Democrat's Health plan flowchart

[Kelly the Dog]

I must have missed that memo. But stupid me guessing that since the major networks, cable news channels, major newspapers, and major news magazines, are all owned by NewsCorp, GE, Disney, Viacom, AOLTimeWarner which get their news from the major news agencies.

 

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is the MSM now. After all that's what you guys quote these days

Think Rush didn't cover this story as soon as he could this morning? I intentionally left off most of the right wing sites. He couldn't have been criticizing them for not covering the story. Of course, I just did a simple google search and found 100 articles on it and saw most all of the major conservative sites covered it, too.

[Booster4324]

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is the MSM now. After all that's what you guys quote these days

 

Wacka is a liberal now? Damn, can't tell the players w/o a scorecard.

 

[/dev/null]

Think Rush didn't cover this story as soon as he could this morning? I intentionally left off most of the right wing sites. He couldn't have been criticizing them for not covering the story. Of course, I just did a simple google search and found 100 articles on it and saw most all of the major conservative sites covered it, too.

 

I don't listen to Rush (by choice anyway, I'm exposed thru coworkers however)

 

You listed multiple sources that aren't the MSM by your definition. If that's not MSM, then what is?

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't listen to Rush (by choice anyway, I'm exposed thru coworkers however)

 

You listed multiple sources that aren't the MSM by your definition. If that's not MSM, then what is?

I said "what else is there in the main stream media besides conservative talk radio" and that I was pretty sure they would be covering it without even listening to it.

 

Damn, Walter Cronkite passed away, the lion of the main stream media, and you know what? The main stream media isn't covering it anywhere! Nowhere I look on these main stream media sites do they even mention it!

[/dev/null]

I said "what else is there in the main stream media besides conservative talk radio" and that I was pretty sure they would be covering it without even listening to it.

 

Damn, Walter Cronkite passed away, the lion of the main stream media, and you know what? The main stream media isn't covering it anywhere! Nowhere I look on these main stream media sites do they even mention it!

 

You know what the funny thing is?

 

I'm 5/6 thru a 6 pack and you're still not making any sense

 

The sad thing is tomorrow I'll be sober but you still won't make any sense

[Kelly the Dog]

You know what the funny thing is?

 

I'm 5/6 thru a 6 pack and you're still not making any sense

 

The sad thing is tomorrow I'll be sober but you still won't make any sense

 

Drinking is making you dumber, dev, not smarter.

[/dev/null]

Drinking is making you dumber, dev, not smarter.

Only way I can comprehende your posts

[Kelly the Dog]

Only way I can comprehende your posts

 

Comprehende? Have you started slurring in Spanish already? Takes me a 12 pack before that starts happening.

[/dev/null]

Comprehende? Have you started slurring in Spanish already? Takes me a 12 pack before that starts happening.

 

it's not spanish. it's spanglish

[Magox]

So which part of this do you dispute?

Well, to answer your question, I dispute this part:

 

If we don't get health care reform done now, then no one's health insurance is going to be secure

 

I don't believe it has to be now, meaning in the next few months, like what he is pushing for, and I don't believe the part where he says

 

no one's health insurance is going to be secure.

 

I don't buy that for one second, and you shouldn't either, but hey, who am I to tell you what to believe.

 

I hope that answers your question.

 

Also, my point was that we have heard politicians say this before,

 

If we don't pass _______, then _______ will happen.

 

Right?

 

and I did say politicians, meaning more than just Obama, all though he is doing a masterful job of using that line.

 

Dog, I must admit, you do a wonderful job of defending Obama's actions, I think you should write him a letter and propose that you become his Internet Defender Of Chief I.D.O.C. You could go around, scanning blogs and websites and whenever you see an opportunity to Defend him, BAM!! you do it!

[Kelly the Dog]

Well, to answer your question, I dispute this part:

 

If we don't get health care reform done now, then no one's health insurance is going to be secure

 

I don't believe it has to be now, meaning in the next few months, like what he is pushing for, and I don't believe the part where he says

 

no one's health insurance is going to be secure.

 

I don't buy that for one second, and you shouldn't either, but hey, who am I to tell you what to believe.

 

I hope that answers your question.

No, it doesn't. You can't ignore the "because" element of the one sentence/concept and extrapolate what you consider to be his time period. Do you really believe if congress said to him we guarantee this will be done within six months, or a year, he wouldn't take that deal in a nanosecond? He's putting the pressure on because as soon as the fall comes most of these jokers are going to be worried about their 2010 re-elections and out for themselves 100% of the time and not just the 50+% of the time they are now.

