Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;556679]You aught to be bright enough than to run with someone else's spin. Limbaugh said he wants Obama to fail. What's wrong with that? Didn't you want Bush to fail? If he had been a great president then we wouldn't have Obama. That idiot Sikes went and twisted it like Obama is America. So by wanting Obama to fail you then want America to fail? That makes no sense. If I wanted Bush to fail on some of his policies that means I didn't want Harriot Myers to be a Supreme Court Justice. That would've been bad for America. What's good for a politician isn't exactly good for the nation.[/quote]

I think Bush was a failure, I didn't want him to fail. I hoped he would do a better job as president and I hoped he was defated in 2004. That is the extent of my feelings towards Bush. If Rushbo wants Obama to fail I have no problem with seeing Rushbo on his death bed and on dialysis. I don't understand why you don't think that's an acceptable position.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;556680]I know and understand that I can be a d*ck at times but I'm only a d*ck when it's warranted. These teabaggers aught to be [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html"]ashamed of themselves[/URL].[/quote]
Those signs are nothing compared to some of the signs I've seen about Bush, but again for some reason they are ok. And if those signs at the tea parties are really the worst ones they can find, I don't think that is that bad. There are always going to be some nutjobs on both sides of the political spectrum.

[quote=saden1;556681]I think Bush was a failure, I didn't want him to fail. I hoped he would do a better job as president and I hoped he was defated in 2004. That is the extent of my feelings towards Bush. If Rushbo wants Obama to fail I have no problem with seeing Rushbo on his death bed and on dialysis. I don't understand why you don't think that's an acceptable position.[/quote]
He said he wanted Obama to fail because Obama is bringing in liberalism and socialism and he wants that to fail. He wants America to succeed and that is only going to happen is Obama fails because his policies won't work.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;556681]I think Bush was a failure, I didn't want him to fail. I hoped he would do a better job as president and I hoped he was defated in 2004. That is the extent of my feelings towards Bush. If Rushbo wants Obama to fail I have no problem with seeing Rushbo on his death bed and on dialysis. I don't understand why you don't think that's an acceptable position.[/quote]
So you think Bush had a great tax policy and should have giving the rich more of a tax break? Rush thinks Obam's policies hurt the US thus he wants them to fail and now your saying if Rush was dying you would be happy?

Re: the new health care?
 

...and I want Rush's health to fail. Nothing personal...I just believe that failure of hate/fear mongers is going to be good for America.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;556681]I think Bush was a failure, I didn't want him to fail. I hoped he would do a better job as president and I hoped he was defated in 2004. That is the extent of my feelings towards Bush. If Rushbo wants Obama to fail I have no problem with seeing Rushbo on his death bed and on dialysis. I don't understand why you don't think that's an acceptable position.[/quote]

I happened to have a friend die of kidney failure last year. Wishing someone to die in agonizing pain just make you a jerk.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;556693]I happened to have a friend die of kidney failure last year. Wishing someone to die in agonizing pain just make you a jerk.[/quote]

LOL...this is so funny...you of all people talking about what constitutes being jerk is hilarious. If I'm a jerk what is El Rushbo?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;556696]LOL...this is so funny...you of all people talking about what constitutes being jerk is hilarious. If I'm a jerk what is El Rushbo?[/quote]

How's this: Rush wanting the President of the US to fail in his attempt to bring us out of the worst recession in decades makes him a jerk.

You wanting someone to suffer a painful and agonzing death for their political views makes you a jerk.

Seems simple enough to me.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;556698]How's this: Rush wanting the President of the US to fail in his attempt to bring us out of the worst recession in decades makes him a jerk.

You wanting someone to suffer a painful and agonzing death for their political views makes you a jerk.

Seems simple enough to me.[/quote]

This is acceptable to me. I am fully aware of my 'jerkyness' and when it comes to Rushbo I feel justified.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;556692]...and I want Rush's health to fail. Nothing personal...I just believe that failure of hate/fear mongers is going to be good for America.[/quote]Let me add my two cents, wishing death on someone because of differing political views makes you a jerk. Talk about hate mongering.

I used to respect many of the debates we had. I hope you're just having a bad day or something.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;556702]Let me add my two cents, wishing death on someone because of differing political views makes you a jerk. Talk about hate mongering.

I used to respect many of the debates we had. I hope you're just having a bad day or something.[/quote]

This is not about political views, this is about "I hope Obama fails" and host of other offensive things he has said in the past. My feelings towards Rushbo shouldn't be narrowed in scope.

