Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[ikol]

Louie, could we maybe just agree to disagree instead of distorting each other's arguments?

 

I'll take that as a "no." Louie, I really don't understand why you seem to have such a problem with me. You've never seemed to respect me. I get that you disagree with my political beliefs. 99% of this board does, but I get along with most of them pretty well. All I can do is say I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean it the way that you interpreted it, but it's obviously hard to read someone's tone on the internet. The world is never going to work exactly like we want it to, whether you're liberal, conservative, or other, so I think it's best to lighten up and laugh at the absurdity of it all. It's a cheap way to keep your blood pressure down.

 

As a friend of my said last night, now can anyone support the health care system as it is now?

 

I don't support the system as it is. I just don't agree with Obama's proposed solutions.

 

Poor ikol is worried that his six or seven figure income will someday be impacted by the costs of people like me who are in fact his bread and butter.

 

That comment is extremely unfair.

 

Meanwhile costs pile up and people die, not because we are supposed to by nature as ikol suggests, but because the system we have lets us down.

 

Can't it be both? The whole point of medicine is to intervene when nature deals us a bad hand. Aside from being blatantly obvious, the idea that people would die sooner if nature was allowed to take it's course doesn't mean that they should die. Unnatural doesn't mean bad.

[bobbob1313]

Ok then, doublebob, yer fulla crap.

 

OK. Sorry for trying to make a joke. My bad.

[Sir Stewart]

Wow this thread has turned a stupid corner. WTF. We say extreme shit here sometimes (from all ends of the spectrum); we have to accept that.

[LouieB]

If anything destroys Medicare, it will be all the Baby Boomers refusing to die. But even that will probably destroy the rest of the government before it destroys Medicare.

Do you stand by this? Just curious...

 

Just so everyone is clear about what I was reacting to....

 

LouieB

[ikol]

Do you stand by this? Just curious...

 

Just so everyone is clear about what I was reacting to....

 

LouieB

 

Do I stand by my word choice? No. If that really offends you so much, I didn't mean it that way. As I've repeated a half dozen times since that comment, all I meant was that Baby Boomers retiring and collecting SS and Medicare is going to be a huge problem because not enough revenue is coming in to pay for it. I didn't mean to suggest that they should die. In fact, as someone who wants to continue living, I fully sympathize with their refusal to croak. Now that we've cleared that up, do you stand by your opinion that I'm a koolaid-drinking, money-grubbing heartless bastard who wants to kill gay Mexican Baby Boomers of color?

[LouieB]

Do I stand by my word choice? No. If that really offends you so much, I didn't mean it that way. As I've repeated a half dozen times since that comment, all I meant was that Baby Boomers retiring and collecting SS and Medicare is going to be a huge problem because not enough revenue is coming in to pay for it. I didn't mean to suggest that they should die. In fact, as someone who wants to continue living, I fully sympathize with their refusal to croak. Now that we've cleared that up, do you stand by your opinion that I'm a koolaid-drinking, money-grubbing heartless bastard who wants to kill gay Mexican Baby Boomers of color?

Okay, sure....I don't believe you are what you think I said you were.

 

In point of fact when you put it THAT way I totally agree; simple isn't it?

 

I guess we cleared that up. So it was all a mistake; hyperbole. Language does hurt though.

 

It took Elvis Costello years to back out of some mis-statements he made in the heat of an argument.

 

LouieB

[Guest Speed Racer]

I don't believe you are what you think I said you were.

 

I believe you actually did call him a heartless bastard.

 

Call me a relentless optimist, but I'm pretty sure no one here in this thread is setting out to insult, or call for the death or ill health of, another poster or anyone in their family. As hard as it can be in a topic about health and health care, can we just assume for the sake of productive discussion that no one's intial argument is meant to hurt anyone else unless it's really flippin' blantant? If we're unsure, can we please ask for clarity before blowing our stacks? Continually assuming them's fightin' words will only needlessly escalate a discussion that does have the potetial to be fruitful and interesting.

[uncool2pillow]

If anything destroys Medicare, it will be all the Baby Boomers refusing to die.

This was, at worst, a poor attempt of tongue-in-cheek humor. I actually thought it was a somewhat humorous way to make an extremely important point. We are so dependent upon government programs for the elderly (medicare, social security) that when our biggest generation lives on and on, it's going to bankrupt us. It's not the fault of the baby boom generation, and Ikol never said, nor implied, that they should die early. He just explained what's going to happen when they live into their 70s, 80s, and 90s. I see nothing offensive in his post. I hope it's just not because I agree with his politics.