 

He wants it done now, sure, but he's absolutely right to say until it's done, "no one's health care is secure because" of A, B, C and D that he listed. Tens of thousands are losing their health care on a monthly basis.

 

I agree with you that politicians say "If we don't do this now the world is going to end" too much, and I agree with you that Obama personally says it too much. He shouldn't. I also believe, however, last fall when Bush said we have to bailout Company X or Company Y or the economy crashes" it happened to be true. And he did the right thing. And it was true when Obama said we need a big stimulus we needed a big stimulus (surely not everything in that particular stimulus, just that we needed a significant one immediately. These are explosive times.

 

I also believe we need to fix Health Care or we all die. It doesn't have to be in the next few months but most everyone who follows this stuff close on the political scene has been saying the same thing, now is the time for Obama to do it because he has the clout and he has the public behind him and it's before the congress gets pre-occupied with saving their own asses.

[Magox]

No, it doesn't. You can't ignore the "because" element of the one sentence/concept and extrapolate what you consider to be his time period. Do you really believe if congress said to him we guarantee this will be done within six months, or a year, he wouldn't take that deal in a nanosecond? He's putting the pressure on because as soon as the fall comes most of these jokers are going to be worried about their 2010 re-elections and out for themselves 100% of the time and not just the 50+% of the time they are now.

 

He wants it done now, sure, but he's absolutely right to say until it's done, "no one's health care is secure because" of A, B, C and D that he listed. Tens of thousands are losing their health care on a monthly basis.

 

I agree with you that politicians say "If we don't do this now the world is going to end", and I agree with you that Obama personally says it too much. He shouldn't. I also believe, however, last fall when Bush said we have to bailout Company X or Company Y or the economy crashes" it happened to be true. And he did the right thing. And it was true when Obama said we need a big stimulus we needed a big stimulus (surely not everything in that particular stimulus, just that we needed a significant one immediately. These are explosive times.

 

I also believe we need to fix Health Care or we all die. It doesn't have to be in the next few months but most everyone who follows this stuff close on the political scene has been saying the same thing, now is the time for Obama to do it because he has the clout and he has the public behind him and it's before the congress gets pre-occupied with saving their own asses.

He did say he wanted it by August didn't he? and weren't you also advocating the same thing, just yesterday I think it was. I'm too lazy to go back and find it, but if pressed enough I could, but I believe you said something along the lines of, they have been debating this for a while, they may as well pass it by August, or something like that. I could be wrong, but I could of swore that is the conversation you had with LA Billz.

[Kelly the Dog]

He did say he wanted it by August didn't he?

 

Yes, of course, and he surely does, for the reasons I stated above. But he wants it "done" a million times more than he wants it done by August. And he thinks, and most pundits and pols are saying, that if he doesn't get it done by fall, he's not likely going to get it done this year. And if he doesn't get it done this year, because of the mid-term elections (not because Health Care is a bad idea or not necessary), it's going to be difficult to get it done in 2010, too. And he would have to wait until 2011, which he doesn't want to.

 

And to answer the part you added, yes, I did say I thought it should be done in August (they are not going to pass a bill that he can sign until the fall anyway). And I would guess there is probably a 60-70% chance of that happening. It may not, something could happen to derail it more, they may decide to wait, they are having a serious debate right now from what I read about "bipartisanship" which is preventing more Dems from jumping on board. There are six centrists that are demanding they wait a little longer and they may get their way. But if I had to guess I think they get a bill in both houses in a few weeks, and then spend the next few months hammering it into one bill.

[Magox]

No, it doesn't. You can't ignore the "because" element of the one sentence/concept and extrapolate what you consider to be his time period. Do you really believe if congress said to him we guarantee this will be done within six months, or a year, he wouldn't take that deal in a nanosecond? He's putting the pressure on because as soon as the fall comes most of these jokers are going to be worried about their 2010 re-elections and out for themselves 100% of the time and not just the 50+% of the time they are now.

 

He wants it done now, sure, but he's absolutely right to say until it's done, "no one's health care is secure because" of A, B, C and D that he listed. Tens of thousands are losing their health care on a monthly basis.

 

I agree with you that politicians say "If we don't do this now the world is going to end" too much, and I agree with you that Obama personally says it too much. He shouldn't. I also believe, however, last fall when Bush said we have to bailout Company X or Company Y or the economy crashes" it happened to be true. And he did the right thing. And it was true when Obama said we need a big stimulus we needed a big stimulus (surely not everything in that particular stimulus, just that we needed a significant one immediately. These are explosive times.

