolina, but he was born and raised mostly in Seneca, South Carolina. He's father was Textile Mill Worker. His mother refinished antiques and later became a Postal Worker. His brother is an Union Electrician. He's in the same Labor Union that I am, The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Guess what we think alike!

Here's a nightmarish thought for you. If you were brought up the same way either John Edwards or I were brought up, you'd probably be a Democrat today!

Please don't connect Edwards to SC.....I'll let NC have him. And congratulations on you and the Edwards clan on having the same thought patterns....ummm....if you're married your wife might want to keep her eyes on you if she gets sick. Edwards....really?.....you put Edwards on a pedestal? Hey....ask John Edward's brother if John is willing to give up all his money over $5 million for "the brotherhood".

Here's a nightmarish thought for you.....ummm.....I was not brought up in a wealthy family....my Dad worked his **** off to get his 3 children through college (yes, some student loans helped as well, and the children paid those loans back) and all 3 have actually probably done better than him. He made the sacrifice for HIS FAMILY so that we could try and do better. You have a problem with that?

[1thing2add]

LOL....wow....another person who woke up a little bit cranky. Grab some coffee....think of ways to defend all of Obama's lies.....and relax.....serenity now....serenity now!

Thanks for clarifying that this thread, indeed, your entire reason for existing here, is to propagandize anti-Obama talking points. A consideration for you: That which flies in the face of propaganda cannot automatically be defined as blind support for Obama. It's been my experience that calm reason usually gets met with calm reason in the civilized world. Otherwise, such linear logic only results in polarized war.

[clemgrad85]

And by the way Palandri, as a "moderator", you sure do a lousy job of keeping to the theme of the thread. Shouldn't you start a new thread? Maybe you can call it: How can we get the US to socialism even quicker?

[KAM1138]

LOL....wow....another person who woke up a little bit cranky. Grab some coffee....think of ways to defend all of Obama's lies.....and relax.....serenity now....serenity now!

It isn't a matter of defending anything (I'll avoid calling them lies), its a matter of attacking others. The goal is to not consider the actual situation at all, but to distract. The goal is to pile enough nonsense on top of others' views such that it suffocates, under the sheer weight of noise.

I'm not sure if they imagine that what they are doing is effective or that people can't see right through it or what. In any case--I don't expect that it will stop anytime soon. There is a whole host of "True believers" out there willing to say anything.

KAM

[1thing2add]

Yes, I believe I answered that question in post 1998. Apparently you missed that as well. You're two for two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
Do you even acknowledge that you already pay for the care of the uninsured? That is a very fundamental yes or no question that is being skirted by every naysayer.

My response:
Certainly. I have taxes taken directly to pay for Medicare, as well as money from my general taxes taken for other programs (like Medicaid). As someone who pays for medical care, I also pay the elevated costs passed on. Or at least that is my understanding. No one has actually ever billed me with a line item that said "payment for the uninsured" but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

As you can see--I answered your "fundamental" question. Of course this is even more strange given that you've claimed you don't need to ask me questions.

Originally Posted by 1thing2add
One needn't "ask" anything when your positions are plainly expressed for all to read.

So, let's review. You say there is no need to ask questions, and then ask me questions. I answer the question and you accuse me of avoiding answering. That's not just dishonest--that's totally incoherent. You say that I've said nothing, but claimed that my views are "plainly expressed."

I find your behavior to be really, really bizarre as well as incoherent.

KAM

When you quote me, kindly do so in context. In that spirit, it is oh-so-easily noted that my reference to "not asking [you] questions" was in regard to your generic anti-Obama views, given how plainly transparent your rhetoric is. Try your rope-a-dope, inside-out logic on someone else. It is only met with failure here.

Forgive my blind faith that a sensibly fundamental question regarding the economics of healthcare would be of any interest to a person whose sole motivation is to trickle down onto this administration at any and all costs, including that of his dignity. The question of the costs of providing equal care for the uninsured/under-insured, both under today's failed system as well as under public option proposals being considered is the very question before you that you avoid like the plague. You know ... the one you've avoided like the plague for the past couple pages or so. Thanks for the (unstated) answer anyway.

