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.

Well this has gone off topic faster then I would have liked. And look everyone, its been derailed as a "my way or get out" thread instead of lets both give something up to make something work.... Health care reform was only an example people, not the end all of my discussion...

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Not necessarily.

Existing laws mean that people have to be served at the Emergency Room in most locales regardless of ability to pay. And that A) is the most expensive kind of care and B) comes out of the taxpayer's pocket eventually too.

Agreed on both. The point of what I am trying to say is that there is no easy fix here at all, and ignoring the real cost is suicide. Its also why people don't compromise.
Frankly a compromise bill could have worked. But history has shown that when one party tries to force down a major social item, it has to have bipartisan support, or it will fail. This one doesn't because it wasn't written to do that.

Frankly, a compromise bill could work, and that would entail a Public Option open to everyone, to provide a needed counterbalance to ever-escalating premiums/price-fixing. The problem is that it looks like it's going to be compromised too far, to become something which forces everyone to simply buy into private policies, which just puts more money into the hands of the insurance companies without giving them the competition they need to drive down prices.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Exactly. "free" healthcare is the most expensive kind. So now we'll give to everyone! And it'll get cheaper! Come on.

WE ALREADY PAY MORE PER CAPITA THAN ANY OTHER NATION ON THE PLANET AND HAVE A STANDARD OF CARE IN THE HIGH 20'S BY COMPARISON.

To say that the social healthcare model is more expensive and less effective.. Christ, how can you even begin to say that without involuntarily punching yourself in the face.

Because we spend so much on healthcare due to huge government programs - and Americans run to the doctor everytime they stub their toe.

Yes, we spend more money than anyone else on healthcare - and since I haven't looked at the data, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume yours is correct- although I wonder what the basis for standard of care is based on. Is it life span? If so, Americans are in the high 20s does not reflect poorly on the healthcare system - but the life style of the average american.

Your little insults amuse me shuma. Obviously, you haven't taken your medication today. Perhaps the big bad insurance companies have denied you care for an existing condition? grow up.

oh, and compromise is a lost art in America. Maybe not anywhere else.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well this has gone off topic faster then I would have liked. And look everyone, its been derailed as a "my way or get out" thread instead of lets both give something up to make something work.... Health care reform was only an example people, not the end all of my discussion...

Any time that healthcare is mentioned, that will become the topic of the thread.

Its also worth pointing out that, eventually, compromise does become impossible. At this stage the healthcare debate is thusly characterized. Most of the minor, legal revisions favored by the Republicans are in the bill. The sticking points are the existence of a public option, and mandatory carriage.

Thing the OP and most Americans forget is the US Senate was designed to be a conservative body when passing legislation. It was designed to be the corrective to "the hot passions of the body politic".

Now, if one wants, one can point to Newt Gingrich's decision to kill the Clinton Health Care Bill as a turning point in the legislative process. Steny Hoyer has commented on this. Whatever your feelings about Congressman Hoyer, his point that

This is a United States Senate that has had more cloture votes in one year than in the '60s and '70s combined. They had three cloture votes on whether to extend unemployment benefits, and that bill passed 97-0!

does say something about the art of compromise being dead, at least in the Senate.

With specific regard to the current Health Care discussions, I believe that it is compromise that is preventing any truly groundbreaking reform or proposals. The requirement of 60 votes within a varied party such as the Democrats combined with various special interest groups ranging from the AMA to the health care industry to insurers means nothing truly different will happen.

People on the right scream "death panels" and "deficit spending" while those on the left are worried about "government competition", quality and cost of care and preexisting conditions. What both sides need to agree on is financial, legislative, and regulatory capture is the cause of many of these symptoms and not the art of compromise.

That said, to compromise there has to be a side willing to compromise and so far I have not seen that in the Republican Party since 1994. Theie version of compromise is do what the Republicans want.