 

I also believe we need to fix Health Care or we all die. It doesn't have to be in the next few months but most everyone who follows this stuff close on the political scene has been saying the same thing, now is the time for Obama to do it because he has the clout and he has the public behind him and it's before the congress gets pre-occupied with saving their own asses.

I had a discussion about this with GG, we had differing views, but I opposed the Bailout, and I don't believe it was the Bailout that "rescued" us from the abyss. There is no doubt in my mind that it was the FED's actions of setting up the CPFF that was the single largest action that helped prevent us from having a "Depression". If you remember it was short term funding that was the issue, LIBOR rates were sky rocketing, Commercial paper dried up, and banks weren't lending to one another, so the Fed stepped in and was the last lender of resort. This is why Lehman went under if you recall. It was this action that helped us more than anything else, Not the Bailout.

 

Also, if you remember, Paulson and Bush were saying that if we didn't do this bailout that the world was going to fall a part. The original plan was that the bailout was suppose to buy toxic assets off the books of the banks. Did that happen? Up to now, there has not been 1 Dollar that has been taken off the books of the banks through this or any other program. Why? because the banks didn't want to sell them at the market price, because if it did, there losses would of been so great, they would of been rendered insolvent. The Treasury didn't want to pay too much for it, because the taxpayer would of got screwed, estimates were ranging from 1.5- 4 Trillion dollars. In essence, it was a pricing issue. It wasn't until the last minute that they switched up the plan and basically what they did was just recapitalize the banks. Which I think does very little good, because it doesn't address the underlying problem, and that is the assets they hold. If the value of the assets they hold are still going down, or not appreciating, and unemployment remains high, banks won't lend. Simple.

 

My point is that the Bailout Paulson touted was about the Treasury buying toxic assets and if we didn't then ____________

 

They flipped the switch at the last minute. So, for me, they lost a little bit of credibility when what they said that HAD to be done, never actually was done.

[VOR]

Raising the retirement age to 70 and massively increasing, or eliminating, the "Wage Base" would significantly help Medicare and Social Security. And those don't need massive overhauls to achieve. But no one wants to talk about it. I wonder why?

[ExiledInIllinois]

The simple fact that will HAVE to be accepted for any workable system is that a certain level and/or amount of sub-standard care is unavoidable. You simply can't give everyone everything.

 

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

Now it is just a matter of who will have to take the hit. People who have been or people who haven't been. I fall on the side of people who have felt any pain or have felt less. You know how triage works. Lets just call it "social triage."

[billsfan89]

I am saying that fundamentally, taking away accountability for your own health care, namely, the hit in the wallet you take if you act like an idiot, is a bad idea. For rich people, poor people, all people. It already is a bad idea for those people who have gold plated insurance, and adding more people, regardless of status, just makes more "bad idea".

 

Think about it this way: you pay for your own car insurance. Therefore you take care on the road, because if you f up, you pay for it in terms of premium increase. There is no such mechanism for health insurance by and large, with the exception of SOME HMOs.

 

Health Insurance should be = car insurance, and there's no good reason why it isn't.

 

Do people who have car insurance say !@#$ it I have insurance I can go nuts and do whatever I want? Other drivers and driving drunk won't effect me. You would think that dying in a fiery wreck, or the prospect of killing other people, would be enough to be careful on the road, or keep us from driving drunk, but it doesn't. Those who do and don't die pay heavy in terms of their insurance premiums, in addition to fines from the state. We will go to a society of fat ass smokers if there are no consequences for bad health behavior like there are for drunk driving.

 

Yeah, yeah, let's see what they do when people realize that a minority group or women represent a higher risk group for a particular disease. Standard insurance practice would mean that they would raise the rate on that group. Are you trying to tell me that there won't be massive lawsuits, and phony "civil rights violation" complaints, because it's the government doing the raising of the rates? How likely is it that instead: the government ignores standard insurance practice and keeps the rates the same, to avoid the BS and because of some misguided racial agenda(see Barney Frank and the mortgage industry), and the government now needs MORE money to cover the cost of care for people who weren't paying the right amount of premiums? Take a wild guess where that more money comes from. Hint: people that make less than $250k a year...yeah, the very same people who Obama said would not be taxed.

 

I just don't see insurance coverage for those who don't have it will lead to people who already make smart choices make stupid ones. If you are smart enough to know that smoking is stupid and hurts your health and costs too much money why would you start just because you got health insurance?

 

If you live a fit life style because you know the consequences of obesity and diabetes why would you start to eat more and care less just because you got insurance.