[davidra]

I'm not attempting to be sarcastic with you in regards to this example. I'm taking conditions that you set out and suggesting a concept--for the purpose of discussion.

I'm sure many doctors work long hours--especially young doctors. I'm not attempting to make light of the situation, but rather stating that working the extra hours equal to the non-paying customer's needs would help to keep the total income level high. That combined with the second option, where the material costs are paid for with taxpayer funds would be an less burdensome system.

One of the things you and/or others pointed out is the drain that occurs with insurance companies. That's true--they take X dollars and return less than X dollars. The same goes for the government. Using YOUR and people on your side of the issue's criteria, I came up with the suggestion I did. By eliminating almost all government or insurance involvement in regards to providing medical care for the poor, it makes that as efficient as possible. The way that came to mind and that I posted was to eliminate all that red-tape and overhead of administration by keeping the interaction directly between doctor and patient--something else I believe you looked on favorably.

You think I'm joking, or poking fun at you, or being sarcastic. I'm not--I'm taking the criteria that you put forward and suggesting the most efficient system to meet the goals you state. I make no claim that it is perfect or even anything close--its just a concept, and evaluating that concept teaches things.

I'm going to ignore your labels, and insults that you seem to depend on and keep talking about the issues--even if only via a conceptual discussion such as this. If you aren't interested in discussing it, then don't reply. However, despite the claims of you and others who spend a good amount of their time making accusations, I've posted quite a number of ideas. So, your claim that I've added nothing worthwhile is of course your subjective claim, not a fact.

If you dislike my views and ideas, I'd really ask that you deal with that in an adult manner, and stop with the school-yard type of stuff. You don't have to keep trying to apply labels to me. If people think I'm an obstructionist, then they will come to that conclusion--it doesn't matter either way, because I know what my views are and why I believe them.

KAM

That right there is the first post that I can remember from you that isn't mean-spirited and close-minded. While you may feel free to say the same thing about me, I consider that a step forward.

Now. Doing away with middlemen, whether the government or an insurance company certainly has appeal. Given what my ideal outcome is, cost-effective care available to every citizen (note that word) in the US, without bankrupting the country, how that goal is reached is less important to me than whether or not it is reached. It's just that I have been dealing with insurance companies, for-profit and non-profit, directly for many years. I have also dealt with Medicare for many years. Other than the difference in reimbursement, I would be surprised if you could find anyone who works in an office and deals with billing that they would rather deal with an insurance company, either in terms of time-related payment or approval of services for reimbursement. Frankly, both of them suck, but Medicare sucks less. And it costs less.

Fantasizing about direct payment is fine; I posted a link about it. But that doesn't solve the problem of how people are going to pay for it if: 1. you do away with Medicaid and/or Medicare 2. You don't control the cost of care so that people can afford it, even though it would be cheaper without a middleman. If you continue Medicare and Medicaid, overhaul both (Medicaid needs it worse than Medicare), maintain private insurance as it currently exists, then what do you do with people who are working but can't afford the direct plans? That is exactly why having some kind of public option, or employer mandate, will help the issue of the uninsured workers.

[KAM1138]

When you quote me, kindly do so in context. In that spirit, it is oh-so-easily noted that my reference to "not asking [you] questions" was in regard to your generic anti-Obama views, given how plainly transparent your rhetoric is. Try your rope-a-dope, inside-out logic on someone else. It is only met with failure here.

Forgive my blind faith that a sensibly fundamental question regarding the economics of healthcare would be of any interest to a person whose sole motivation is to trickle down onto this administration at any and all costs, including that of his dignity. The question of the costs of providing equal care for the uninsured/under-insured, both under today's failed system as well as under public option proposals being considered is the very question before you that you avoid like the plague. You know ... the one you've avoided like the plague for the past couple pages or so. Thanks for the (unstated) answer anyway.

You stated the "fundamental" question that you say is being "skirted"--but I answered it.