Re: the new health care?
 

I can honestly say that I am not too surprised with some of the posts that I have read in this thread. This thing has the makings of getting out of hand, and I fear that some of us will not be able to be friends after this thread. So in an appeal to the friendly neigborhood moderator who will listen. PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD!!!

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;556705]This is not about political views, this is about "I hope Obama fails" and host of other offensive things he has said in the past. My feelings towards Rushbo shouldn't be narrowed in scope.[/quote]
This is about political views. Rush has done nothing but state his political opinion. Has Rush said offensive and stupid things in the past, yes. However being on live, unscripted radio for over 20 years I'm sure he regrets some things he said. However to me this isn't about Rush Limbaugh.

This is about liberals being able to say whatever they want to crush any opposition to their ideals and then casting the opposition as the "evil, racist, hate-mongering right-wing extremists". Look at the venom toward Ms. CA, you may not agree with her views but what she said had no ounce of hate towards gays. Yet the "open-minded", "all-inclusive", "tolerant", "empathetic" liberals spewed every kind of insult at her with no backlash in the mainstream media. Rush makes a comment that is taken completely out of context and it's OK to wish death upon him. Flat-out, this mind-set is bullshit. Maybe we should just suspend the 1st ammendment for all conservative speech.

What's even worse is the President who said he would work to end the partisanship in DC got a great laugh off Sykes' comments.

Here's the complete transcipt of what Rush said:
[B]HANNITY:[/B] Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you — you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his world view.
So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?
[B]LIMBAUGH:[/B] Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question.
[B]HANNITY:[/B] I'm glad to.
[B]LIMBAUGH:[/B] I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans. Yes, we wanted — they have laid down. They have totally — they're drinking the Kool- Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism, they're afraid of being called racists, they're afraid of not having gotten with the program.
Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier I don't know about this guy. I really don't. I've got my — I've got my suspicions, and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes.
[B]HANNITY:[/B] Yes.
[B]LIMBAUGH:[/B] If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?
Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. I — if he is going to implement a far left — look it. I think it's already decided. $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.
If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.
Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great.
So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, [B]if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism,[/B] as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

The bolded part is what liberals fail to consider. The programs FDR implemented are one of the main reasons our government is so far in debt. Collectivism / socialism has left a trail of tens of millions dead in the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. it doesn't have a great track record. European countries that have trended socialist for the most part have ridiculous tax rates and worse problems than we do. My belief is that Obama's agenda/programs may do irreperable harm to our country. I don't wish death upon him though.

I agree with Rush 100% on his statement, do you wish a painful death on me as well?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;556668]Perhaps it's also time to privatize the military as it is currently inefficient and sustainable to fraud. Instead of blaming the government how about blaming the fraudsters? Your argument is no different than that of people who want to ban guns because they kill people.[/quote]Your logic sucks and you've said nothing to refute my point. This isn't about the military or banning guns. This is about government programs with little to no oversight. These government programs get bloated because the people running them are not spending their own money and there is no RoI or cost-justification to their jobs. All this is present in the private sector. Corporations do not have morals they exist to make money. Just like going to buy a car, you get what you can negotiate. If a corporation sees a chance to make money with no negative reprecussion it will. Is it morally right, no. But you wouldn't assume a car dealer will give you the best deal they can because they're moral, nice people. Put a private corporation in place to run oversight on government health programs and incentivise them to get better rates and find savings and you'll have a more efficient program.

[quote]I am sorry but I can't bring myself to respect people who think this country is heading down the toilet because of the new Administration and Congress. There's nothing to respect about these people's views. Nothing! What's disappointing is that somehow you think they should be respected.
[/quote]Ironic?

[B][SIZE=3]lib·er·al[/SIZE][/B] (l[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/IMG]b[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif[/IMG]r-[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif[/IMG]l, l[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/IMG]b[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/IMG]r[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif[/IMG]l)
[B]1. [/B][B]a. [/B]Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
[B]b. [/B]Favoring proposals for reform, [B]open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.[/B]
[B]c. [/B]Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
[B]d. [/B][B]Liberal[/B] Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Re: the new health care?
 

Great posts Slingin Sammy !

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;556725]Your logic sucks and you've said nothing to refute my point. This isn't about the military or banning guns. This is about government programs with little to no oversight. These government programs get bloated because the people running them are not spending their own money and there is no RoI or cost-justification to their jobs. All this is present in the private sector. Corporations do not have morals they exist to make money. Just like going to buy a car, you get what you can negotiate. If a corporation sees a chance to make money with no negative reprecussion it will. Is it morally right, no. But you wouldn't assume a car dealer will give you the best deal they can because they're moral, nice people. Put a private corporation in place to run oversight on government health programs and incentivise them to get better rates and find savings and you'll have a more efficient program.