 

I don't know many people who take bad care of themselves because of their insurance.

[billsfan89]

You keep holding onto that as if it's somehow relevant. Legally you're not entitled to police protection. Being able to sue an entity because one of their employees beats your ass in the commission of their duties is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

Morally? Laughable.

 

How about fewer health care professionals? Significantly less innovation in the industry? An even larger bureaucracy brought to you by the people with the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the DMV, only now YOUR life depends on it? Loss of the ability to sue for malpractice?

 

How about further job losses overseas because of even more employment tax to pay for this new "entitlement"? Surely companies wouldn't move jobs to countries without health care to save money? Nah.

 

Different doesn't mean better. I KNOW the government won't do a better job. The government is completely bankrupt now and spiraling deeper every day. Virtually nothing they put their hands on ends up better, instead being less efficient and more expensive. That's to say nothing of their ability to take tax money earmarked for one thing and spend it on something else. I'm sure they wouldn't take money from a new health care tax and use it for other things like they do with Social Security. Medicare is certainly cheaper and better, right? Find a veteran and ask them how good their health care is...

 

If you want to see where the current crisis began, you only have to look at the HMO Act of 1973. Ask yourself why a hospital is the only place in this country where they don't have to tell you what something costs or where what you pay for something isn't EXACTLY the same as what another person pays for the same thing?

 

Imagine going to a store and picking up a gallon of milk and them billing you $12,000.00 because you have a better job than your neighbor, who is only paying $2.50? How about going to have your car fixed, having the mechanic fix the problem you took it in for but while doing that, breaking something else, fixing it as well and then billing you for that repair as well.

 

Welcome to the health care system Congress has essentially given us. Now certainly anything new they give us won't be nearly that messed up.

 

Ignoring the fact that the 2 statements aren't comparable in the least (Life exists on paper? Really? ), could you please cite specifically where that phrase exists in the Constitution?

 

Life doesn't exist on paper? Than what do our laws do govern a bunch of robots. Laws are based off of people and what rights they do and don't have. In the Deceleration of Independence it says all men have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I just don't get what you say when you state life doesn't exist on paper could you elaborate on that point. If you don't have some sort of right to life than what do you have the right to?

 

I am not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of the health care system but treating health care like a utility which is regulated by the government yet still run like a business (Much like you water or power) would be a system that could work out for the best at least in my opinion. Giving everyone some sort of right to health coverage is just something I believe in. Its not easy to work out a system but I think you have to consider government intervention on a large scale even if its only just to hit the reset button on the whole system.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Life doesn't exist on paper? Than what do our laws do govern a bunch of robots. Laws are based off of people and what rights they do and don't have. In the Deceleration of Independence it says all men have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I just don't get what you say when you state life doesn't exist on paper could you elaborate on that point. If you don't have some sort of right to life than what do you have the right to?

 

I am not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of the health care system but treating health care like a utility which is regulated by the government yet still run like a business (Much like you water or power) would be a system that could work out for the best at least in my opinion. Giving everyone some sort of right to health coverage is just something I believe in. Its not easy to work out a system but I think you have to consider government intervention on a large scale even if its only just to hit the reset button on the whole system.

 

I do to (blue).

 

Here is the text:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Yes, according to the DoI one has a right to life. Health care can provide the difference between life and death. So if one has a right to life and health care can provide that life, one should have the right to health care AND everything that is possible within health care to provide that life. No picking and choosing. No holding out. Provide life with all that medical science has to offer.

[VOR]

I do to (blue).

 

Here is the text:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Yes, according to the DoI one has a right to life. Health care can provide the difference between life and death. So if one has a right to life and health care can provide that life, one should have the right to health care AND everything that is possible within health care to provide that life. No picking and choosing. No holding out. Provide life with all that medical science has to offer.

Eating is more vital to living than anything else. So too is shelter. And both are on a day-to-day basis, not ocassional, like health care. If you want to interpret "Rights...Life" as people being entitled to free health care, everyone should get free food and housing. And the DoI conveniently failed to address how slaves fit under "all men are created equal," so it can't be held-up as some paragon for morality.

 

And if ObamaCare gets passed, a lot of people will have their life and death chosen for them. In England, you cannot receive dialysis after age 55, as just one example. How else are you going to control health care costs, especially if you're paying for everyone now?

[DC Tom]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Yes, according to the DoI one has a right to life. Health care can provide the difference between life and death. So if one has a right to life and health care can provide that life, one should have the right to health care AND everything that is possible within health care to provide that life. No picking and choosing. No holding out. Provide life with all that medical science has to offer.