All I know is when I went to the emergency room for a sprained ankle, they took x-rays and told me to ice it. $1700 USD.
My wife went in for back pain, and the doctor said the cause of the pain is because she is fat. That is all the fether did. Call her fat and schedule an appointment. $1300 USD.

Why does it cost so FETHING much to tell a man with a sprained ankle that his ankle is sprained, or to tell a overweight woman she is overweight?
If you can solve this riddle you have the answer to your question...

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well this has gone off topic faster then I would have liked. And look everyone, its been derailed as a "my way or get out" thread instead of lets both give something up to make something work.... Health care reform was only an example people, not the end all of my discussion...

Well the issue likely stems from the fact that to be effective health care reform needs to be all encompassing. The healthcare system is broken at its core, it has levels of corruption in hospitals, insurance agencies, company health plans, and in the home. It's bloated, over-expensive, ineffectual, and the debate has been reclassified from one of reform to one of repair through ad hominem and straight up deciet. The Dems are not innocent in their debate tactics, but the tacit refusal of conservatives to play ball and even attempt to reach a middle ground (death panels, socialist agenda, killing elderly, bankrupting the country) has driven the liberals essentially into a state of exasperation. There can be no middle ground when one side wants total reform and the other side wants nothing, "because anything done by a liberal government is automatically doomed to being the death of america". If you want an example of compromise solution don't use an incredibly polarized and absolute issue like healthcare, the conservatives don't give a gak, if abortion is in there they will vote against it and watch america go broke from the gak we have now. The dems may cave and shotgun something through both houses, but in gaining the aproval of the conservatives they would have lost everything that would make the bill work.

Conservatives want healthcare reform, but they don't want it to be done by anyone but them. If the liberals do it it's bad, if they do the same thing it's fine. There are examples of this everywhere, the stimulus was great the two times bush did it, but now that Obama's taken the reigns all of a sudden TARP, the stimulus, the auto bailouts, they're all his fault. Examine the face of politics and you will see an incredibly caustic and reactionary minority party and a party of exasperated and frustrated majority. There can be no compromise when one party is in the very process of purging it's moderates, and is quite busy splitting itself apart.

If you want an example of compromise talk about troop levels, or the energy grid. The party that had it's mind totally blown when Obama Bowed to the Japanese emperor is not the party that will ever compromise on healthcare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Exactly. "free" healthcare is the most expensive kind. So now we'll give to everyone! And it'll get cheaper! Come on.

WE ALREADY PAY MORE PER CAPITA THAN ANY OTHER NATION ON THE PLANET AND HAVE A STANDARD OF CARE IN THE HIGH 20'S BY COMPARISON.

To say that the social healthcare model is more expensive and less effective.. Christ, how can you even begin to say that without involuntarily punching yourself in the face.

Because we spend so much on healthcare due to huge government programs - and Americans run to the doctor everytime they stub their toe.

Yes, we spend more money than anyone else on healthcare - and since I haven't looked at the data, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume yours is correct- although I wonder what the basis for standard of care is based on. Is it life span? If so, Americans are in the high 20s does not reflect poorly on the healthcare system - but the life style of the average american.

Your little insults amuse me shuma. Obviously, you haven't taken your medication today. Perhaps the big bad insurance companies have denied you care for an existing condition? grow up.

oh, and compromise is a lost art in America. Maybe not anywhere else.

So you tell me I'm wrong and then admit you don't know what you're actually talking about. Cute.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well this has gone off topic faster then I would have liked. And look everyone, its been derailed as a "my way or get out" thread instead of lets both give something up to make something work.... Health care reform was only an example people, not the end all of my discussion...

Any time that healthcare is mentioned, that will become the topic of the thread.

Its also worth pointing out that, eventually, compromise does become impossible. At this stage the healthcare debate is thusly characterized. Most of the minor, legal revisions favored by the Republicans are in the bill. The sticking points are the existence of a public option, and mandatory carriage.