Ironic?

[B][SIZE=3]lib·er·al[/SIZE][/B] (l[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/IMG]b[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif[/IMG]r-[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif[/IMG]l, l[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/IMG]b[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/IMG]r[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif[/IMG]l)
[B]1. [/B][B]a. [/B]Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
[B]b. [/B]Favoring proposals for reform, [B]open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.[/B]
[B]c. [/B]Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
[B]d. [/B][B]Liberal[/B] Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.[/quote]


I don't have to refute anything, I'm playing by your rules and applying the same principles with respect to military spending. As far as the gun control analogy I don't see how that's an invalid reflection on your government is bad stance. Yes, the government is inefficiencies and wasteful...that's the cost of doing business.

I am liberal with limits. I only respect the respectable. I am open minded to those ideas that are rational. You have similar stance I imagine otherwise you would be open to my take on things.

Re: the new health care?
 

Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.

Re: the new health care?
 

"George Bush doesn't like black people"-Kanye West


Wait, is the idea to write off topic remarks?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Schneed10;556733]Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. [B]If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.[/quote][/B]
well, since i started this diaster, yes, i would like to know your opinion on it

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;556723][B]This is about political views.[/B] Rush has done nothing but state his political opinion. Has Rush said offensive and stupid things in the past, yes. However being on live, unscripted radio for over 20 years I'm sure he regrets some things he said. However to me this isn't about Rush Limbaugh.

This is about liberals being able to say whatever they want to crush any opposition to their ideals and then casting the opposition as the "evil, racist, hate-mongering right-wing extremists". Look at the venom toward Ms. CA, you may not agree with her views but what she said had no ounce of hate towards gays. Yet the "open-minded", "all-inclusive", "tolerant", "empathetic" liberals spewed every kind of insult at her with no backlash in the mainstream media. Rush makes a comment that is taken completely out of context and it's OK to wish death upon him. Flat-out, this mind-set is bullshit. Maybe we should just suspend the 1st ammendment for all conservative speech.

What's even worse is the President who said he would work to end the partisanship in DC got a great laugh off Sykes' comments.

Here's the complete transcipt of what Rush said:
[B]HANNITY:[/B] Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you — you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his world view.
So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?
[B]LIMBAUGH:[/B] Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question.
[B]HANNITY:[/B] I'm glad to.
[B]LIMBAUGH:[/B] I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans. Yes, we wanted — they have laid down. They have totally — they're drinking the Kool- Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism, they're afraid of being called racists, they're afraid of not having gotten with the program.
Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier I don't know about this guy. I really don't. I've got my — I've got my suspicions, and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes.
[B]HANNITY:[/B] Yes.
[B]LIMBAUGH:[/B] If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?
Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. I — if he is going to implement a far left — look it. I think it's already decided. $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.
If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.
Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great.
So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, [B]if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism,[/B] as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

The bolded part is what liberals fail to consider. The programs FDR implemented are one of the main reasons our government is so far in debt. Collectivism / socialism has left a trail of tens of millions dead in the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. it doesn't have a great track record. European countries that have trended socialist for the most part have ridiculous tax rates and worse problems than we do. My belief is that Obama's agenda/programs may do irreperable harm to our country. I don't wish death upon him though.

I agree with Rush 100% on his statement, do you wish a painful death on me as well?[/quote]

With Rush the ballgame is entirely different. It's part political, part dickishness, part racist, part homophobic, part hypocrisy, etc, etc. The man is loathsome creature. Detestable to the bone due to reasons that one would hope are obvious. There's nothing to like about him that I can think of. His whole shtick boils down to this...."he's not my guy and I want him to fail. His ideas and policies are retarded. I'm for America and democrats are not."

Like Joe said, I'm a jerk just like Rushbo though I do believe my thoughts here more reasoned than El Rushbo. I could be wrong on that though and I request to be excused for not caring about this man's wellbeing.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;556738][/b]
well, since i started this diaster, yes, i would like to know your opinion on it[/quote]

I of course am waiting on the details like everyone else, so until we see said details it gets tough to weigh in. But I will say that addressing the increasing costs is absolutely the right answer. Giving everyone in America health coverage is a nice thought, but if the underlying costs aren't addressed, then all you're doing is cutting up the pie in different size pieces and handing them out to more people.

