kapkomet

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:54 PM) Yeah, it's not going to threaten me, but breathing around here has been a disaster. I'm somewhat glad I'm escaping tomorrow for a couple days. I finally did get it to load. Dang, that's smokey. We were watching the hilarity that is "Ten Commandments" as we were flipping through channels tonight... and the TBN broadcast was asking for devine intervention - their Mt. Wilson tower was being effected. Oh noes!

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 11:43 PM) There's a section in the House Bill that you constantly rant about that specifically says that it won't cover undocumented workers. Specifically. But you'll discount that because that part of the bill won't be "enforceable" or "won't really count" or some other bulls*** you'll come up with to keep that section of your argument. You reference a section of the bill that talks about not being able to enroll in any other existing private plan - although when I asked you what part of the bill this specifically references you didn't come up with an answer - when I found what I think is the same section of the bill that you reference (I think I even posted that section in this thread,) it appears to be a grandfather clause which simply says that private insurers won't be able to take new enrollees in existing plans that don't meet the same guidelines and rules about what policies can and can't exclude (pre-existing condition, recission, etc.) It doesn't say anything about prohibiting employers from swapping to a new private option or any of that. It just simply says that existing programs that don't comply with federal regulations established by this bill won't be able to have new members enroll. Unless you're referencing another part of the bill that I missed. If so, please provide the section number of the bill so that we all can see in black and white exactly what the scary government is trying to do to kill the insurance industry. I believe, (and although I mostly skimmed the same bill you constantly reference and didn't read it in depth) also talked about Medicare and what it will and won't cover. It basically says that any public option - Medicare included will cover a living will consultation. That doesn't make having one mandatory. Your argument about compromise is that Obama is only including tort reform in that bill if they get on board with a public option. But given that the Republican party has given no indication about what they would offer besides tort reform and a poorly defined co-op concept that hasn't been used on a large scale (and with not a lot of success) since the 1930s. Beyond that, there is very little in terms of actual ideas that they have provided besides "no." The last Republican with a real proposal on establishing more universal health care access was Nixon, and his idea was just to force all employers to provide healthcare regardless of size. Well, gee. That's called political suicide, since most republicans want left the hell alone and not a bunch of government assholes telling us what we can and cannot do. Alpha answered some of the questions. And I've addressed over and over that the "death panel" thing is too far, IMO, so you're barking up the wrong tree there. I think I've posted this about 5 times in this thread, and I'll do it again. You want real reform? 1 - Stop the employer provided insurance, provide incentive for individuals to get coverage in real pools and choices, and let people shop on their own instead of having to be forced to take employer covered insurance. That solves a lot of things. I'll MAYBE go into more depth here some other time, but I'm sure this is stupid and will be attacked ad hominem or ignored. 2 - Tort reform, but that horse is bloody - obviously it's such a piss in the bucket (even though it's admitted by all accounts to not be something really measureable unless we want to compare El Paso and McAllen). If you put in the system methods and real cost savings for actually practicing medicine in a meaningful way and not CYA, then we might get somewhere. By the way, I would like to point out regarding McAllen and El Paso, it IS a complete different demographic, and the way the codes are bundled has to do with the patients and the way they're seen. But again, that's only anecdotal, no "DATA" provided - I can just recall from having done medical coding and billing that there's a totally different way the systems are ran in the two cities. I might have made that up, though, just because I'm like that. I like spreading misinformation. 3 - R&D and pharma costs - there has to be a restructure here - although I will say that if you really want to do it right, get your damn R&D department to HQ in Switzerland and get it overwith - you'd save 20% right off the top, but that's neither here nor there. I am a free market guy - but the absolute free reign to set topside prices is ridiculous in this industry. Now, insurance pays a totally different amount, but the pipeline effect and the way money is made off these drugs, there's a huge problem there. HUGE. Again, I can share some industry secrets there because I've been in it. 4 - Get medicare and medicaid fixed the right way - before you take over the ENTIRE DAMN COUNTRY, fix the mess you've already started and bankrupted because you don't know how to run it. The only way to get there is to stagger the entrants and at some point, stop the programs