Other, including the majority of the US population, now disagree with the above statement, as do I.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Thing the OP and most Americans forget is the US Senate was designed to be a conservative body when passing legislation. It was designed to be the corrective to "the hot passions of the body politic".

No, what most Americans forget is our country was designed as a Republic, not a Democracy. Ben Franklin explicitly said so... So the Senate does not currently function the way our forefathers intended it to... Shenanigans ensue...

tblock1984 wrote:All I know is when I went to the emergency room for a sprained ankle, they took x-rays and told me to ice it. $1700 USD.
My wife went in for back pain, and the doctor said the cause of the pain is because she is fat. That is all the fether did. Call her fat and schedule an appointment. $1300 USD.

Why does it cost so FETHING much to tell a man with a sprained ankle that his ankle is sprained, or to tell a overweight woman she is overweight?
If you can solve this riddle you have the answer to your question...

I don't know about the ankle, but you're dealing with a combat surcharge any time you tell a woman she's fat. Thats taking your life in your hands in a big way.

Frazzled wrote:
Other, including the majority of the US population, now disagree with the above statement, as do I.

Every single legal change you mentioned is in the bill. Every one. Whether or not you disagree with that statement has no bearing on its factual nature.

tblock1984 wrote:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Thing the OP and most Americans forget is the US Senate was designed to be a conservative body when passing legislation. It was designed to be the corrective to "the hot passions of the body politic".

No, what most Americans forget is our country was designed as a Republic, not a Democracy. Ben Franklin explicitly said so... So the Senate does not currently function the way our forefathers intended it to... Shenanigans ensue...

yea it really does actually. Its meant to be checks and balances to stop aroused spirits from getting the country into trouble.

tblock1984 wrote:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Thing the OP and most Americans forget is the US Senate was designed to be a conservative body when passing legislation. It was designed to be the corrective to "the hot passions of the body politic".

No, what most Americans forget is our country was designed as a Republic, not a Democracy. Ben Franklin explicitly said so... So the Senate does not currently function the way our forefathers intended it to... Shenanigans ensue...

The learned in government are supposed to make up for the idiots back home. This form of democracy is thus designed so that the compassionate and well meaning populace can pick likeable and intelligent people to make the decisions for them because they are too busy and prone to coercion to directly run their own country. With the advent of populist new medias and conglomerated business the model has broken down and our leaders are too accountable to their voterbase in all the wrong ways. No compromise can be had because the populace can't be bothered to accept a solution that doesn't totally gel with a political stance that they themselves can't be bothered to fully formulate. Hence the continuing purgation of the moderate elements in our government. A two party governmental system will not survive the media revolution.

The Founders never intended the Senate to be a body elected by popular vote.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Other, including the majority of the US population, now disagree with the above statement, as do I.

Every single legal change you mentioned is in the bill. Every one. Whether or not you disagree with that statement has no bearing on its factual nature.

Right, and I am for those. I give money to the campaign of poeple who support those. Its the remaining 2000 page horror show that iI don't support. Its the hundreds of Billions of new taxes and hundreds of Billions of dollars disemboweling medicare that I don't support.

Do the above.
Mandate every employee have the option for insurance-that way you youngins have to support me (tee hee).
Quit the shenanigans with Medicare.
Unemployed have access to Medicaid. Not cheap but workable.

Who's left? Medicare has old farts. Medicade has poor farts and unemployed. General terms help the rest of us. Anyone else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The Founders never intended the Senate to be a body elected by popular vote.

The Founders didn't intend slaves to have a full vote either. not sure what the intent of the statement is.

But they did intend the Senate to be a deliberative body, and the constitution was changed accordingly.

Frazzled wrote:
Right, and I am for those. I give money to the campaign of poeple who support those. Its the remaining 2000 page horror show that iI don't support. Its the hundreds of Billions of new taxes and hundreds of Billions of dollars disemboweling medicare that I don't support.

