patrick.net

Bap33 says

I mentioned that helth stuff up above

Yep, and I didn't even mention rationing. No matter what system we use, there is not enough transplant organs or specialized doctors to go around. We are fat on million dollar ambulances, nightingale helicopters, private hospital rooms, MRIs, CAT scans, dialysis machines, sonograms, X-rays, and medicines, but all to no avail if you need a liver and none are available.

monkframe says

The public option as you envision it would be considerably less a benefit than other industrialized

Yes, but it is enough to save lives and provide preventative care. By limiting it thus, you are more likely to make the basic needed health care readily available. By adding the extras, you will slow down the availablilty of the basic stuff as you supply procedures that are more of a lifestyle subsidy. We do not want the delays in critical care that are the norm for the British and Canadian systems.

Fireballsocal says

Very simple to ban an IP address.

yah, its not rocket science at all. 'something is very wrong with this country' when so many spew so much BS. a 'deather' im sure.

Nomograph says

nosf41 says

The proper way to resolve the Obama’s eligibility is to examine the evidence by courts. We cannot trust a document posted on friendly web site nor words of State officials.

Eventually, you are going to have to confront the unpleasant truth that you have been drawn into a conspiracy theory. You dismiss all evidence that counters your theory as “tainted”, and you give full faith and credit to any evidence that supports your theory no matter how dubious and incredible.
Yes, you are being ridiculed by the rest of America (and the world), and rightfully so. Obama won the election fair and square, so grow up and move on.

There is no need for conspiracy theory. Legally, Obama can prove his eligibility only in court. Posting documents on friendly web sites is not a proof. Shouting at people with different opinion and media ridicule is a communist tactic. I have lived through it before.
If Obama was a natural-born citizen, he would not have spent >1M$ on law firm fighting for the DISMISSAL of eligibility lawsuits. He does not want evidence to be heard in the courtroom.

It would be good for USA if Obama could prove "birthers" wrong on eligibility issue. How long does it take to order a release of the original birth certificate and hospital records that would match each other?
This is such a simple issue, there is no wiggle room. It is not similar to the difference of opinion on health care reform or stimulus plan (those could be neverending debates).
Either Obama was born in the USA and he can prove it in the court of law, or he cannot.
The sooner Obama proves "birthers" wrong - the better it is for the country. I will not be holding my breath.

In the 1980's (in my birth country), I was deceived by the clever media (state) propaganda several times. At that time courts were of no help to anybody who would challenge a communist party leader/policy. Most people were silent and went about their daily life fearing to publicly speak their mind. Some who were brave enough to publicly challenge the government dogma were imprisoned. There were always enough willing "journalists" who acted like attack dogs in the media.
I look at the media attacks on "birthers" as a proof that they are onto something. Otherwise, why would the media pay any attention to something that is not an issue?

Aren't you bothered by the unprecedented secrecy about Obama's past? He run for the highest political office in this country - yet he keeps all the documents from his past sealed and hidden from public. This is done in a dictatorship - not in a democracy.

HeadSet says

So, since the public option clients are government supported, will we see a trend toward government interest in personal lifestyles?

"...government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" - Abraham Lincoln Of course govt has interest in its citizens lifestyles. That because in a democracy YOU are making govt. Good examples are various tax breaks (for parents, education, homeownership).

nosf41 say:
"I look at the media attacks on “birthers” as a proof that they are onto something. Otherwise, why would the media pay any attention to something that is not an issue?"

Read the Enquirer, Star, Weekly World News, In Touch, In Style, People, Us... and then tell us how they managed to write entire magazines about something that is not an issue.

They just do.

Some Guy says

But stopping smoking and exercising are not compulsory.

True, but then neither do we have a public option. I am refering to possible events that may come about after adopting a public option, such as an increased government involvement in personal lifestyles.

If you imagine government agents coming to your house to knock the cigarette out of your mouth, I think you have a rather vivid imagination.

I never even infered that. But I will say that the gov can use other tools, such as mandantory smoking cessation classes or mandatory supervised exercise. Currently, drunk drivers can be forced to attend an appointment where an authorized person watches them swallow a certain pill. This pill will make the taker violently sick if the taker drinks alcohol. Something similar may be developed for smokers.

