southsider2k5

I still want to see us throw at a Billy Butler when Grienke is out on the mound throwing at our guys. Maybe if his guys get smacked a couple of times, they will tell Zach to quit throwing at our guys.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) Criticizing American foreign policy while on foreign soil is un-American, or at best, "apologizing for being American" is it not? At least that's what we've been told, so... why is the right pretending Huckabee's criticizing of Obama's policy while in Israel as something else? I just want to know why the left isn't saluting his patriotism?

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 03:45 PM) No doubt. And perhaps some out of pocket cost component will help curb unnecessary visits. Still, keeping patients with chronic illness out of ERs will be a wonderful help to the system. And preventive medicine and timely treatment is actually cheaper for the system. Are you suggesting too much business will hurt the industry? I believe there may be an initial adjustment period, there will also be a realignment as treatment is pushed and pulled to the most effective avenue. No more "I've been coughing for two weeks" trips to the ER or people with pneumonia not being treated. I am suggesting the system is on the verge of collapse as it is from lack of capacity. They won't be able to keep up with the crush of 50,000,000 people getting "free" care.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 03:46 PM) there's plenty of capacity out there. I'd say that the last 5-6 times I've been to a doctor's office (regular checkups, mtgs with the wife, etc) the waiting room has been completely empty. Really? It never happens to us, and with two little kids we are in for something at least once a month.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) Are you talking about those that visit emergency rooms for common ailments, and use services without paying? People are still using services. Shall we discuss what will happen with costs when the hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for that care? Discuss what it does for ER rooms when non emergency matters can be handled by a more appropriate doctor visit or "doc in a box"? There are plenty of people who refuse to go for treatment because they can't afford it. With no disincentive not to make trips, this will only expand. It is an economic truism that the cheaper something is, the more people use of it.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) now the extension part... knowing that our healthcare system is in need of some kind of reform (leaving that bipartisan agreement alone for now), what is every American's duty to improve the overall system? Sacrifice for the greater good. Shouldn't we, as a country, do something individually that would help the system out... - Stop Smoking - Stop doing drugs - Eat healthier - Exercise - Etc We are asking our country to help us, but what are we doing to help our country? And with everyone else paying for it, does the country have a right to make requirements on your health and behaviors?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:37 AM) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=aV3dLt6wmZH4 I'm sure they'll tell us we are misinterpreting this story. Ax-man is an honest guy. Its always different with this admin. Thank god they aren't using lobbying groups... Oops.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 11:41 AM) Ah yes. Fear mongering. So I still have not had it explained to me how we are adding 50,000,000 million people to the system, while having, at most, the same number of doctors, nurses, and facilities, without having longer delays, and less care. If you can explain it, I would love to hear it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 07:52 AM) Ridiculous. The current system in health care provision is nowhere within sniffing distance of competitive capitalism. The intervening presence of insurance providers and the labrynthine provider system allow for no real level of choice at all, other than, basically, insurance or no insurance. The current "solution" provided by Congress may suck donkey balls, but let's not get ridiculous about the current system being so great. Who said anything was great?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 08:16 AM) Also, BULLs***. He's going to jail for being in contempt of court. My point exactly. You are taking something out of context and saying that it means something that it doesn't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 05:40 PM) Because why would a conservative read something I was posting if I didn't point out "Hey, this is something you might like". The posting of it in the GOP thread, might be as giveaway...

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 06:58 PM) Your point is what Reagan said about Medicare, you know. Do you support eliminating Medicare as well? It wouldn't upset me, that's for sure. Especially because the slippery slope of medicare is being used to justify a further erosion of rights.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 10:34 PM) I've read most of house bill 3200. That is a huge piece of s*** legislation. And don't worry, the night before the vote, 1000 pages will show up out of no where.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 04:59 PM) It isn't a true free market system at all in its current form, I thought this was more or less settled a couple dozen pages ago. Saying we don't have a free market system currently is the same as sayign we don't have free speech because you can't yell fire in a theater, or that you don't have freedom of religion because a principal is going to jail for praying in school.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) Thank you. There is not choice in the current system. This was just a roundabout way of having you make that point for me. Um, that wasn't what I said at all... But between you and Balta, the circular logic to justify the loss of another freedom is scary.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) So your argument therefore is that a public plan would be cheaper for everyone and less work for everyone, and this is therefore a bad thing. Yes, that is totally my argument. You can make it into whatever will fit into your stereotypes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) There are some absolutely top-notch public universities that have higher-ranked programs than the Ivy League schools. Why hasn't U of I or UC Berkeley driven Harvard's engineering department into non-existence? It's offered at a fraction of the cost and its a better program. Are you really telling me that with the option of changing to something completely cheaper and less work for them, that most private corporations won't drop their private plans and force their employees into government plans? You really don't believe in profit motivation this much dispite the obvious economic history's shown all over the place?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 12:49 PM) A couple points in reply: 1. The government, at the state level in particular, really ought to be smarter about where it allows housing developments to go up. A number of them are just asking for wildfire destruction. Or landslide destruction. 2. The government often mandates things that are done in an effort to insure against those calamities. Building codes against earthquakes, lahar alarms, levee systems, etc. 3. What area of the country isn't subject to potential serious disaster? Especially if you include floods and droughts and tornadoes. And yet we aren't requiring a national payment plan for everyone who can't afford those risks with lives at stake... For shame.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 12:44 PM) Why hasn't the government Wal-marted UPS, FedEx, private schools, private military contractors (eg Blackwater) etc out of business? three of those things derive a large amount of their business from the federal government. The other one exists because the federal version of its product is amongst the worst in the industrialized world.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 12:42 PM) So basically you're saying that the insurance companies won't ever do anything that allows them to out-compete a public plan, like providing better service or more cost-effective service, and I'm supposed to feel bad about this? If by cost effective, you mean just coming in and slashing everyones wages, why wasn't that OK for the automotive unions when people were talking about that?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 11:13 AM) Can you make the case in any way aside from repeating "Economic freedom" for why people should be able to be uninsured? It costs a lot more in both the short and long term, it removes some healthy people from the system, and it creates this disastrous incentive for insurance companies to move their expensive customers in to the uninsured ranks rather than paying for them. If you really are trying to make that case, you shouldn't be living in California. It will cost the country a s***ton more in the future because people like you decided to live in a dangerous part of the world. Should I have the freedom to make you leave and live somewhere more safe? Sure it is cheaper today to keep millions of people in dangerous areas of the country (earthquake prone, volcano zones, hurricane prone, etc.) but would you really want the government TELLING you that you HAD to do something because it would be cheaper for you in the long run? Would you care about economic freedom then?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 11:00 AM) You have the Freedom! and choice!!! to pick from that wide variety of awesome, affordable private plans. Then you won't be fined or be part of the evil Government Option of Doom. They won't exist after the government Wal-Marts them out of existance. Then Obama gets his single payer plan, just like he wanted all along.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) We're not in Canada. Stop arguing against things that don't exist and aren't being proposed. The proposal is that you are fined if you do not opt for care of some kind, and you will be paying into the system. Tell me again how that isn't being proposed.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 10:11 AM) When less than 1% of people decline their employer's health insurance and go out and get some on their own I fail to see that as a true choice. And yes I made that figure up but I'm probably not far off. And zero percent will be able to opt out of government care. That is not better.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:49 AM) For most professionals, health care coverage is part of your compensation. My company won't give me cash in lieu of forgoing those benefits. Essentially, to switch, I'd be taking a pay cut and having to turn around and spend a few hundred a month. So instead much of the country is going to take a pay cut AND won't get a choice. That's much better.