or totally restructure how it's done. You can't just leave this - medicare/medicaid is already 30-40% of medical costs in the current health system. Fix that, you fix a lot of problems because that's a bench mark and already has a lot of influence of accepted drugs and procedures. You can't have any of these without looking at the other. They're not separate. They have to be considered in total. You can fix the system with regulatory provisions (i.e. prexisting pools, etc.) without the damn government taking over the whole thing. I know you liberals trust your government more then you trust "businesses" or the private sector, and for the life of me I cannot understand why you would trust a beauracracy that hasn't done s*** right in like, EVER. WOOT! Let's create MORE government positions to conduct medical reviews to determine what procedures and drugs the entire country will get. !!! YAY!!! I just will never, ever understand why your placement of trust is in someone like Barack Obama, rather then the free market system as a whole, if they would actually try and fix it the right way. (And I'm not naive enough to think TOTAL free market, of course you have to regulate it some - but that's not even a consideration, flowery language and all).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:58 PM) That's pretty much what I was arguing a page ago, I think. You should add 1 more thing...also, they get the government to foot a part of the bill somehow. Which is why I asked what you were trying to say. I don't quite know what to think about all of this, quite honestly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:58 PM) And I can cite polling data to say that a lot more Americans agree with me. Especially if you tell them some of the things actually in the bill, rather than screaming "Death Panels!" "Immy-gants!" Etc., which has been so bloody effective over the last month or so. Of course...that's data. Oh, but wait, I keep being told that there's not a bill. Which way is it? And "Immy-gants" are covered, and they shouldn't be. That's a problem. You just slapped citizens in the face. And "Death Panels" - as I said, I even have a problem with that language, but read the 'Zeke Emanual article, and they bring that s*** on themselves by the crap he utters, especially since he effectively is leading this mess. That's "data" when they say it themselves - that hippacratic oath sucks balls and costs too much.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:41 PM) I'm sure you'll still be able to catch the Bad New Bears on AMC. You won't know the difference. I guess. It's kind of sad. I was hoping we'd be playing relevant baseball in September, but I don't think it's going to happen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:12 PM) If you can get that link I posted above to load, the fire is right at the transmission towers right now. Those towers provide basically cell phone reception for half of los angeles, some 20+ radio stations, all local TV for L.A., and so on. There's also a very nice observatory there that is under threat. And that's close to you? Is it going away from you? I can't get it to load, but I'll try again.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:07 PM) I know I've been saying this for a very long time now, but the opposition to the president seems to get more radical every day. And the "radicalism" for the last 8 years leading up to this president was different how? It's all about what perspective people want to have.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:19 PM) guys.. i work with banks on a daily basis for commercial lending. their goal right now... get customers to a 15-20 day deliquency, charge the 15% per month late penalty and keep them in that range. No new lending unless the owners have a 700 or in some cases 725 credit score with minimal revolving debt ($30k or less) and if you have these scores, you'll be capped at 1/2 of what they'd lend out to you before. All fees are up. (doc fees, filing fees, etc) On top of that, since fewer banks are lending, rates are up about 200bps from this time a year ago for those we are fortunate enough to "qualify". Credit analysts have been instructed to look for "reasons to say no". they absolutely do not want to modify contracts/agreements unless these customers go to 45-60 days past due. If you are a guy struggling to make your businesses payments on time, call and ask for the help, the answer is no, until you hit these magic numbers. if you are fortunate to modify your contract, they will hit you with a multi-hundred dollar "reset" fee. Other banks have changed their mindset, payment structure, to employees on maxing out fees/deposit growth and penalizing them for lending. As bullish as I am about where we are going, we wont be able to get as far as we need to, unless something/someone really gets these banks to start lending again. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the 6 to 7 largest banks control 65%+ of the lending in this country. We've let consolidation get out of hand. Remember First Chicago, how big they were. Well they got bought out by Bank One who then got bought out by Chase. Chase then got bought out by JP Morgan. Oh and by the way, JP Morgan/Chase bought Washington Mutual too. LaSalle was bought by ABN AMRO who was bought by Bank of America. (who also bought Countrywide) I hope that once things do get back on track, we break up these large banks like we did with AT&T back in the day. It's not healthy to have so few, control so much of lending. That's a pretty interesting take. So they want to make money off of people in a late position, milk them for everything they can, and ONLY then will they give them help, but at a substantial cost? What a f***ed up world we live in.