Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Obviously lacking politeness, I do think that Alan Grayson really hit hard, and most definitely in the right place.

At any rate, my vote would be for this guy, simply because he brings spine to the discussion. GO DEMS GO, GET THAT SPINE BACK!!! YES!!!




Oh man... this is gold... wait, no it isn't... this... is... SPARTA!!!

When a Dem accuses the Repubs of planning to kill people by omission of action, it's an outrage, but when Repubs claim the existence of death panels and that their opponents are out to kill people by interrupting a corrupt insurance system, it's "reasoned debate"... *facepalm*

I would, honestly and truly, like to see the Republican alternative... the real alternative, not peripheral and meaningless blather that addresses none of the real problems with the existing system. It's been promised, but has yet to see the light of day. Hell, if Sarah can bang out a book this fast, a whole slightly-less-than-half-a-Congress of Republicans can get a bill written lickety-split.

Well my answer is to fix things that can be fixed now...at minimal cost. Things like tort reform, caps on malpractice suits, no coverage to illegals. Addressing all of those things would not only save us a TON of money, but they will also help to bring down the cost of medical care. But that won't happen because the DP is to busy sucking the of the trial lawyer lobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lord_sutekh wrote:I would, honestly and truly, like to see the Republican alternative... the real alternative, not peripheral and meaningless blather that addresses none of the real problems with the existing system. It's been promised, but has yet to see the light of day. Hell, if Sarah can bang out a book this fast, a whole slightly-less-than-half-a-Congress of Republicans can get a bill written lickety-split.

Agreed

Those aren't going to change the lack of coverage, and are the exact peripheral matters that don't help actual Americans in medical trouble.

I think Alan Grayson spelled it out nicely.

We have the same problem with the current opposition party over here (Liberals at the moment, our former government). They don't really seem to offer any alternatives to Labor's ideas. To me, it seems that they're just there to make noise.

Truly, it's the height of intellectual irresponsibility. It's easy to say you're opposed to something (or everything), but to be productive and useful, you have to be FOR something... and being for something that's completely unrelated to the problem at hand is different only in the most superficial manner.

lord_sutekh wrote:Those aren't going to change the lack of coverage, and are the exact peripheral matters that don't help actual Americans in medical trouble.

Why wouldn't lowered costs affect coverage? It would not only make medical care more affordable, thus increasing coverage, but it would also remove an item that keeps many qualified people from entering the medical field. So overall it would lower costs through an increased amount of professionals and by lowering the cost it takes for doctors to run a practice, which would in turn increase coverage.

JEB_Stuart wrote: It would not only make medical care more affordable, thus increasing coverage,

That's not a direct, causal link. The cost of medical care can go down without any corresponding drop in insurance premiums. Cheaper medical care is necessary for more widespread insurance, but it is not sufficient for more widespread insurance.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
but it would also remove an item that keeps many qualified people from entering the medical field. So overall it would lower costs through an increased amount of professionals and by lowering the cost it takes for doctors to run a practice, which would in turn increase coverage.

I've not heard of many people qualified to practice medicine opting out of their qualification due to expense. Medical degrees are expensive, and there aren't many alternatives to practice after obtaining one.

dogma wrote:That's not a direct, causal link. The cost of medical care can go down without any corresponding drop in insurance premiums. Cheaper medical care is necessary for more widespread insurance, but it is not sufficient for more widespread insurance.

How so? With costs being as high as they are just to maintain a practice, those costs will be passed on to us.Basic logic would dictate that cheaper care will in turn make more coverage available to people as they can now afford it. Regardless though, I am against the current bills in Congress because of simple fact that we can't afford any of them. The CBO, which is non-partisan and respectable, itself has declared that the costs of any of the current bills will be at least $1 Trillion. I can't justify this in any way, hence I am against it. You don't have to have an alternative if you disagree with someone on principle.

dogma wrote:I've not heard of many people qualified to practice medicine opting out of their qualification due to expense. Medical degrees are expensive, and there aren't many alternatives to practice after obtaining one.

I am not talking about obtaining a degree, I am referring to the obscene cost there is just to practice. Here in California our family MD pays over $120,000.00 a year in malpractice insurance. That is just ridiculous and will of course inevitably be passed on to the consumer. This high cost is of course directly related to the disgusting trial lawyer/ambulance chaser that files more frivolous lawsuits then should be allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Rep. Grayson is comparing this to the Holocaust. He is a piece of work...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Grayson_calls_health_care_crisis_holocaust.html

JEB_Stuart wrote:How so? With costs being as high as they are just to maintain a practice, those costs will be passed on to us.Basic logic would dictate that cheaper care will in turn make more coverage available to people as they can now afford it.