 

So your argument is that the Declaration of Independence is truly a manifesto of government dependence?

 

 

It's rare you see a post this stupid that doesn't start with "CHECK IT".;

[Alaska Darin]

Life doesn't exist on paper? Than what do our laws do govern a bunch of robots. Laws are based off of people and what rights they do and don't have.

So I guess nature is populated with a bunch of robots since they have no written laws. You obviously have no understanding of causal relationships.

In the Deceleration of Independence it says all men have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I just don't get what you say when you state life doesn't exist on paper could you elaborate on that point. If you don't have some sort of right to life than what do you have the right to?

You do know the "Deceleration of Independence" (sic) and the Constitution are two completely different documents, right?

 

Life DOESN'T exist on paper. If it did, people would stop killing each other because we wrote a law. They'd stop doing drugs because we wrote a law. They'd stop polluting because we wrote a law. Life is what happens while people like you are busily making plans.

I am not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of the health care system but treating health care like a utility which is regulated by the government yet still run like a business (Much like you water or power) would be a system that could work out for the best at least in my opinion. Giving everyone some sort of right to health coverage is just something I believe in. Its not easy to work out a system but I think you have to consider government intervention on a large scale even if its only just to hit the reset button on the whole system.

I'd love to jump on board but I'm afraid you're completely wrong and basing your opinion on nothing more than passionate ideology. There's nothing wrong with that but you're going to spend a lot of time being disappointed. I think the only thing that could possibly work is a giant reset but that's unlikely to happen as our government has been bought and paid for by special interests for far too long.

 

Until the average American realizes that re-electing these criminals at a 96% clip is killing us, we're going to continue getting exactly what we deserve.

[Alaska Darin]

So your argument is that the Declaration of Independence is truly a manifesto of government dependence?

 

 

It's rare you see a post this stupid that doesn't start with "CHECK IT".;

Rare indeed.

 

But Eric is also rare to disappoint with his special brand.

[billsfan89]

So I guess nature is populated with a bunch of robots since they have no written laws. You obviously have no understanding of causal relationships.

 

You do know the "Deceleration of Independence" (sic) and the Constitution are two completely different documents, right?

 

Life DOESN'T exist on paper. If it did, people would stop killing each other because we wrote a law. They'd stop doing drugs because we wrote a law. They'd stop polluting because we wrote a law. Life is what happens while people like you are busily making plans.

 

I'd love to jump on board but I'm afraid you're completely wrong and basing your opinion on nothing more than passionate ideology. There's nothing wrong with that but you're going to spend a lot of time being disappointed. I think the only thing that could possibly work is a giant reset but that's unlikely to happen as our government has been bought and paid for by special interests for far too long.

 

Until the average American realizes that re-electing these criminals at a 96% clip is killing us, we're going to continue getting exactly what we deserve.

 

I think we are getting caught in an argument of semantics. Life exists on paper to me, we write laws based off of life what you do when you take it away and other instances. To me I think we have a different definition of what on paper means. Than thats where we are getting confused.

 

As for the whole health care thing I think eventually we will have no choice but to hit the reset button on the whole system and the only entity with the power to do so is the government. And I Don't think Obama care in its current proposed form is going to work its a half assed reform and those things never work.

 

To me I have to say because health care is something we all need we will eventually get reform within the next decade. With the way things currently are 39-57% being paid publicly with over 50 million uninsured, as well as the fact that we spend the most in terms of GDP on health care yet we don't have the best health care system on the planet (World health organization ranks our system depending on the barometer somewhere between 18-37).

 

As I said in my previous post I think a system where health care is treated like a utility is the future of health care. Such a system theoretically keeps everyone insured yet keeps innovation alive.

[/dev/null]

World health organization ranks our system depending on the barometer somewhere between 18-37

 

The WHO? Oh, you mean the OMFG the sky is falling declare a pandemic because somebody got the flu

 

Yeah they're real pinball wizards

[Alaska Darin]

Gall Bladder Surgery Patient Loses Both Legs

[IDBillzFan]

Gall Bladder Surgery Patient Loses Both Legs

What a sad story. The thing that doesn't make sense to me is the comment: "Jessica Read said the doctor admitted his mistake, but under federal law the Reads cannot sue."

 

I just did a quick look, and it would seem that according to Federal Tort Claims Act, she could ultimately sue the government if a claim isn't approved, as the surgery is not subjected to sovereign immunity since the surgery could have been provided by a private doctor.

