bmags

I don't think you'll like him NS, you do know him. He's of "Dick Cheney is a vampire" and "Republicans health care plan: Get sick, die quickly" fame

Yglesias:

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 08:32 PM) You can lead a horse to water... Sweden's population is more controllable, being smaller, it's easier to educate them...and its easier to lead a smaller group to water and convince them to drink it. That concept isn't going to work here the US...people don't care about their health until they're not healthy, even those that are way overweight. You can talk to them until you are blue in the face about living a healthier lifestyle...they're simply not interested. I bet a majority of the people on this forum aren't in good shape, with zero excuse as to why. I bet a majority don't eat very healthy diets, either. True. One of the reasons the scandinavain countries can enact such reforms is they are a largely homogenous culture, and they don't have the problem of people viewing things like this as helping the "other." But, I don't think this is really akin to changing things such as eating habits for Americans. It really goes to how doctors communicate. High cholesterol? lay off the fatty foods, take some (whatever it is). Yeah, his cholesterol will go down with the medicine. But the communication is not there about exactly what a patient can do to improve his health. Diets, for instance, are not universal (and largely not healthy). The south beach diet won't work for everyone, not everyone's body processes foods the same way. But learning what could work for a specific patient would cost time and money - that is - about the same time and money that they use to fix the problem once it happens. The people that do this ? Commence eye-rolling from primary doctors....but naturopaths and the like. The problem and divide about thinking these doctors are kooks, and the problems with the marketing of these doctors themselves is that many start treating patients AFTER the problem occurs. And at that point, traditional american doctor suppression is needed. If applied BEFORE the problem or AFTER, that is when the effect can occur. I don't know. Off Topic. edit: numerous spelling mistakes.

Ha! yes, Grayson should go back with that transcript.

I'm sure bringing up Sweden will cause some eyes to roll. But yes, in Sweden, their doctors make a lot less money. I don't think anyone could fight the doctors and win. People like doctors. But, you saw a shift in sweden to the way they practice medicine. With them not getting paid by how much treatment they can give to a patient, a lot more focus on preventative medicine occurred. What does that mean? A lot of US medicine relies on suppression of viruses/bacteria. Suppression once it becomes a problem. This does, in fact, solve peoples short term problems. In Sweden, there is a lot more medical practice than here to boost peoples immune systems and health so that they don't become sick. This is important, and I hope we can begin to move towards this. I don't think the bill addresses the problem at all with this, but if it causes an attitude shift, than that can achieve a lot.

ahh, i wish had a hot tub time machine to go to Chile in the 1970s. It was such a conservative utopia. Complete free market, military leaders, torture. Ahhh.

Nice article to answer some quesitons on where these savings come from. From Ezra Klein http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...ost_c.html#more

depends if you read policy wonks or political bloggers.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 04:51 PM) The cost of health care needs to be addressed. This is not going to work if the government starts getting charged $1,000 every time someone on the gov plan has a simple 15 minute visit to the doctor. The US cannot afford this unless there are legit cost lowering measures taken. The cost of health care itself has sky rocketed. Much faster than inflation. Even if you cut out 100% of insurance company profits, the health care itself is still at the extreme level of price. First, there is no gov't plan in this bill.. But second, this bill does take steps that people like rep. Ryan seem to love in that it's trying to make health care more of a market via transparency in pricing. We'll see if that works, I hope it does.

i'd rather stick to people that know what they are talking about rather than the "OMG INSURANCE INDUSTRIES MIGHT PROFIT!! THEN WE ARE ALL DIE!" bulls*** firedoglake mouth breathers.

haha, ahh. Hilarious.

We are already paying for these people to get care in the most expensive way, i don't think it's out of the question that we can create ways to pay for them in less expensive ways. Also, though medicare is expensive because of the explosion of enrollees, health care for them is way cheaper than otherwise. Way cheaper.

I think, as part of the census, i am one of the first. I give the names of all republicans to the SS

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 04:32 PM) From what I've read, the bill doesn't appear to contain anything to help doctors w/ malpractice insurance or to enforce malpractice settlement limits. Did I miss it somewhere or is that something that just wasn't dealt with on this bill? It wasn't.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 03:58 PM) And does it bother anyone else that the people voting on this bill could not possibly have read the whole thing? Why does the bill need to be 2k pages long? Are you serious? Good god, for one, go look at the bill. It's in like size gazillion font with ridiculous spacing. Many pages have a ffew sentences on it. Second. Yes, everyone read the bill, if not, their staffers read it and briefed them on it. What's more, any policy wonk in the media read it. If there was a : 301.1 clause: all babies must be eaten my zombie marlon brandeau, then yes, it would have been spotted. Bills need to be big. I don't remember people complaining about the size of the NCLB bill.

Having just driven from florida, it was shockingly over $3 in much of the south.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 05:20 AM) Don't want to come in here acting ignorant, but can you guys point me somewhere that will explain what this reform does for average folks like myself? it depends on who you are. Age, income, medical history, etc.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 05:09 AM) Hey off the subject here, I believe you said you involved in the census, right. Quick question. Have you or has anyone else here been called for a telephone interview that basically repeats what the 26 page form entails. Just wondering. No, but I don't have a phone. Our form was literally just # in household, age, sex, race.

I think there had to be some time to simmer after the PO died. The b**** back then was lieberman. I think the reason you saw such little action from the left was because we had the numbers, it was just frustrating because it was like " DO YOUR JOBS. WE ELECTED YOU OR AT LEAST FILLED YOUR COFFERS". And then Scott Brown came, and when the left came in contact with literally facing just the status quo, i think they realized what that meant. That's when you saw the million phone calls for reform and the letters fly. That's when Hamsher was marginalized. That's when the tide turned.

ahh well, i'll apply for a job at planned parenthood then.

you have to be old, too. Obviously.

Well, I now have health insurance until 26. No need to get a job then...i'll just collect unemployment and live like a king. Welcome to my utopia

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 01:29 AM) Well even right now, November looks so bad for the Democrats right now is because of the economy, not because of healthcare, like conservatives like to think right now. People's opinions on healthcare haven't really changed that much except for maybe some conservatives that were open to the idea a year ago aren't anymore and some liberals that wanted more don't like that the bill doesn't have a public option. I'm not saying the economy doesn't hurt, but a lot more of it has to do with the fact that for 2 election cycles the democrats essentially won like every competitive seat and lost none. They have a ton of ground to defend. But yeah, today on the drive back i was listening to the cnn thing on XM radio and that alex castilleniois? guy was implying that now nobody could really consider there to be blue dog democrats or pro life democrats now that they are voting with PELOSI, that chamelion-like, fire-breathing centaur with cockroaches for fingers and children for intestines. It couldn't be that, really, this bill is actually a better representation of the blue dogs point of view than the raging liberals (whom i And no one mentions this fact. No one mentions, even as they talk about how the AMA and all these huge organizations endorse it, along with 60 senators* and a majority of the house, that perhaps this is in fact not a crazy left-wing bill. It's like they didn't see the progression, where a robust public option was in the original bill. BUt whatever. I win anyways.

That's why, as yglesias says, majorities are for doing things.

it doesn't matter anymore, they aren't going to do deem and pass, three votes: the rule, the senate bill, the sidecar.