Cheaper care translates into lower costs for those that provide care. That could also mean lower insurance premiums/prices, which could also mean wider insurance coverage, but it doesn't have to.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I am not talking about obtaining a degree, I am referring to the obscene cost there is just to practice. Here in California our family MD pays over $120,000.00 a year in malpractice insurance. That is just ridiculous and will of course inevitably be passed on to the consumer. This high cost is of course directly related to the disgusting trial lawyer/ambulance chaser that files more frivolous lawsuits then should be allowed.

You are talking about obtaining a degree, because you're talking about people opting out of practice.

That said, I agree with your position on tort reform. I'm simply correcting you out of a desire for honesty.

dogma wrote:You are talking about obtaining a degree, because you're talking about people opting out of practice.

That said, I agree with your position on tort reform. I'm simply correcting you out of a desire for honesty.

If you mean helping people to keep the desire to start a practice so that they get a degree, then yes. But I have had several friends stop with their pre-med programs because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to afford a practice. The promise of higher wages and cheaper costs will encourage more people to become doctors. So in a way you are right, but that is not what I meant right off the bat, but I see why you put it that way.

The problem is that you assume that insurance companies and medical providers would follow common sense. They overcharge for nearly everything, it does not take 2,000 dollars to run a test. Hell I wouldn't be allive right now were it not for motorola's excellent coverage. my birth cost them about 1/2 a million dollars. same thing with my dad he would have died from back injuries if Motorola's plan had not covered him, he cost them about 3/4 of a million. Now there is no way in hell that it cost the hospital 750,000 dollars to treat him

Tort reform is a good idea on its own... but it will not bring down the price of care. Instead, the savings will, in most cases, be retained by the businesses as additional profits, rather than reducing the cost of care. Also, it is the rare practice that fails from costs related to normal operating costs. Physician incompetence or a lack of need for the specialty are much more common.

Doctors make excellent money, no matter what. One funded my complete education, and my sister's (including a medical stint), with plenty left over for a large house, multiple cars, and a vacation ranch. Does this sound like an income crippled by insurance costs?

lord_sutekh wrote:Tort reform is a good idea on its own... but it will not bring down the price of care. Instead, the savings will, in most cases, be retained by the businesses as additional profits, rather than reducing the cost of care. Also, it is the rare practice that fails from costs related to normal operating costs. Physician incompetence or a lack of need for the specialty are much more common.

Doctors make excellent money, no matter what. One funded my complete education, and my sister's (including a medical stint), with plenty left over for a large house, multiple cars, and a vacation ranch. Does this sound like an income crippled by insurance costs?

Correction: Surgeons make good money, as do other specialists, but I know plenty of GPs and even a neurologist who don't make very good money. You also have to take in account the variant cost of living from state to state. My stance is this: fix the things we can fix for free or minimal cost right now, and while we are letting those things work themselves out, work on a stronger more efficient plan to be approved by Congress and the President.

lord_sutekh wrote:Doctors make excellent money, no matter what. One funded my complete education, and my sister's (including a medical stint), with plenty left over for a large house, multiple cars, and a vacation ranch. Does this sound like an income crippled by insurance costs?

Of course not, but it sure is easy to hide behind don't you think?

And in all honesty, the comment using the term Holocaust, has already been addressed in at least two different ways. After reviewing some of the comments made by the Reps... I mean good god freaking damn... are you kidding me with the snap... you have to be kidding me.

Half of the Rep party... is obviously deficient at something, and more often than not, they include all sorts of badness. This is not to say that he should have used that word (however you would contrive that intention, in what I have said), just that it is LAUGHABLE to call him a piece of work. UTTERLY LAUGHABLE.

When he makes a mistake... then you pull out the BB gun man... it makes no difference now. The amount of attention being placed on it, does show the absolute aversion some of these cable shows have to real news. REAL NEWS!!! PLEASE FFS PLEASE!!!

JEB_stuart wrote:My stance is this: fix the things we can fix for free or minimal cost right now, and while we are letting those things work themselves out, work on a stronger more efficient plan to be approved by Congress and the President.