I don’t believe there is a provision to require private insurance companies to charge the exact same amount for everyone.

I am talking about the price of the public option itself, not any prices regulated on private carriers. If we have a public option, will the price of the public option be the same for everyone, regardless of age, pre-exsting conditions, and lifestyle?

HeadSet says

am refering to possible events that may come about after adopting a public option, such as an increased government involvement in personal lifestyles.

Please be specific when you say "involvement", what you mean by that. Govt might have interest in people's lifestyle (and they do), but that's different from involvement, because it might consider certain things are harmful for society. If govt want to "involve" into personal lifestyle, they can do it anyway - irrespective of public health insurance option. Cocaine, meth are illegal. Govt certainly did not need public health insurance to ban those things.

P2D2 says

If govt want to “involve” into personal lifestyle, they can do it anyway

Not the point. You do not think that if the government sponsors the public option, the gov will have a stronger incentive to "involve?" Nobody is doubting government power, we are talking about the incentive to further use that power.

Some Guy says

I didn’t notice any discernible difference. The state college did not have mandatory study sessions or anything different than the private college.

Bad analogy. The college doesn't care if you do not study, they will flunk you out of the system. With public option, they cannot disenroll anyone. So, is it you're opinion that all citizens will be allowed to purchase the public option, and there will be no strings attached for those who do? Will the price be the same for all who purchase the public option?

Some Guy says

But my question was, if they want a low cost, catastrophic-only plan, could they not purchase it from a private insurance company?

That is true today. But if we have a public option, we will likely see rules that mandate that any private insurance be at least as comprehensive as the public option. You will be able to supplement the public option, but not undercut it. In this case, we may see qualified private plans that are actually less expensive than the public option, but only sold to low risk customers. The high risk would end up on public option.

I think we should be able to see that information. I am really surprised MLS can keep the information secret from public. They are deceiving the public. And there are laws against it. Are there any lawyers here, why can't we something about this?? Some Guy says

Bap33 says

SG, Will the public ever gain full access to all of the (REturd eyes only) data put in the MLS, and will the MLS ever allow private FSBO listings? It is my gut feeling that the general public should push a few politico’s to force some transparentcy(sp) upon our little REwhore friends. What say you?

I would LOVE for that to happen. I guess the pessimist in me doubts that it will. Last time I wrote to my elected representatives (to tell them not to vote for bailouts), they basically ignored me. Can you imagine what it would do to the real estate market if we could all go on the internet and see all the data that realturds get to see? It’d be a whole new ballgame.

RentorBuy says

I am really surprised MLS can keep the information secret from public

They can keep it secret because it is a private database. However, I would think one could subpeona the MLS in a fraud case. For a house that was re-listed after the previous 6 month listing expired, the claim that the "house has just been listed" is technically true. The statement "This house is brand new to the market" is patently false, but I do not know if there would be any legal remedy worth chasing. I guess one would have to find a way to show actual damages.

RentorBuy says

I think we should be able to see that information. I am really surprised MLS can keep the information secret from public.

Many businesses have their own secrets and that's the way they make money - whether it is some math algorithm of an investment company or secret recipe of a restaurant or list of clients for advertisement agency. The problem with MLS is that it is tightly controlled by real estate industry and there is no regulation for it. Whatever the rules they have are all ad-hoc. Unless there is parallel competing service which is more transparent, I guess it is going to be this way. However, now-a-days there are lots of public information available in internet. 10 or 15 years only your real estate agents used to have those kind of information. So things are opening up - slowly.

I'd buy it for the bird bath in the yard alone.

apparently the palinistas have plenty of time on their hands.
....i will follow you, follow you wherever you may go....

rof.

elliemae says

nosf41 say:
“I look at the media attacks on “birthers” as a proof that they are onto something. Otherwise, why would the media pay any attention to something that is not an issue?”
Read the Enquirer, Star, Weekly World News, In Touch, In Style, People, Us… and then tell us how they managed to write entire magazines about something that is not an issue.
They just do.