Those are parts of the public option, and mandatory carriage, which I referenced as sticking points (those two things make up like 80% of the bill's text). I think we're just so used to fighting each other that its just our default response at this point.

Frazzled wrote:
Do the above.
Mandate every employee have the option for insurance-that way you youngins have to support me (tee hee).
Quit the shenanigans with Medicare.
Unemployed have access to Medicaid. Not cheap but workable.

Who's left? Medicare has old farts. Medicade has poor farts and unemployed. General terms help the rest of us. Anyone else?

Mandatory immunizations? Or at least 'free' ones. Home school dodgers be damned.

Frazzled wrote:
The Founders didn't intend slaves to have a full vote either. not sure what the intent of the statement is.

But they did intend the Senate to be a deliberative body, and the constitution was changed accordingly.

The point is that the Senate does not function as the Founders intended (it still is what they wanted it to be, but it doesn't work how they wanted it to), and that the intent of the Founders isn't really important.

tblock1984 wrote:All I know is when I went to the emergency room for a sprained ankle, they took x-rays and told me to ice it. $1700 USD.
My wife went in for back pain, and the doctor said the cause of the pain is because she is fat. That is all the fether did. Call her fat and schedule an appointment. $1300 USD.

Why does it cost so FETHING much to tell a man with a sprained ankle that his ankle is sprained, or to tell a overweight woman she is overweight?
If you can solve this riddle you have the answer to your question...

Supposedly that cost is coming from people that are A.) Using the ER without insurance (not that they are the actual problem in that situation... most of the time at least) and B.) Using government insurance, which tends to 'cheap out' apparently. TBTH I think that their is basically a 'racket' of sorts when it comes to small charges of this nature though. The cost of heart surgery for instance, or something along those lines, can run bills up well into 6 figures extremely quickly. You stay in the hospital for two weeks? Well... lets see here... hmmm... how about 20,000 dollars per day, how does that sound? So in many ways, the cost to keep the hospital open, so you can go to the doctor, see them for all of ten minutes (if that) and be advised as to what form of ice pack would be best, fill out 10 pages of forms, while waiting as long as an hour just to talk to the receptionist; is 'actually' in the region of 1500 dollars.

Madness I know, but when you really look at the costs involved in running a hospital (as with any serious business really; yes hospitals are serious business, of the strictest kind really) the overhead involved is absolutely colossal. Ever wonder why that contractor is charging you so much for such a 'simple' job? Well, if they are actually doing their jobs right, you could very well be getting a 'deal' in reality.

So the cost of that, includes a plethora of other costs, that are actually linked in the most basic of ways. If you want to be able to get that service, the hospital needs to stay open to provide you with it. When you start to talk specifically about ambulances and the like... well... that whole operation is just downright fishy.
THE. MOST. EXPENSIVE. TAXI. SERVICE. IN. THE. WORLD...

Shuma wrote:Well the issue likely stems from the fact that to be effective health care reform needs to be all encompassing. The healthcare system is broken at its core, it has levels of corruption in hospitals, insurance agencies, company health plans, and in the home.

From what little I know, the biggest part of this rather massive problem lays pretty directly on the insurance companies. Not to say that other institutions are not in the cooking pot too, just that most of the problems within the hospitals specifically, seem to be an 'side-effect' of the problems presented by the insurance industry. Just fixing the information sharing problems that come with hospitals, would start to take things in the right direction.

It's bloated, over-expensive, ineffectual, and the debate has been reclassified from one of reform to one of repair through ad hominem and straight up deciet.

This is a huge problem, and it is one of the main reasons why I have been so frustrated throughout this whole process. One day it is this, and another it is that, but all of it was wrong in the first place... I mean fethity feth feth, come on! I would hazard a guess that our congress needs to seriously look at how they manage all of this nonsense, from both sides (more one side than another... obviously).

Frazzled wrote:But they did intend the Senate to be a deliberative body, and the constitution was changed accordingly.

Mandatory immunizations? Or at least 'free' ones. Home school dodgers be damned.