Okay... so basically no change. I can see how that makes sense though. With the lack of push on the Dems side, it is pretty much all we could hope to get at any rate. Moving along though... what is up with Iran? So when will this magical bill be passed if I may ask? Perhaps no where in the next decade? No worries, I am sure that people will be overwhelmed with joy at the outcome of this whole... umm... debate?

Wrexasaur wrote:Okay... so basically no change. I can see how that makes sense though. With the lack of push on the Dems side, it is pretty much all we could hope to get at any rate. Moving along though... what is up with Iran? So when will this magical bill be passed if I may ask? Perhaps no where in the next decade? No worries, I am sure that people will be overwhelmed with joy at the outcome of this whole... umm... debate?

How is this no change? Tort reform by itself would be a massive change. But as I have said before this isn't going to happen because trial lawyers are MAJOR donors to the Democratic Party....

Basically no change, because all of this stuff has been practically decided upon from the get go. Both sides agree on these points (torte aside, given various and obvious factors), and passing such a bill could have been done with absolutely no effort.

I honestly think this whole thing was clop-trop from the get-go. There was never a plan to push back against the Reps, and that is why you end up with this type of reaction from Grayson. No one does a damn thing (from what the public sees, you may have laser vision or something) and he gets angry about it, but cannot turn on his own party. The Dems are weak... super freaking weak sauce, and the Reps are practically slowed with their overextending assault on this change. I have been talking about the congress BTW, along with obvious assorted liaisons from different places, but all with the same ideals.

If this bill does not do something serious now, we can just wait another decade, it is really that simple. At this point, I am sure that the Dems are too worried about looking offensive, rather than getting this done. I could care less about the rhetoric, these cats are doing nothing, and loving it.

JEB_stuart wrote:But as I have said before this isn't going to happen because trial lawyers are MAJOR donors to the Democratic Party....

I really do not understand how you can expect that. What sense would it make for Obama to fight them now? He would have to be slowed, and that, I hope he is not. Yes... indeed he should totally chop his nuts off, instead of continuing to go after the people he set out against in the first place.

Why don't you punch that cop in the face JEB, you know he was doing something wrong... but wait, it makes a whole lot more sense to NOT do that; this you know very clearly, I am sure.

Nice kickflip JEB... you should really try to do that backflip now... .

JEB_Stuart wrote:Correction: Surgeons make good money, as do other specialists, but I know plenty of GPs and even a neurologist who don't make very good money. You also have to take in account the variant cost of living from state to state. My stance is this: fix the things we can fix for free or minimal cost right now, and while we are letting those things work themselves out, work on a stronger more efficient plan to be approved by Congress and the President.

A lot could be done by lowering the frequency of legal cases and the costs of contesting each case*, and even more could be done in lowering the ludicrous cost of completing a medical degree. The latter would even improve the standard of care in the health sector as doctors would start being from among the ranks of the most capable, not the most capable of paying.

But the problems in the healthcare sector are not new, and they were all just as problematic when the Clinton healthcare plan was shot down. Reform was stalled then, and there’s been plenty of time for a GOP solution to develop, but there was never any effort made. Supporting a stop in this plan isn’t support for more time to allow for more time for a better plan, it’s support for nothing changing.



*Though other measures are simply not good. I’d argue that caps on damages are a terrible idea. If a person is facing a million dollars in costs over their life for care and future treatment because of a doctor’s mistake, how is it remotely fair to have the damages capped at half a million?

sebster wrote:But the problems in the healthcare sector are not new, and they were all just as problematic when the Clinton healthcare plan was shot down. Reform was stalled then, and there’s been plenty of time for a GOP solution to develop, but there was never any effort made. Supporting a stop in this plan isn’t support for more time to allow for more time for a better plan, it’s support for nothing changing.

Mainly because those who benefit from the system as it is are even bigger contributors to Republican coffers. Here's the kicker: lawyers are citizens, corporations are not... but which one is getting more influence?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:That's not a direct, causal link. The cost of medical care can go down without any corresponding drop in insurance premiums. Cheaper medical care is necessary for more widespread insurance, but it is not sufficient for more widespread insurance.