 

I'm not lawyer, so maybe I'm just misinterpreting the FTCA.

[OCinBuffalo]

I just don't see insurance coverage for those who don't have it will lead to people who already make smart choices make stupid ones. If you are smart enough to know that smoking is stupid and hurts your health and costs too much money why would you start just because you got health insurance?

 

If you live a fit life style because you know the consequences of obesity and diabetes why would you start to eat more and care less just because you got insurance.

 

I don't know many people who take bad care of themselves because of their insurance.

Well. Thanks for ignoring my points and repeating yourself. Your punishment is a long post.

 

Perhaps I can make you "see" it this way:

If you look at health care in terms of a supply chain, you will quickly "see" that this plan does nothing to improve it.

 

The main goal of any Supply Chain Management System is to drive out all the nickels and pennies everywhere they can be found. Usually there are opportunities all over the place to do this. But, these opportunities are either based on creating competition, or, incentivizing each member of the chain, in a quantifiable and therefore consistent manner, for their cost reductions. Occasionally they exist for no reason other than the stupidity and/or the comfort zone of the managers of the supply chain.

 

What makes the typical health care entities SCM system much different than other industries is: service is also part of the supply, and materials and service are NOT related to each other consistently. I.E. today, it takes 3 adult diapers to toilet a patient, tomorrow it may only take one. This, and the fact that "taking care of people" apparently has many health care managers convinced that they don't actually have to....manage, and health care workers convinced that they don't have to control cost, is why health care is 20 years behind other industries in terms of their operational efficiency.

 

Right now the GE's and Cerner's and McKesson's and ALL the others, of the world have put together such terrible SOFTWARE systems that their entire company, person for person, would be fired in any other industry. Day one. Why?

1. They are either hardware companies doing software(ALWAYS a bad idea, except Mac, but that's a whole other thing) or,

2. They are JV of the programming world = you make a lot more money elsewhere as a coder.

3. They are in such a hurry to focus on data storage, integration, and fancy hardware...they forget to make the user part...usable. Doctors and nurses don't use paper instead of software because they hate computers, or because they don't have them, or because they don't have software. They don't use it because what they have sucks big ass, it's not designed for them, it's designed for accountants and/or people who work at a desk. The problem is: health care doesn't happen at a desk. It happens at the bedside, the hallway, the OR, your home, etc.

 

How does Obama's plan stack up against these realities?

 

1. Instead of incentivizing the SCM, it actually works the other way. The proposed "changes only an idiot believes in" do NOT incent cost reduction.

a. They either JUSTIFY cost increase = there is nothing about cost per service in terms of competition, and, nothing to incent higher productivity....um Unions have nothing to do with that I'm sure , or,

b. they ignore it = there is nothing about bonuses for materials mgt. cost reductions or incentives for capital expenditure competition...(cough, GE campaign contributions, cough), or,

c. they drive legitimate competition out of the chain = insurance policies that compete with the government's are subject to government special commissioner approval....um move the goal posts = we already have entire state and federal commissions for insurance...why do we need this guy?. No reason other than to move the goal posts and make sure that eventually private insurance becomes unfeasible. There is no other reason that can be defended rationally by a reasonable person.

d. so, with NOBODY incented to cut cost, AND, by adding another 30 million people to the system, AND with everybody thinking in terms of "free health care": you better believe that people will make dumb health care choices...if nothing else than by default. Who stands to gain by them being healthier? consuming less health care? doctor's not ordering unnecessary procedures and tests? Answer: Nobody. Even the lawyers benefit: more consumption means more things that can go wrong = more things they can sue over.

 

2. The idiot authors of this plan have clearly demonstrated that, not only do they not know how business works, or supply chains, or cost accounting(um, the way the people who do this for a living reduce costs), they don't know how health care differs from standard thinking regarding these concepts. And, they sure as hell don't know how to blend these concepts and create the right recipe for health care.

 

They remind me of the PhD nurse/state employee I met a few years ago who was so proud of her amateurish attempt($20 million grant, btw) at using a data warehouse to predict falls. When I pointed out that her data collection process was hopelessly flawed(because it was, and she also had no way of controlling for it, "best programmers in the state" or not ), and that all the BI techniques in the world don't make up for bad data, she simply stood there like a duck in thunder. So did her programmers...because...they were only programmers. They don't do why, what and when, and they don't design how.

 

So, they did the same thing so many tools do here when they are proven patently wrong, she attacked me and my crew. We took the high road and ignored her. 1 year later the grant was canceled because she could not show consistent results = taxpayer loses again.