Addressing costs would actually take a bite out of the pie (lemon merengue, please).

That said, you have to be wary of this particular plan because it was prepared by the insurance industry. They of course are looking out for number one. They make valid points, proposing legitimate ways to reduce costs. But it's all designed to preserve their own profits.

Obama needs to listen to the insurance industry here, but also listen to physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, nursing homes and all the others. They'll all have great ideas as to how to cut costs, it's just they'll all look at other parts of the industry to cut costs. Hospitals will have tons of ideas for how insurers can cut costs. Insurers will have tons of ideas for hospitals to cut costs. But nobody will volunteer to cut their own costs and put their employees out of work.

As long as Obama listens to everybody he can probably put something together that makes sense, cutting costs fairly for everyone.

I am of course very interested to hear what Obama ultimately decides to push for. This insurance industry proposal is nice, but it's just one lobbying group raising their hand to volunteer another lobbying group to cut expenses. I'm waiting for Obama's plan.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Schneed10;556733]Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.[/quote]

Welcome to the parking lot where even the most innocent of threads gets thrown off track into political bashing.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;556779]Welcome to the parking lot where even the most innocent of threads gets thrown off track into political bashing.[/quote]

You damn hippie-socialist-liberal.

Re: the new health care?
 

schneed, im not sure why the insurance companies would have any say in the matter. it really is all about cutting health care costs, isn't it? one would think if the costs go down, everyone would benefit, no?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;556820]schneed, im not sure why the insurance companies would have any say in the matter. it really is all about cutting health care costs, isn't it? one would think if the costs go down, everyone would benefit, no?[/quote]

Insurance companies employ people too. They can be part of the process but not the process.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;556820]schneed, im not sure why the insurance companies would have any say in the matter. it really is all about cutting health care costs, isn't it? one would think if the costs go down, everyone would benefit, no?[/quote]

There are lots of places costs can come from, though.

When you pay your health insurance premiums, some of the money gets paid out to doctors to cover office costs. Some gets paid out to hospitals to cover costs of getting an operation and staying in the hospital. Some gets kept by your insurance company so they can pay their people and make a profit. Some gets paid to the pharmacy where you pick up the drugs your doc prescribed you. Etc.

So [B]hospitals[/B] can play a role by: Being more efficient. Hospitals are big huge places and administration needs to be on top of doctors and staff to treat patients fast, get them healthy, and get them out sooner. The longer a patient stays in the hospital, the more it costs. Many times a doctor will order a MRI or a lab test to confirm a problem before he makes his next move, well if the hospital dawdles in getting that test done it delays the doctor, which screws up his schedule, and before you know it the weekend rolls around and he says well just keep the patient until Monday, I'll do a procedure then.

[B]Doctors[/B] can play a role by: using more efficient staffing. Nurse Practitioners can address 90% of physical ailments, and they make right around $100K as opposed to $150K on up to god knows what.

[B]Insurance companies[/B] can play a role by working to simplify their reimbursement agreements with providers. Make the payment system simpler so there are fewer denied payments and thus fewer appeals. The less you have of this kind of stuff, the fewer administrative support employees your insurance company has to pay.

The [B]government[/B] can play a role by:

- Mandating and helping hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors get up to speed with Information Systems allowing seamless integration of medical records and information. This prevents deaths due to drug interactions and would cut workers out of the system. Each hospital and doc office needs filing clerks just to handle the massive files of charts. Imagine how much you could save doing away with those salaries.

- Forcing insurance companies to reimburse according to Medicare rules. It's a simple way of doing it. I'd suggest they add a pay for performance mandate too.

- Cap malpractice awards. Huge multimillion dollar payments to plaintiffs only drive up malpractice insurance premiums to doctors and hospitals, who just end up raising their charges and passing the hit along to all of us.

- Providing incentives for the poor and underinsured to use a primary care doctor. Preventative medicine saves us the most money in the long run. Poor people need to stop using the ER for the sniffles.

And the [B]people[/B] can play a role by learning when you really need to see the doctor, and when you can let that sinus infection clear up on its own.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Schneed10;556830]There are lots of places costs can come from, though.

When you pay your health insurance premiums, some of the money gets paid out to doctors to cover office costs. Some gets paid out to hospitals to cover costs of getting an operation and staying in the hospital. Some gets kept by your insurance company so they can pay their people and make a profit. Some gets paid to the pharmacy where you pick up the drugs your doc prescribed you. Etc.