How so? With costs being as high as they are just to maintain a practice, those costs will be passed on to us.Basic logic would dictate that cheaper care will in turn make more coverage available to people as they can now afford it. Regardless though, I am against the current bills in Congress because of simple fact that we can't afford any of them. The CBO, which is non-partisan and respectable, itself has declared that the costs of any of the current bills will be at least $1 Trillion. I can't justify this in any way, hence I am against it. You don't have to have an alternative if you disagree with someone on principle.

This high cost is of course directly related to the disgusting trial lawyer/ambulance chaser that files more frivolous lawsuits then should be allowed.

Which was in turn created by legislators.

I should have posted this earlier, but assuming makes a...well you know what it does.
First, corporations are NOT allowed to give money to political parties in the US, as are foreigners, government contractors and anonymous donations over $100. So all this talk of, "The Republicans are all funded by big business" is pure nonsense. Here is the source: http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DICE_Content/OTHER_TOPICS/Miscellaneous/M050_FINANCING_OF_POLITICAL_PARTIES/FPP-cei-ban.pdf

Second, only PACs are allowed to donate money as an organization, and of course so can individuals. Although it should be noted that citizens have a ceiling as to what they can give to both individual candidates and the party as a whole. Corporations and such can funnel money into PACs which then donate, but they are still legally separate entities. A pedantic point yes I know, but indulge me I am slightly legalistic. Now all of you who say that Republicans are just in the pocket of Big Insurance, and those freedom loving, joe six pack mindin, pure as gold Democrats are just trying to help out John & Jane Q Public, well this might be a kick in the nuts...so I suggest you find a chair. According to financial figures insurance companies, wait here it comes, actually give more to the Democratic Party than to the GOP! Way, way, way, wait a minute here! Did he just say that? Yep, sure as Fraz has hair growing in his ears, he said that! I wonder how this works with that "vast, right-wing conspiracy" idea....beats me....I am gonna go pick on Ralph Nader now ....

For all you doubters, here is one of my favorite websites to back it up. Its an independent watch-dog group. I even linked it to the insurance page to save y'all the trouble. That's just how considerate I am!
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=F09

JEB_Stuart wrote:A pedantic point yes I know, but indulge me I am slightly legalistic.

Wrex is shocked... shocked and horrified at your legal approach... utterly and totally.

I present to you... the ultimate politician... none can withstand his wrath... and having of snacks, they are always good.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I should have posted this earlier, but assuming makes a...well you know what it does.
First, corporations are NOT allowed to give money to political parties in the US, as are foreigners, government contractors and anonymous donations over $100. So all this talk of, "The Republicans are all funded by big business" is pure nonsense. Here is the source: http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DICE_Content/OTHER_TOPICS/Miscellaneous/M050_FINANCING_OF_POLITICAL_PARTIES/FPP-cei-ban.pdf

Second, only PACs are allowed to donate money as an organization, and of course so can individuals. Although it should be noted that citizens have a ceiling as to what they can give to both individual candidates and the party as a whole. Corporations and such can funnel money into PACs which then donate, but they are still legally separate entities. A pedantic point yes I know, but indulge me I am slightly legalistic.

I’ll agree with you that the Democrats are just as compromised as the Republicans, but I’m not sure that’s all you’re saying. Are you saying the piece of legalese where money is given by moneyed interests to a PACs and then to a corporation is sufficient to stop special interest buying political influence? Because that just isn’t true, it’s a paper entry. US politics is awash with the money of special interests, and that money controls votes on both sides.

Now all of you who say that Republicans are just in the pocket of Big Insurance, and those freedom loving, joe six pack mindin, pure as gold Democrats are just trying to help out John & Jane Q Public, well this might be a kick in the nuts...so I suggest you find a chair. According to financial figures insurance companies, wait here it comes, actually give more to the Democratic Party than to the GOP! Way, way, way, wait a minute here! Did he just say that? Yep, sure as Fraz has hair growing in his ears, he said that! I wonder how this works with that "vast, right-wing conspiracy" idea....beats me....I am gonna go pick on Ralph Nader now ....

True, for evidence of where Democrat priorities lie you only have to consider that no healthcare reform bill challenged the place of the insurance companies. And there’s further evidence in the five Democrats on the Finance Committee shooting down the last hope for any kind of public option.

However, parties are not uniform entities. While both parties might be taking piles of money from the insurance companies, there’s no doubting which party contains members driving for real, substantial reform. No proposed bill to date has picked up a single Republican vote, and they have not even proposed a bill of their own.