 

The first rule of our business is to work THE WHOLE problem. Just like focusing on analysis and BI, and ignoring data collection, this plan targets political enemies and ignores many critical areas, clearly helping political allies. That's not working the whole problem. This plan is a politicized piece of crap, and it has nothing in common with an enterprise solution proposal other than the OP's posting of a nice, colored flow chart.

 

3. I have to go so I will make this simple: why in God's green earth would you allocate $650 Billion to companies that make crap right now? They have had the 20 years to improve. They make plenty of money, allowing them to spend plenty on R&D...and Nurses and Docs STILL use paper. All that is happening here is a campaign contributor payback. GE and the rest are simply going to take that money and make more bad, faster.

 

Look, there are lots of ways to get lunch today. Everybody wants lunch, we all see the value of lunch, we all like lunch and we are even ok with paying for somebody else's lunch some of the time. There is no dispute with lunch.

 

However, there is a dispute with going to Jim's Steakout and demanding that everybody order the same thing, let Jim's employees demand whatever non-market supported pay they want, thereby making the cost of lunch keep going up, force Jim to buy locked in prices for meat and bread, thereby leaving the materials cost to either go up or at best stay the same, telling people that they can only get lunch from Jim and not Anchor Bar....and calling that lunch....lunch.

[Magox]

Well. Thanks for ignoring my points and repeating yourself. Your punishment is a long post.

[Alaska Darin]

What a sad story. The thing that doesn't make sense to me is the comment: "Jessica Read said the doctor admitted his mistake, but under federal law the Reads cannot sue."

 

I just did a quick look, and it would seem that according to Federal Tort Claims Act, she could ultimately sue the government if a claim isn't approved, as the surgery is not subjected to sovereign immunity since the surgery could have been provided by a private doctor.

 

I'm not lawyer, so maybe I'm just misinterpreting the FTCA.

Military personnel can't sue the government for medical malpractice because of the Feres Doctrine. The Supreme Court basically made it illegal.

[IDBillzFan]

Military personnel can't sue the government for medical malpractice because of the Feres Doctrine. The Supreme Court basically made it illegal.

Just read through Feres vs. the US, and while I won't profess to be well versed in interpreting such documentation, it would seem to me that while I understand how the government needs to protect itself from being sued every time a soldier is injured or dies in battle, the idea that they're also protected from a botched gall bladder operation leading to leg amputations, or the discovery of medical towel left in a patient's stomach, probably isn't what was intended. Or maybe it was and we're just douchebags.

[VOR]

Obama showed his ass when he went to the (dinosaur) AMA and told them to expect to make less money, but that tort reform was out of the question. At least those fossils had the gumption to boo him (and then laughingly endorse his health care plan).

[Magox]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...c-option/print/

 

 

Democrats beware! If you're not fully supporting President Obama's health care overhaul, liberal advocacy groups have you in their sights.

 

As the August congressional recess looms and the final details of the health care plan take shape, the groups have unleashed a series of hard-hitting attack ads against Democrats while mostly ignoring Republicans.

 

Change Congress is raising money to go after Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, using one of her own constituents to ask, "Will Landrieu sell out Louisiana?"

 

"Our pressure campaign targeting Landrieu has great momentum, but so far, her public position has not moved. So we have a choice: Walk away from the fight or escalate the pressure? For us, the choice is easy," the group told supporters.

[billsfan89]

Well. Thanks for ignoring my points and repeating yourself. Your punishment is a long post.

 

Well just to be fair I am not in favor of any of the plans in place by Obama and the House. I know the need for reform and I don't doubt the merits to arguing against a universal system. But i think that you are just missing my point you keep saying that if you give the poor health coverage they do things that are bad for them simply because they now have health coverage.

 

You implied that if a universal system was in place that the poor would go crazy and they would all become drug addicts and eat themselves into oblivion. To me that just isn't true.

 

You said "I am saying that fundamentally, taking away accountability for your own health care, namely, the hit in the wallet you take if you act like an idiot, is a bad idea. For rich people, poor people, all people. It already is a bad idea for those people who have gold plated insurance, and adding more people, regardless of status, just makes more "bad idea".

 

Think about it this way: you pay for your own car insurance. Therefore you take care on the road, because if you f up, you pay for it in terms of premium increase. There is no such mechanism for health insurance by and large, with the exception of SOME HMOs.

 

Health Insurance should be = car insurance, and there's no good reason why it isn't."