Must I confirm for you what everyone who isn't insane already knows--that costs are inherent to the entire issue--what things do cost, what they will cost--yes. Is your world better now, that I've confirmed for you what everyone else already knows.

Do you want me to answer whether the sky is blue for you as well?

KAM

[Toby]

[...] Do you want me to answer whether the sky is blue for you as well?

That's the fundamental problem with trying to handle these things at a national level. The sky isn't blue here at the moment.

[1thing2add]

You stated the "fundamental" question that you say is being "skirted"--but I answered it.

Must I confirm for you what everyone who isn't insane already knows--that costs are inherent to the entire issue--what things do cost, what they will cost--yes. Is your world better now, that I've confirmed for you what everyone else already knows.

Do you want me to answer whether the sky is blue for you as well?

KAM

Now I'm "insane" and a "liar"? The good news is that you have plenty of company of like-minded people at the bottom of the barrell. You already know the bad news.

I did not ask if the concept of costs was pertinent. I asked for a comparison of costs. Plan and simple. The question from #2083 is the very one asked multiple times over the past several pages. If you have the ability to acknowledge that "costs matter" (DUH!), then why not entertainment the logical next step of what the actual costs are (current/projected under the current system vs those under proposed plans) under a comparison? Has the GOP/Conservative radio hosts not supplied you with those talking points yet? When are they scheduled for arrival?

[KAM1138]

That right there is the first post that I can remember from you that isn't mean-spirited and close-minded. While you may feel free to say the same thing about me, I consider that a step forward.

Davidra--I say this in all honesty, I'd be more than happy to discuss any and all of this issues in a friendly and constructive manner with you. I have no interest in making you an enemy--even though I think we disagree on many things.

Now. Doing away with middlemen, whether the government or an insurance company certainly has appeal. Given what my ideal outcome is, cost-effective care available to every citizen (note that word) in the US, without bankrupting the country, how that goal is reached is less important to me than whether or not it is reached. It's just that I have been dealing with insurance companies, for-profit and non-profit, directly for many years. I have also dealt with Medicare for many years. Other than the difference in reimbursement, I would be surprised if you could find anyone who works in an office and deals with billing that they would rather deal with an insurance company, either in terms of time-related payment or approval of services for reimbursement. Frankly, both of them suck, but Medicare sucks less. And it costs less.

Well, I've not defended insurance companies, and as I'm sure you will recall, had a specific idea to minimize their involvement--by removing them from the equation.
Medicare--about it sucking. We agree. You stated the difference--that you are focused on the goal, because as you've pointed out treating sick people is your business. I'm more focused on how to actually accomplish this, because I believe the system chosen will ultimately determine whether the goal is accomplished or not. You seem to be of the opinion that medicare is the best option, but as you say--they suck, so I think you'd agree that if we can find a better system, that would be preferable.

One thing I heard this morning on the radio (I have no way to confirm it right now) is that Medicare's administrative costs are dealt with differently, and essentially don't show up on the medicare roles. The claim is that the overhead is much greater than the numbers they state. Again--I have no information to confirm that right off. I mention this, because I think it supports the general view that it also has inefficiency.

One of my concepts key points was to bypass all of that--both insurance and government. As you may recall, I see insurance and government in the same role, and really don't want either of them--or more accurately as little of them as possible.

Fantasizing about direct payment is fine; I posted a link about it. But that doesn't solve the problem of how people are going to pay for it if: 1. you do away with Medicaid and/or Medicare 2. You don't control the cost of care so that people can afford it, even though it would be cheaper without a middleman. If you continue Medicare and Medicaid, overhaul both (Medicaid needs it worse than Medicare), maintain private insurance as it currently exists, then what do you do with people who are working but can't afford the direct plans? That is exactly why having some kind of public option, or employer mandate, will help the issue of the uninsured workers.

This gets back to my other ideas, not this no-pay concept, and as I mentioned--I have not quite integrated those differing ideas yet, but I think it can be done.