So [B]hospitals[/B] can play a role by: Being more efficient. Hospitals are big huge places and administration needs to be on top of doctors and staff to treat patients fast, get them healthy, and get them out sooner. The longer a patient stays in the hospital, the more it costs. Many times a doctor will order a MRI or a lab test to confirm a problem before he makes his next move, well if the hospital dawdles in getting that test done it delays the doctor, which screws up his schedule, and before you know it the weekend rolls around and he says well just keep the patient until Monday, I'll do a procedure then.

[B]Doctors[/B] can play a role by: using more efficient staffing. Nurse Practitioners can address 90% of physical ailments, and they make right around $100K as opposed to $150K on up to god knows what.

[B]Insurance companies[/B] can play a role by working to simplify their reimbursement agreements with providers. Make the payment system simpler so there are fewer denied payments and thus fewer appeals. The less you have of this kind of stuff, the fewer administrative support employees your insurance company has to pay.

The [B]government[/B] can play a role by:

- Mandating and helping hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors get up to speed with Information Systems allowing seamless integration of medical records and information. This prevents deaths due to drug interactions and would cut workers out of the system. Each hospital and doc office needs filing clerks just to handle the massive files of charts. Imagine how much you could save doing away with those salaries.

- Forcing insurance companies to reimburse according to Medicare rules. It's a simple way of doing it. I'd suggest they add a pay for performance mandate too.

- Cap malpractice awards. Huge multimillion dollar payments to plaintiffs only drive up malpractice insurance premiums to doctors and hospitals, who just end up raising their charges and passing the hit along to all of us.

- Providing incentives for the poor and underinsured to use a primary care doctor. Preventative medicine saves us the most money in the long run. Poor people need to stop using the ER for the sniffles.

And the [B]people[/B] can play a role by learning when you really need to see the doctor, and when you can let that sinus infection clear up on its own.[/quote]

What about just paying your doctor cash when you really need to see him?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;556860]What about just paying your doctor cash when you really need to see him?[/quote]

That's a good way in that it makes people think about whether or not they really need to see the doctor.

That said, this approach should not be used for well-visits (the kind of annual checkup where you get immunizations and such). If poorer people had to pony up for this, they'd never choose to go, which would just end up costing more in the long run.

And of course the cash on delivery method doesn't work for big hospital stays, because it's flat out too costly. You need insurance for the big stuff.

But this is exactly how you go about putting the financial incentive to manage healthcare costs in the hands of the patient.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Schneed10;556893]That's a good way in that it makes people think about whether or not they really need to see the doctor.

That said, this approach should not be used for well-visits (the kind of annual checkup where you get immunizations and such). If poorer people had to pony up for this, they'd never choose to go, which would just end up costing more in the long run.

And of course the cash on delivery method doesn't work for big hospital stays, because it's flat out too costly. You need insurance for the big stuff.

But this is exactly how you go about putting the financial incentive to manage healthcare costs in the hands of the patient.[/quote]

Who then pays for the poor?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;556680]This is what the [URL="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8"]Constitution says[/URL]:

[QUOTE]The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and [B]provide for the common Defence and [SIZE="3"]general Welfare [/SIZE]of the United States[/B]; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;[/quote][/QUOTE]

If the Founders meant that "general Welfare" equated to free health care, why didn't they explicitly confer the right to a doctor the way they explicitly said we have the right to an attorney?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Beemnseven;556965]If the Founders meant that "general Welfare" equated to free health care, why didn't they explicitly confer the right to a doctor the way they explicitly said we have the right to an attorney?[/quote]

They didn't for the same reason they didn't say "the right to bare assault weapons." Are you expecting them to be explicit with respect to everything and all possible situations? I would also like to add that the right to an attorney is fundamental and necessary right in that the state is trying to to strip a person of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The founders would have been hypocrites if they did not include such provision in the constitution.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;556979]They didn't for the same reason they didn't say "the right to bare assault weapons." Are you expecting them to be explicit with respect to everything and all possible situations? I would also like to add that the right to an attorney is fundamental and necessary right in that the state is trying to to strip a person of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The founders would have been hypocrites if they did not include such provision in the constitution.[/quote]

No, no.

First of all, the term "assault weapon" is redundant. If you mean semi-automatic rifles then the analogy still doesn't fit because there were certainly doctors in their age. So it's not as if they couldn't envision doctors they way they couldn't envision automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

And no, I don't believe they had to specifically mention all the rights the people are entitled to. That's what the Ninth Amendment was for. But to use the general welfare clause to imply that everybody gets the services of a doctor, nurse or hospital free of charge, is to seriously misunderstand the Constitution and everything the Founders established.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;556907]Who then pays for the poor?[/quote]

Taxpayers, just like we do now. We all pay taxes to fund our state's Medicaid program.