Serious reform was attempted under Clinton, and now under Obama, while no Republican administration attempted any reform (Bush was happy to pass a bill expanding drug subsidies, costing $200 billion odd, which the Republicans supported as much as the Democrats, and now seems a little odd given their sudden return to fiscal conservatism).

sebster wrote:I’ll agree with you that the Democrats are just as compromised as the Republicans, but I’m not sure that’s all you’re saying. Are you saying the piece of legalese where money is given by moneyed interests to a PACs and then to a corporation is sufficient to stop special interest buying political influence? Because that just isn’t true, it’s a paper entry. US politics is awash with the money of special interests, and that money controls votes on both sides.

No, I ain't saying that, I was just trying to be more accurate. I am just that nit-picky sometimes...

sebster wrote:True, for evidence of where Democrat priorities lie you only have to consider that no health care reform bill challenged the place of the insurance companies. And there’s further evidence in the five Democrats on the Finance Committee shooting down the last hope for any kind of public option.

True dat.

sebster wrote:However, parties are not uniform entities. While both parties might be taking piles of money from the insurance companies, there’s no doubting which party contains members driving for real, substantial reform. No proposed bill to date has picked up a single Republican vote, and they have not even proposed a bill of their own.

True, they aren't uniform, but I don't appreciate people not acknowledging the facts. I am very facts driven in my approach to life (odd being a devoutly Christian eh?), and I hate the bias that people I know and people on this site have, especially with no regard to the reality of the matter. I am sure you can appreciate that. As far as the Republicans not proposing a bill, that is fine with me. I love some thoughts I heard from one of my favorite professors, "I love gridlock in Washington! Whenever politicians work together it usually is for themselves and against me." I don't support a public option mostly because we can't afford it as a nation, but also because I don't trust the Federal government as it is. I am an advocate of living below your means so you can save money, and that saved money can be properly used when the time is right. That is why my family doesn't have health insurance. We DON'T want any. We just use our own savings and work hard to pay the rest. Our medical bills, having seen some substantial ones with deaths and major illnesses have never been so burdensome that we couldn't afford it, and my dad is a construction worker. Its all about fiscal responsibility in my book.

sebster wrote:Serious reform was attempted under Clinton, and now under Obama, while no Republican administration attempted any reform (Bush was happy to pass a bill expanding drug subsidies, costing $200 billion odd, which the Republicans supported as much as the Democrats, and now seems a little odd given their sudden return to fiscal conservatism).

Hillary Care was....strange. Health care reform is only really an issue when a major party makes in an issue, at least in the eyes of the public. I really don't trust sudden rises in political movements, like the War on Terror for example, because they are way too hokey in my opinion.

PROTEST

JEB_Stuart wrote:I am an advocate of living below your means so you can save money, and that saved money can be properly used when the time is right. That is why my family doesn't have health insurance. We DON'T want any. We just use our own savings and work hard to pay the rest. Our medical bills, having seen some substantial ones with deaths and major illnesses have never been so burdensome that we couldn't afford it, and my dad is a construction worker. Its all about fiscal responsibility in my book.

Sucks to not be you I guess...

At what point (keeping in mind that we are not there now) do the other people matter though? I understand you are for personal responsibility, but wading over dead (and irresponsible ) bodies must get tiresome after a point.

I earned 5 dollars today okay (just an example, the economy is much worse than that ) and I have a bill to pay 100 dollars in a week. Sucks major freaking balls for me, and in all honesty, personal responsibility does come with the ability to say FETH YOU ALL, ALL OF YOU FREAKING SUCK... then what? I freaking rob your ass to survive, and I smile all the way to the hospital, and make sure with that extra few bucks that I can eat.

You speak in greater riddles than me mate, much greater riddles.

Wrexasaur wrote:wading over dead (and irresponsible ) bodies must get tiresome after a point.

Saves me from spending money on a gym pass....

It leaves you with no options as well man... I am not trying to argue with you (I am sure you know that though) though.

Two though's... does not make a right eh? But what does that have to do with anything you say? Well... in all honesty, the answer is but an attack away.

Attack away, much too far into the fray, I do stray, but another day will come, and I will see the sun. But only not with your consent, far fetched it is, but that answer knows now bounds... and we all fall back down at any rate.

Harumph... harumph, harum...phthhhh... tbbbbb... ttttaaa... ta ta. Hoo ra, so say you say I say you, hoo ra hoo ray.