Thats OT of OT of OT I think but you're espousing mandatory immunizations?
We'd both be blown out of the war as violating the Bill of Rights (has been tried actually, at least in NY) but yea I'd be all for mandatory free immunizations. Of ocurse you have to give the vaccine companies a level of immunity. One reasonf or the current fun is that vaccine producers don't amke vaccines any more for fear of lawsuits. Our Swine flu vaccine effectively came from overseas.

Wrexasaur wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:All I know is when I went to the emergency room for a sprained ankle, they took x-rays and told me to ice it. $1700 USD.
My wife went in for back pain, and the doctor said the cause of the pain is because she is fat. That is all the fether did. Call her fat and schedule an appointment. $1300 USD.

Why does it have to cost so FETHING much to tell a man with a sprained ankle that his ankle is sprained, or to tell a overweight woman she is overweight?
If you can solve this riddle you have the answer to your question...

Supposedly that cost is coming from people that are A.) Using the ER without insurance (not that they are the actual problem in that situation... most of the time at least) and B.) Using government insurance, which tends to 'cheap out' apparently. TBTH I think that their is basically a 'racket' of sorts when it comes to small charges of this nature though. The cost of heart surgery for instance, or something along those lines, can run bills up well into 6 figures extremely quickly. You stay in the hospital for two weeks? Well... lets see here... hmmm... how about 20,000 dollars per day, how does that sound? So in many ways, the cost to keep the hospital open, so you can go to the doctor, see them for all of ten minutes (if that) and be advised as to what form of ice pack would be best, fill out 10 pages of forms, while waiting as long as an hour just to talk to the receptionist; is 'actually' in the region of 1500 dollars.

Madness I know, but when you really look at the costs involved in running a hospital (as with any serious business really; yes hospitals are serious business, of the strictest kind really) the overhead involved is absolutely colossal. Ever wonder why that contractor is charging you so much for such a 'simple' job? Well, if they are actually doing their jobs right, you could very well be getting a 'deal' in reality.

So the cost of that, includes a plethora of other costs, that are actually linked in the most basic of ways. If you want to be able to get that service, the hospital needs to stay open to provide you with it. When you start to talk specifically about ambulances and the like... well... that whole operation is just downright fishy. THE. MOST. EXPENSIVE. TAXI. SERVICE. IN. THE. WORLD...

Indeed, lemme fix that. See above... What I am saying is WHY? I totally see the math, but I am still baffled by why it should cost so much in the first place.
And I have Blue Shield PPO 700, to answer your question Wrex... I think it is a racket too...

Count me in on the mandatory immunizations!

JEB- wow, your suggestions at the start were excellent. It's amazing no one has brought them to the floor.

You should just put your symptoms into Google like everyone else.

Frazzled wrote:f OT of OT I think but you're espousing mandatory immunizations?
We'd both be blown out of the war as violating the Bill of Rights (has been tried actually, at least in NY) but yea I'd be all for mandatory free immunizations. Of ocurse you have to give the vaccine companies a level of immunity. One reasonf or the current fun is that vaccine producers don't amke vaccines any more for fear of lawsuits. Our Swine flu vaccine effectively came from overseas.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the mandatory component. I'd support it if it happened to be popular, but I won't push for it because I don't care about the children of people foolish enough to deny immunization to their kids. I would push for shots on the government tab though. That's a pretty big issue for the public health, and not really cost prohibitive.

The people who don't get immunized can provide a pool in the population for the disease to potentially mutate so that it can infect others though. So I say mandatory immunizations.

I agree, but I wouldn't sacrifice immunization on the government tab for that fact.

Orkeosaurus wrote:You should just put your symptoms into Google like everyone else.

LOL, I did... That is what compelled me to run to the emergency room in the fething first place! The concept of having a torn tendon in my foot and possible paralysis literally scare almost $2K out of me...