 

What is Intrinsic encouragement to take care of your body is that it is the only one you have and no amount of health coverage (Especially if you are poor your coverage is going to be average at best) can fix that. If you are stupid and are going to treat your body like crap than you are going to do it regardless if you have insurance or not because you are stupid.

 

If you are smart and treat your body well you aren't going to stop doing that because you have health coverage. I doubt there is someone without health coverage going man I want to eat unhealthy, smoke, and drink out of moderation but I don't have the insurance to do so. You are smart and understand your body insurance isn't going to make you dumb.

 

That is the one aspect of your argument that I simply say isn't true. I do agree that in any health care system you do need to raise rates on those who don't take care of themselves I get your point but to say obesity and smoking will become much more rampant because we switch to a universal system is just not true the Intrinsic risk of cancer and diabetes keeps most from doing that.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Demo...Health-Plan.pdf

 

 

Nope, not complicated at all.

I will have to look through my old Charts from 2005, The current system is no better with private insurance. Please....

 

This is an excuse to do nothing. Agreed it would be easier if thing were simpler, but in order to reform the system and with all the contending laws it is going to look a little convoluted. Common you are dealing with lawyers, doctors, hospital systems, state and federal government and did I say lawyers... This is an inane chart and comment.

[VOR]

Well just to be fair I am not in favor of any of the plans in place by Obama and the House. I know the need for reform and I don't doubt the merits to arguing against a universal system. But i think that you are just missing my point you keep saying that if you give the poor health coverage they do things that are bad for them simply because they now have health coverage.

 

You implied that if a universal system was in place that the poor would go crazy and they would all become drug addicts and eat themselves into oblivion. To me that just isn't true.

 

You said "I am saying that fundamentally, taking away accountability for your own health care, namely, the hit in the wallet you take if you act like an idiot, is a bad idea. For rich people, poor people, all people. It already is a bad idea for those people who have gold plated insurance, and adding more people, regardless of status, just makes more "bad idea".

 

Think about it this way: you pay for your own car insurance. Therefore you take care on the road, because if you f up, you pay for it in terms of premium increase. There is no such mechanism for health insurance by and large, with the exception of SOME HMOs.

 

Health Insurance should be = car insurance, and there's no good reason why it isn't."

Great! Where are the car insurance public option plans?

 

What is Intrinsic encouragement to take care of your body is that it is the only one you have and no amount of health coverage (Especially if you are poor your coverage is going to be average at best) can fix that. If you are stupid and are going to treat your body like crap than you are going to do it regardless if you have insurance or not because you are stupid.

 

If you are smart and treat your body well you aren't going to stop doing that because you have health coverage. I doubt there is someone without health coverage going man I want to eat unhealthy, smoke, and drink out of moderation but I don't have the insurance to do so. You are smart and understand your body insurance isn't going to make you dumb.

 

That is the one aspect of your argument that I simply say isn't true. I do agree that in any health care system you do need to raise rates on those who don't take care of themselves I get your point but to say obesity and smoking will become much more rampant because we switch to a universal system is just not true the Intrinsic risk of cancer and diabetes keeps most from doing that.

A lot of people don't care about taking better care of themselves. Most everyone knows that you should eat right, drink plenty of fluids, exercise, get plenty of rest, and avoid excessive drinking, smoking, taking drugs, high risk behavior, etc. Yet most people who can afford to pay for health insurance don't do more than a few of those things, much less the people that can't afford to pay. And the effects often-times don't manifest themselves for months to years later, so it's not readily apparent what you're doing to yourself. When you're driving in a car, you try to avoid accidents because first and foremost, you can get seriously hurt, if not killed, in an instant. Thoughts about damage to the car, the other driver, etc. are secondary.

 

I agree that giving free health insurance might not lead to people making more poor choices, but I don't think it will make one bit of difference, while saddling the rest of us with their bills. If you have no interest in taking care of yourself because it's your body, I have no interest in taking care of your bills.

 

And as I said before, food and shelter are the most basic "rights," yet you don't see anyone talking about a public option for them. Maybe giving free healthy food to the poor is the answer?

[VOR]

I will have to look through my old Charts from 2005, The current system is no better with private insurance. Please....

 

This is an excuse to do nothing. Agreed it would be easier if thing were simpler, but in order to reform the system and with all the contending laws it is going to look a little convoluted. Common you are dealing with lawyers, doctors, hospital systems, state and federal government and did I say lawyers... This is an inane chart and comment.

It is an inane chart. Sadly enough, it's pretty close to the truth. The government's answer is more bureaucracy, which means even greater complexity, oversight, inefficiency, and wasted money.