Of all the questions/statements from my previous post, you found one tangent to lead the discussion in a different direction!?
You know very well that all major TV networks (their NEWS organizations) have ridiculed "birthers" (just few commentators very courageous enough to ask Obama to prove that he is indeed born in the USA).
The same media behaved quite differently during the campaign last year when they raised the issue of McCain's eligibility. What did McCain do when asked for birth certificate? He presented it to Congress for everyone to see. You should be troubled with double standards applied to two major parties in the USA. I would like to see the same (tough) rules applied to all candidates - not just to those who were selected as targets.

"just few commentators very courageous enough to ask Obama to prove that he is indeed born in the USA)."
ROFLOL.....like dobbs and fauxsleaze.
youre being twitted again!!!
...palins calling Uuu...

Some Guy says

Don’t know. You realize this bill is still a work in progress, right?

Of course I know that. The whole line of discusssion has qualifiers like "if we" and "we will likely see" and "your opinion" and so on. So to rephrase, as the two bills work there way through the House and Senate with the various iterations, do you the eventual product will or should allow all citizens eligability to buy a public option, that no strings will be attached for those who do (I think you answered that), and will (should) the price be the same for all who purchase the public option?

Anyone notice that Kevin hasn't been able to answer my in-depth interrogation? What's he hiding? lol

elliemae says

Well, Kevin. It’s been two hours and you still have no answers for our readers? Don’t you owe us more than that? Oh, yea - that’s right - your loyalty is to the dark side. Us God fearing Christians who are born & bred Americans are deeply offended by you and your liberal, potentially damaging views.

What’s that? You might not be online? A flimsy excuse!

Sorry, I was busy using my socialist book club to organize our "free Khalid" T-shirt design contest.

Didja come up with a cool design that will stick it to The Man? Ok, I forgive you. But I shall never allow my grandchildren to participate in Little League - too risky. They might turn me in for my own leftist leanings.

I always wonder about one thing, top schools always accept the TOP students from the class right? So what makes them better than the average schools? I say a good school should be something which can take "average" students and turn them into elites, but that's not how the way it works here....

warblah, >>I say a good school should be something which can take “average” students and turn them into elites, but that’s not how the way it works here…. Sure it works that way. Those kids are the not-always-so-bright children of the current elite, who get in with a little help from mommy and daddy.

I am amazed at the absurd claims of what people think will happen if we have a "public option". Do you people even read what you write? The worst legitimate criticism of the Canadian system (for example) seems to be "long wait times". Really? We've gone from "long wait times" to the end of the Republic?

We don't have a healthcare problem in the US. We have an insurance company problem, namely that the insurers have a stranglehold on healthcare. Insurance for a family of 4 can cost $20,000 and beyond. All the spin and memeering on this issue is designed to hide the fact that our medical system is hostage to the insurers and, by extension, their shareholders.

All hail the public option!! Bass, you may very well be in the wrong side of history on this one. What can we do to get you on the good side of that cause?

Tenpoundbass says

Kevin says

I am amazed at the absurd claims of what people think will happen if we have a “public option”. Do you people even read what you write? The worst legitimate criticism of the Canadian system (for example) seems to be “long wait times”. Really? We’ve gone from “long wait times” to the end of the Republic?

Bullshit Kevin, are you saying it is not legitimate to not want a “PUBLIC OPTION” because it is in fact just another insurance company, just like all of the others. Are you saying I should take the democrats for face value, when they keep saying “We’ll push for cheaper premiums.” Did Obama say or not say in many different ways that this plan will not replace but compete, and the whole administration is weary just exactly how much it competes with the existing insurance industry. This bill is being drafted with kit gloves as not to scratch and booger up the existing system. The Bill is running out of steam for a damn good reason, and that reason is, Americans aren’t half as STUPID as the Democrats reckons them.

Having the stance that the proposals currently on the table are inadequate since they aren't single payer is a legitimate criticism, but you're ignoring the tried and true "public option" insurers like the Swiss system, which prove that an insurance-based model is still viable as long as it is strictly regulated.