As far as direct payment for people who currently have insurance--I see that as just a shifting of money. Instead of paying high premiums for broad coverage, pay low premiums for narrow (catastrophic) coverage. I don't think there is a reasonable way to take a bigger step at this point. This system is already essentially available with HSAs and high deductible insurance (which mimics what I suggest fairly closely). I believe some insurance companies offer catastrophic only policies as well.

With this, the direct payer system is established--for this segment of people, for common medical care. Its a partial step, but one that I think has good opportunities for improvement because the volume of common care. I'd expect that a significant majority of interactions would be under direct payment.

This has a beneficial side effect I think--that is reducing the overhead of insurance companies. It should also address the skyrocketing prices issue, because the payouts will drop dramatically, because common costs are removed. Medical insurance goes back to following an insurance model, because the constant drain of common medical care payments is gone.

Now, you don't seem to like the free market, but I think it will work with common medical care, just like it does with anything else--including closely related fields of dentistry and eyewear. Insurance coverage is much less common, and common costs are much more manageable.

Younger people would benefit greatly--because they have better odds of building a significant HSA fund over healthier years.

As far as those who can't pay for insurance, but are working. Well, again, I suggest that the 300 billion we currently spend on medicaid should be enough to cover them. President Obama used the 30 million number--that's 10,000 per person, which should be enough to fund both the HSA and the insurance just like everyone else has. I envision a simplified system where the government's role is to make determinations of need, and then fund the account and pay for the catastrophic insurance. The majority of transactions (by volume) remains as direct payer as well.

Essentially this transforms medicaid into distributing funds to HSAs and Insurance that is directly parallel to what non-poor people can have.

Now, for the elderly, I'm not sure I've got any particular suggestions for that. I don't think that those who are currently on it can be shifted off. However, it may be possible that the system set up with HSA and insurance if started at age 18 or so, can end up being significant enough such that the elderly can have at least a partial direct pay system as well. It is possible to build a large value of an HSA over 40+ years that will provide a pool for expenses that tend to increase as we get older.

So, to review--it is a partial step towards direct payer that maintains the "safety net" of insurance for catastrophic issues. It eliminates to a large degree indirect payer systems (and the overhead that comes with them). The poor are subsidized in a way that makes them exactly like anyone else--providers may not even be able to discern a poor patient from another--in regards to payment and insurance.

Now, alternatively, I think the no-payer concept could possibly be merged with some of these others, but as I said at the beginning--it wasn't my preference.

Now, is it just that simple? Of course not, however, studies could be performed and values and estimates created to project savings and benefits. Perhaps someone has a different take on some element of this that would make it a better idea--fine, I'd be happy to hear it.

Bottom line--I think it is essential to eliminate as much overhead (no matter if from government or insurance companies) as possible, and the best way to do that is from my perspective is to move towards a direct payer system.

KAM

[KAM1138]

Now I'm "insane" and a "liar"? The good news is that you have plenty of company of like-minded people at the bottom of the barrell. You already know the bad news.

I did not ask if the concept of costs was pertinent. I asked for a comparison of costs. Plan and simple. The question from #2083 is the very one asked multiple times over the past several pages. If you have the ability to acknowledge that "costs matter" (DUH!), then why not entertainment the logical next step of what the actual costs are (current/projected under the current system vs those under proposed plans) under a comparison? Has the GOP/Conservative radio hosts not supplied you with those talking points yet? When are they scheduled for arrival?

You are asking for a comparison of costs? I'd suggest the CBO.

When I say "what things do cost, what they will cost"--that's referring to a comparison. See--there are two categories--what they do cost, and what they will cost. When you consider those two things its called a comparison. Did you get all confused because I didn't use the world "comparison"?

I'm sorry I didn't realize that you needed to have it spelled out for you, by me specifically no less. Let me state it again, so you won't have any more confusion. Yes, comparing costs is important. I've confirmed for you what is obvious to everyone who has the most basic understanding of the topic of healthcare reform.

Now go ahead and figure out what other sort of irrelevant distracting nonsense you can come up with. Perhaps you can start accusing me of racism--that's a popular one.

KAM