The trick is to tweak that program to incent the poor to use preventative care services. Successfully doing so would reduce the tax burden on all of us.

That said, doing so is much easier said than done. One of the biggest barriers preventing the poor from seeking preventative care is basic transportation. For many, if they can't walk to it, they're not interested. (And in that case I'm inclined to say eff 'em, let 'em die of pneumonia, but that doesn't really fly.)

Re: the new health care?
 

I would be more inclined to except a government base health care coupled with a la cart items. I've only been to the doctor once in 20 years and that was for a knee operation. Being fairly active outdoors I can see myself signing up for some extra orthopedic/chiropractic services. As far visiting a doctor for sinus infections, flu, stomach virus, etc, I just stay home, get rest and fluids.

I really hope we don't have some "one size fits all" health care package. I think that the cost is just going to be more excessive as far what I'm paying into and what I'm getting out of it.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;556995]I would be more inclined to except a government base health care coupled with a la cart items. I've only been to the doctor once in 20 years and that was for a knee operation. Being fairly active outdoors I can see myself signing up for some extra orthopedic/chiropractic services. As far visiting a doctor for sinus infections, flu, stomach virus, etc, I just stay home, get rest and fluids.

I really hope we don't have some "one size fits all" health care package. I think that the cost is just going to be more excessive as far what I'm paying into and what I'm getting out of it.[/quote]

Yeah, and if you don't incorporate enough choice into the program, many people will just say 'eh, this ain't for me' and they'll go without insurance.

Then when they get hit by a bus we're right back where we started with the whole uninsured problem. Choice is a must.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Schneed10;556993]Taxpayers, just like we do now. We all pay taxes to fund our state's Medicaid program.

The trick is to tweak that program to incent the poor to use preventative care services. Successfully doing so would reduce the tax burden on all of us.

That said, doing so is much easier said than done. One of the biggest barriers preventing the poor from seeking preventative care is basic transportation. For many, if they can't walk to it, they're not interested. (And in that case I'm inclined to say eff 'em, let 'em die of pneumonia, but that doesn't really fly.)[/quote]

I'm inclined to say eff'em regardless. The only preventative medicine that most of the poor that I see use is Night Train. There's a guy that lives under the Manchester Bridge where I work. He's as healthy as a bull but he's only interested getting loaded. I think churches are better places for the poor than homeless shelters. They don't let them smoke base in the church.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Beemnseven;556984]No, no.

First of all, the term "assault weapon" is redundant. If you mean semi-automatic rifles then the analogy still doesn't fit because there were certainly doctors in their age. So it's not as if they couldn't envision doctors they way they couldn't envision automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

[B]And no, I don't believe they had to specifically mention all the rights the people are entitled to. That's what the Ninth Amendment was for. But to use the general welfare clause to imply that everybody gets the services of a doctor, nurse or hospital free of charge, is to seriously misunderstand the Constitution and everything the Founders established.[/B][/quote]

It's like that huh? I am more than willing to refer to them as "automatic weapons" if that makes you feel better. Oh and how about the government has got better weapons, and I want a rocket luncher.

Seriously dude, the highlighted text is one big incoherent statement. You affirm that they don't have to mention everything specifically, you refer to service rendered by the government as "free of charge" and then proceed to throw in baseless rhetoric about not understanding the Constitution and the Founders intentions.

My father always told me "never misrepresent yourself."

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Schneed10;556993]Taxpayers, just like we do now. We all pay taxes to fund our state's Medicaid program.

The trick is to tweak that program to incent the poor to use preventative care services. Successfully doing so would reduce the tax burden on all of us.

That said, doing so is much easier said than done. One of the biggest barriers preventing the poor from seeking preventative care is basic transportation. For many, if they can't walk to it, they're not interested. (And in that case I'm inclined to say eff 'em, let 'em die of pneumonia, but that doesn't really fly.)[/quote]
I bet if you gave them $40.00 to come in and get a check up every year the doctors would have a line out the door.

Re: the new health care?
 

it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557065]it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America[/quote]

I often get the sense you're pissed there are rich and successful people in this country...but maybe that's just me

Re: the new health care?
 

it doesnt piss me off. but alot of times it seems that they play by a different set of rules