Ok just to chime in a bit here. Generally there's about five different health systems in the world...here's what the world has 1) nothing - 75% of the world basically has nothing 2) cash - this works well for small things...fine but few can pay cash for surgury or cancer treatments at least domestically in the USA (please don't make some argument of lactrile in mexico because that didn't work for steve mcqueen) 3) The national insurance model - this is what canada has...but it runs the risk as they don't allow private practices (except in quebec). 4) the belivider system in the UK and other areas (hong kong) everyone is covered but taxes are higher...however you can see private doctors and other things 5) the bismark system - mandates to get insurance. An argument can be made that massachusetts is somewhat like this now Obama said a canadian system would be impossible in the USA..duh...of course the companies would get into an uproar. If it's a public options well what he's implying might be the NHS system but we'd need higher taxes on people even on those beyond just the rich. He might simply be trying to put the bismark system on all. Now in all honesty the problem in mass isn't so much the employer mandates but it's that the subsidised care. I have a friend who has a source on the state house...this program will have will probably be dismantled within three years. In mass although we have a reputation for high taxes that isn't exactly the reality. According to some tax groups we rank 26th in the country (NJ is #1...California, CT and NY are much higher than mass) Simply giving someone insurance isn't exactly going to make them more healthier. Now it can be preventative sure for later on but this isn't going to really expand someones lifespan from say 75 to 105. You still have to wait you still have paperwork etc. There's nothing wrong with having people pay money for things because if they don't then they have no real ethical or moral right to complain. William Easterly suggested this with some foreign aid. When someone pays money for something they have a vested interest in that its a good product or service. If something is free or at least is preceived to be free it doesn't really jive. If there's a subsidized plan is it too much to ask someone to pay...I dunno even $5 for a doctors visit? is that too much? how about $1...how about 5 cents...anything is better than nothing. Health is about more than just seeing a doctor. I've been to china overseas and public parks have elipical machines for adults (as if some adult is going to burn calories on a swing..come on now) Walking is good for people but if there's no sidewalks that's not going to help. We basically have two problems with healthcare... 1) that people simply cannot get insurance 2) that the care cost too much With the exception of the food subsidy I can't see how a government plan will save money for the whole industry. And this is another odd argument because it creates a paradox. If a plan works and saves money some would say the government is putting companies out of business. If it costs too much people will complain about the costs. if medical insurance companies only insure the healthly then that means that any government plan is going to be costly... The way I see things is that we don't have the constitutional authority to do this on a national level. If anything we should give some block grants at best to allow states to do it as they can be more efficicent than the federal govenerment. That way it also blocks any other types of problems as the states could decide. If California wants to give care to illegals that's fine...if wyoming doesn't want to that's fine as thats their choice. If one state wants to cover abortion..another wants to cover viagra...another wants to cover steralization etc. to create one giant plan for the whole country really doesn't make logical sense to me.

Excellent idea bap. I also think we should return to the good old days of 35 year average life span, 2 months to cross the country by wagon train, and dentistry with a hammer and chisel. It's just wonderful you have enough money in the bank to whip out your debit card for things like chemo or open heart surgery. Like 99.998% of the rest of the people in the country I don't. How much money do you have in the bank set aside for medical treatment by the way? Or would you lay on the hospital bed surrounded by crying wife and children and say "I stand on my principles, I will die now rather than have anyone else pick one dime of my treatment costs that I can't pay for". Bullshit!! What you really mean is you are a selfish greedy bastard who doesn't want to pay for insurance, but if the spam hits the fan you want the rest of us to pay for your treatment. Perfect analogy for life in America today, privatize profits, socialize losses.

Tenpoundbass says

procedure, that was nothing more than running me through a machine that was paid for the first five minutes they plugged it into the wall.

Now that is a business I wish I could buy a piece of. Profits like that might even turn me against health care reform...

chrisborden, I agree. The discussion has gone really downhill in the last 5-6 months. I think it would get better if we disabled the quoting mechanism that was introduced a few months ago. All it does it to make it too easy for people to engage in a bunch of he-said-she-said tit-for-tat that only goes around in circles all day long. Posting should be more an exercise of stating and supporting your point of view clearly and succinctly, rather than endless back-and-forth about what someone else said or didn't say. Qoute one or two essential lines manually if you must, then get on with the analysis and facts.

>>How can the right force a Democrat congress to do anything? By using the mas media and angry wingnuts to frighten them with the loss in the next election. Same thing they did before the Iraq War vote. Democrats should toughen up an start to play hardball, just like the Republicans ALWAYS do. Check out this cartoon satire of what NOT to do: http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/08/18/tomo/index.html

The PDF of the complete coverage plan (this is just what they disclose, god only knows what details are missing) from my insurance company is nearly 800 pages. Why is 1017 pages so outrageous?