Wrex is right... It is a scam, I say!!!

no idea whats going on posted something not on topic here.

tblock1984 wrote:
Indeed, lemme fix that. See above... What I am saying is WHY? I totally see the math, but I am still baffled by why it should cost so much in the first place.
And I have Blue Shield PPO 700, to answer your question Wrex... I think it is a racket too...

Basically, the way I understand it, is that the costs of 'please don't sue me' insurance for doctors (etc...), combined with the cost of the machine that goes 'boop', the one that goes 'bing', and that other one that goes 'bip bip', makes for the largest chunk of that overall cost. Something that I have not seen much debate about, is what type of coverage should be expected technology wise for people on the whole. If hospitals are buying equipment that they don't really need (which I actually doubt as a 'real' possibility TBTH), then there is one problem that could be easily solved.




Thought that one was necessary to make my point.

There is no way to discuss this without talking about adjusting the way that healthcare is provided (distributed/accessed), thus the ease with which 'Uncle Sam is going to kill Grannie' rhetoric took hold. When one in a thousand people has cancer, but getting the technology (and maintaining) to treat that one patient, raises the cost of simple things for everyone else to a rate that is quite frankly, ludicrous. This raises questions in my mind, but seriously, I would have a really hard time saying that one outweighs the other.

It speaks wonders about how are resources are simply limited, along with the fact that basic doctors (and assorted staff) are in low supply. With all the money to be made through complicated treatments, it really does not come as a surprise to me that more basic services, are lacking in various ways as a result. One simple answer is to develop basic hospitals that can efficiently deal with simple health issues, without taking on the massive overhead of a full hospital. On the other hand, if this were done poorly, it would be a massive waste of time in the first place.

tblock1984 wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:You should just put your symptoms into Google like everyone else.

LOL, I did... That is what compelled me to run to the emergency room in the fething first place! The concept of having a torn tendon in my foot and possible paralysis literally scare almost $2K out of me...

Wrex is right... It is a scam, I say!!!

Well... I would call it a 'racket', and even at that, I would take it with a grain of salt... and maybe some tequila... Keeping a hospitals doors open, requires enourmous amounts of cash flow.

I definitely get extremely irritated by some of the ambulance companies. To arrive late, perform nothing but a taxi service, then send a preposterous bill for the astounding sum of 500 dollars? 100 of which covered 2 dollars of gauze and a cheap ass icepack? NO. FREAKING. WAY.
These are not doctors, they are paramedics that spend most of their time being elite cab drivers...

tblock1984 wrote:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Thing the OP and most Americans forget is the US Senate was designed to be a conservative body when passing legislation. It was designed to be the corrective to "the hot passions of the body politic".

No, what most Americans forget is our country was designed as a Republic, not a Democracy. Ben Franklin explicitly said so... So the Senate does not currently function the way our forefathers intended it to... Shenanigans ensue...

I have no idea how your retort invalidates what I stated. Indeed, a conservative legislative body designed to prevent the most populous states from abrogating the rights of less populous states is indeed, one of the methods of republican, not democratic government.

While it wasn't until 1913 that Senators were determined by popular vote, it was many years later that the behavior lamented by the OP became common place.

Edit> Spelling

Dal'yth Dude wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Thing the OP and most Americans forget is the US Senate was designed to be a conservative body when passing legislation. It was designed to be the corrective to "the hot passions of the body politic".

No, what most Americans forget is our country was designed as a Republic, not a Democracy. Ben Franklin explicitly said so... So the Senate does not currently function the way our forefathers intended it to... Shenanigans ensue...

I have no idea how your retort invalidates what I stated. Indeed, a conservative legislative body designed to prevent the most populous states from abrogating the rights of less populous states is indeed, one of the methods of republican, not democratic government.

While it wasn't until 1913 that Senators were determined by popular vote, it was many years later that the behavior lamented by the OP became common place.

Edit> Spelling

Just being an insufferable prick today... Sorry... Seriously... Sorry...