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:24 PM) And I'm the only one???? Sure. Because the "other side" is obviously lying, right? Ok, all BS aside, seriously, that's how it comes off. People can see and experience things, and it doesn't matter, because there's not "data". But yet, "data" can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to say. So, because it supports a position you want it to, you're going to believe it more then you would something I would post. I'm using that as an example. Then you'll post counter after counterpoint talking about how my stuff is junk, because this that and the other is supporting your position. I'm not defending a dissertation when I post stuff - but I guess that tends to be my downfall. All I know is, there's a line between government intervention in MY life versus simply taking my property, and all Kaperbole ™ aside, that's where I draw the line, and apparently a lot of "fear mongering" Americans agree with me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:43 PM) I asked for your source on this. As far as I'm aware, it is not in the bill. Another poster pointed out a section they thought you might be referring to, but I don't remember you following up. That's not the 'DEATH SQUADS' idiots are all worked up about. Palin talked specifically about some government panel killing her DS baby, not "end of life counseling" provided by her doctor if she wants it. Its not forced, its not mandated. Its simply more made-up bulls***. Why wouldn't I get hung up on "guaranteed" since that's the retarded fear-mongering bulls*** part? They're eligible to buy a plan in the HCE. Just like they're eligible to purchase bread at the grocery store. Its illogical to make conclusions based on unsupported premises, like illegals being guaranteed coverage. I'm still waiting for something indicating that illegals WILL RECEIVE health care free-of-charge, because complaining that they'll be able to pay for coverage is just too ridiculous to address. They're retarded. The point is right now illegals are not eligible for insurance because they can't legally obtain work. That's honestly the way it should be. So they go to the ER, get treated with world class care (compared to the rest of the world - no it's no perfect, no one says it is) and we the taxpayer pony up or it gets written off. The issue becomes, under this plan, just like you say, they can go purchase insurance like it's bread in a store. "Purchase"... whatever the hell that is. Anyway, that's wrong. If you're not a citizen, you should not be able to pick up insurance like it's bread in a store. What the hell comparision is that? So I'll say it another way, which is the semantics game you're playing. Insurance is guaranteed to be available to them. That's FACT. And it's wrong. Jose Illegal (stereotyped) just got the same "rights" I just got as a citizen, and that's just wrong. Then there's this: Ezekiel Emanual, who is pretty much running the show for this push, has said a hell of a lot regarding "death panels, old people care" and the rest. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3280098676.html Ezekiel said this s***, and that's where a lot of the ammunition is coming from. It's not what's in a bill, it's the positions in which these people take that piss people off. Yet, they will forgo this crap? You actually trust these assbags to do the "right thing" for America? No way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:42 PM) As I told Y2HH, the plural of anecdote is not "Data". So there's nothing without data? That's nice to know. Just remember for all of your "data", there's plenty of room for manipulation. You should know that... but I think there's times where you get so wrapped up in a position, that it can't possibly be wrong, huh?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:58 PM) I just wanted to fit in. It's not unsubstantiated, but whatever.

I downgraded my cable (well, Uverse) about a week and a half ago, so now I don't get to watch any games anymore. I think I'm kind of glad.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:28 PM) Most of what they're ranting about isn't in any piece of legislation. Its made-up fear mongering bulls***, such as the only new option is the public option, DEATH SQUADS!, and illegals are guaranteed coverage. I'm not sure why you don't understand that concept. Well, ok, what the hell are you (or I) missing? Under the HOUSE bill (yes, I understand your point about the Senate...) the only insurance you can get if you change is the public option, DEATH SQAUDS are called for (although honestly, that's just a stupid argument, imo, holy s***, it's called end of life preparation, I guess living wills are death sqaud sessions now - although if the GOVERNMENT forces that, it's BS...), and illegals WILL RECIEVE (please do not get hung up on "guaranteed"... come on, you're smarter then that, and it's ignorant to think otherwise that they won't get the coverage, which drives up the costs even more to the taxpayer - more then even now) health care coverage. So what's wrong with the rants again?