Bap33 says

no .. they would be treated … and the doc or pharm will get paid, or not, based on what the customer agrees to pay.

Please explain to me how that will work. When I get hit by a car and the ambulance shows up, are we going to negotiate my treatment then? Get real. And for those who don't understand how "the right" can force Democrats to do anything, remember the filibuster. Unless congress agrees to vote using a simple majority, the Democrats DO NOT have enough votes to pass. In the house everything would go through, but they only have 59 senators (really 58 since Byrd isn't around), and another 5 or 6 of them (cough cough Lieberman) are DINOs. So that leaves you with, at best, somewhere between 50 and 52 votes. With a simple majority, it would be enough, but a simple majority isn't allowed here.

If you have never filed a claim or been in a crash, then you are very lucky. I am sure that insurance companies do make more than they pay out--that is their goal, after all--but I do still see the value of insurance, for cars and for medical issues. Even when we make good and thoughtful choices, every single choice entails risk. No matter how careful, you or I might someday run into a bit of bad luck. In hindsight, you can see that your care and skill combined with just a bit of good luck kept you out of car accidents. But in 1971 you didn't know that, so you bought insurance. I have a great driving record, but my car was totaled a couple of years ago by a person who tried to drive straight through it. Not my fault, nothing I could have planned for, and no one in my car was hurt. The other driver zoomed away in her little blue car, never to be seen again. I could not get my camera out fast enough, because like many people, I don't drive with a camera hanging from my wrist. I was pretty glad that insurance paid out for me in that case, since the other driver chose not to take responsibility for what she had done. Luckily there were no medical bills to cover, but insurance would have covered much of that cost, too. I hesitate to suggest what we might want in the way of health insurance, but that does not mean that health insurance isn't useful. Even people who eat well and sleep enough and get enough exercise sometimes come down with cancer or some other serious illness.

Car insurance seems cheap enough. Why but why can we not do the same with health insurance? Car insurance is only for accidents. The moment car insurance starts paying for car wash and tune up's , the premium will sky rocket along with oil tuneup prices. I don't know how we ended up with health insurance paying for regular doctors visits ! I though insurance was only for catastrophy because insurance by design is flawed system ( encourages waste and bloat) but is a necessary evil for spreading risk for big catastrophies.

Bap33 says

I am suggesting this. If you need a doc, you pay for it. If I need a doc, I pay for it. If you feel like paying for someone else, do it.

How do I decide that I'm going to pay for it? What you're suggesting is that the doctors can just charge whatever we like, and we have no choice but to pay their prices. You do not get an option to negotiate when you're being rushed to an emergency room. You're presenting yet another pointless, unrealistic, bullshit "solution". You might as well suggest that doctors just work for free and that medical equipment companies operate as non profits.

Recently there was a segement on WCVB's Chronicle that talked to providers and writers about health care. In terms of the concept of having MRI machines at say..walmart. here's what they kinda said There is HUGE pressure at hospitals and other providers of health care to use or having the latest technology. It's just want people want. Medical technology advances but it's not always needed. And some act as if they want a quick fix constantly and for no real reason other than simply being there. "MRI’s aren’t advanced technology it’s been paid for thousands of times over, and there’s no reason why LG, Soyo or GPX can’t make one for $199.00" Technology works on the aspect of making something better than the competition...not cheaper! GPX can't make a decent cd player so I doubt they'd be trusted to make a MRI. However if you really want to see a large player in electronics look at Haier...they have a toe in north america...but they have a footprint the size of a elephant in china. Having said this though there's nothing wrong with breaking down some of the barriers for health care to make things run faster. Why should someone have to see a doctor to get a perscription? Recently in my state we allowed drug stores to have walk in clinics...does it really take a doctor to tell if someone has the flu rather than a cold? Of course the AMA was against this but too bad. Doctors shouldn't have a monopoly over the whole industry.

Because it's easy to make fun of when you mention 1017 pages. Of course, people would ridicule a bill that is one page as suggested. The truth is, big insurance doesn't want healthcare reform and has its butt buddy Fox news doing its best to incite the people. We need it, but will we get it?