Why should there be "anything" in return? He asked if tort reform would be put in, that they would go all in on the public option. WTF would they do that for when that's the point of the Democrat's bill? At that point, it's a dead issue. And this article pretty much says what I just said - it's almost impossible to understand the true cost, but for me, it's almost common sense. There's so much stuff done, and paid, by CPT coding and bundling that it would have to be an enormous cost. But then again, I've worked in the medical indistry, so I'm stupid, I guess. It's just what my own two eyes saw.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:23 PM) "The SENATE" "HOUSE Bill 3200" But you just blended the two and people are "fear mongering"... they aren't fear mongering about crap the senate's doing. They are just pissed off and want left alone. I'm not sure why "liberals" don't understand that concept. If you're mentioning people "fear mongering" they aren't about the Senate, so why did you bring it up?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:14 PM) No, it's not proof, it's evidence, something you're not offering. You're sitting there repeating the claim that the biggest thing driving up health care costs is doctors ordering extra tests while worrying about malpractice suits. No one out there other than the far right believes that at all, even in the most restrictive states there hasn't been anything more than a percent cut in the growth of health care expenditures after those laws were passed, there is data out there saying that malpractice expensive have gone down significantly relative to inflation over the last 10 years, and the President was, correctly, more than willing to offer that up as the first concession to try to get the Republicans on board (which of course will never happen). It's not the BIGGEST thing, but it is a damn big component. Honestly, you can't measure the truest of impacts of this for several reasons. One, out of court settlements that never even get to court. Two, defensive medicine is what's taught because that's what they have to do to avoid lawsuits. You'd have to retrain. Three, oh, so he offered it, but the only way he would keep it is if the Republicans gave him the public option free and clear. Come on. That's no real carrot, and you know it.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:14 PM) Mine?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:01 PM) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...ER&v=glance heard him on npr (1) Americans are completely hung up on the mechanism by which we achieve a good health care system. Predictably, then, we completely lose sight of the goal: universal coverage at a reasonable price. There are lots of solutions that would fail at this, and probably more than one that would succeed. But there's only one proven failure, and that's the status quo. (The National Acadamy of Sciences estimates that 22,000 people die in America each year of preventable ailments because they could not get money for a doctor). He points out the stupidity of this wrangling over whether it is the government or the private sector that will administer healthcare, given that many of the systems which perform better than our own are more private. They just don't allow big near-monopoly corporations to hold their government by the balls in those countries, and that goes for health insurance companies as well. (2) It doesn't matter if hospitals are run for profit--Japan has a tremendously better healthcare system than the U.S., and they also have more for-profit hospitals than the U.S. All that matters is who pays, and whether the nature of health insurance coverage will be determined solely by a handful of giant corporate entities. (3) The public hasn't gotten to see much detail about the things the Senate is considering, which is part of the cause of all the retardation from both sides that's been coming out at these town hall meetings; but regardless of what the details are of what the Senate is considering, there is no way that people who have a good health insurance situation right now will be threatened by a solution for the people who don't. Nothing has ever been mentioned by anyone in Washington to that effect. If you're good now, then nothing will change for you. Anyone who says or implies otherwise is fear-mongering. (4) What will probably happen: the federal government will push through a half-assed reform or less, the Democrats will declare total victory, and the non-retarded states will start working on creating their own public options, which will actually be good because it will give us a lot of basis for comparison as to the best solution. My gawd that's BS. HB 3200 is where a lot of this comes from. So EVERY ARGUEMENT against health care is BS because no one knows what they want to do yet? That's mighty f***ing arrogant of you to then leap to then everyone (against this) is "fear mongering". When you subsidize "public option" and set pricing, it will kill the private industry. It just will. Which Obama himself admits that is what he wants.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 09:05 PM) Yup, I should really go back and re-post that article where El Paso TX and the city right next to it are some of the highest and lowest per-capita health care cost cities in the country respectively, despite both sitting under Texas's highly restrictive malpractice lawsuit limits, because obviously the point wasn't made the first time the data was presented and the anecdotes continued to prevail. Yes, that would be McAllen. Different issue altogether. But it fits your argument, and it's liberal, and it's a way to prove that government is the only solution. You win.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 08:55 PM) Their guaranteed health care was the only premise of your link between the two. So, yeah, if that premise goes to s***, so does that whole argument. eta: will you admit that there's no such guarantee? As you said: there's no guarantee for ANYONE. So, there that goes. The whole thing is a waste of time, then, I guess. ETA: Illegals will still get health care under this bill.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 08:40 PM) Except for the fact that 38 states already prevent that and that was one of the first concessions the President offered that the Republicans scoffed at...so basically except for 100% of the available evidence, I'd agree with you. Really? And guess what... it works, where it's not watered down by a bunch of other crap. But it's not NEARLY enough to get the cost out of the system.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 08:41 PM) Kap, you said guaranteed first, not me. As I said, you are picking nits. I said GUARANTEED. Oh, gee. Therefore, the point of what I was saying is totally gone. GMAB.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 08:39 PM) So let's see, you argue on one hand that the threat of malpractice suits is the main driver of increasing costs because it drives over-testing, and then on the other hand you argue that it'd be a terrible thing if the government cut back on testing and then prevented lawsuits associated with failing to do so. They will NOT prevent lawsuits related to that. That's my point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) Please indicate for me where in that article it supports your contention that they're guaranteed health care insurance. Show me in the entire bill where EVERYONE is "guaranteed" health insurance. You're picking nits on purpose. If you can drive a semi through this bill, they will. Or, Show me where it's required to be a citizen to be "guaranteed health care insurance". It should be. And it's not. Just saw your edit. For crying out loud, this is CONGRESS's own revelation that illegals can get coverage under this. And spare me the "guaranteed" bulls***. That's a smokescreen and a misnomer and you know it.