[mountain bed]

It's entirely possible that many of the boomers won't live into their 80s and 90s. It's possible that they might not even live as long as the previous generation, due to lifestyle choices (promiscuous sex, drugs, etc.) that the previous generation didn't endorse. Not to mention the food - factory farmed, hormone-and antibiotic-injected meat, corn-syrup based everything that has contributed to a significant spike in obesity and diabetes-related health issues.

 

For every advance of medicine there is a corresponding conter-punch of a more sedentary lifestyle. Just sayin'.

[kidsmoke]

OK. Sorry for trying to make a joke. My bad.

 

I was joking back, bobbob. Damn the difficulty of tone reading correctly on the internet!

[uncool2pillow]

Yep, it can be tough. I guess that's why God invented smilies!

[Sir Stewart]

You're all a bunch of jackoffs!

[Mr. Heartbreak]

You're all a bunch of jackoffs!

That's jagoffs to you, bro.

[embiggen]

[kidsmoke]

You're all a bunch of jackoffs!

 

 

That's jagoffs to you, bro.

 

Hey! I resemble these remarks!

[bjorn_skurj]

Which makes me wonder, if support for the public option never went below 50 percent, why are we not having one?

 

Public option gains support

CLEAR MAJORITY NOW BACKS PLAN

Americans still divided on overall packages

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

 

 

 

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public.

 

Americans remain sharply divided about the overall packages moving closer to votes in Congress and President Obama's leadership on the issue, reflecting the partisan battle that has raged for months over the administration's top legislative priority. But sizable majorities back two key and controversial provisions: both the so-called public option and a new mandate that would require all Americans to carry health insurance.

 

Independents and senior citizens, two groups crucial to the debate,have warmed to the idea of a public option, and are particularly supportive if it would be administered by the states and limited to those without access to affordable private coverage.

 

But in a sign of the fragile coalition politics that influence the negotiations in Congress, Obama's approval ratings on health-care reform are slipping among his fellow Democrats even as they are solidifying among independents and seniors. Among Democrats, strong approval of his handling of the issue has dropped 15 percentage points since mid-September.

 

These numbers underscore the challenges ahead for the president and Democratic leaders in Congress as they attempt to maintain support among liberals and moderates in their own party while continuing to win over at least a few Republican lawmakers.

 

Overall, 45 percent of Americans favor the broad outlines of the proposals now moving in Congress, while 48 percent are opposed, about the same division that existed in August, at the height of angry town hall meetings over health-care reform. Seven in 10 Democrats back the plan, while almost nine in 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents divide 52 percent against, 42 percent in favor of the legislation.

 

There are also deep splits in the new poll over whether the proposed changes would go too far or not far enough in expanding coverage and controlling costs. Twice as many see the plan as leaning toward too much government involvement, but since last month there has been a nine-point increase in the number who say government should be more involved.

 

On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (Ina June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)

 

If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.

 

Fifty-six percent of those polled back a provision mandating that all Americans buy insurance, either through their employers or on their own or through Medicare or Medicaid. That number rises to 71 percent if the government were to provide subsidies for many lower-income Americans to help them buy coverage. With those qualifiers, a majority of Republicans say they support the mandate.

 

The public option

Faced with a basic choice that soon may confront the administration and Democratic congressional leaders, a slim majority of Americans, 51 percent, would prefer a plan that included some form of government insurance for people who cannot get affordable private coverage even if it had no GOP support in Congress. Thirty-seven percent would rather have a bipartisan plan that did not feature a public option.Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of this question, while independents prefer a bill that includes a public option but does not have Republican support, by 52 percent to 35 percent.

 

But if there is clear majority support for the public option and the mandate, there is broad opposition to one of the major mechanisms proposed to pay for the bill. The Senate Finance Committee suggested taxing the most costly private insurance plans to help offset the costs of extending coverage to millions more people. Sixty-one percent oppose the idea, while 35 percent favor it.

 

Nearly seven in 10 say they think that any health-care measure wouldincrease the federal budget deficit, a possible concern for Obama. Butnearly half of those who see the legislation as growing the deficitalso say the increase would be "worth it."

 

Concerns about the implications for Medicare continue to cloud the debate. More than twice as many Americans (43 percent to 18 percent) say they think the legislation would weaken Medicare. Despite the dip in opposition to a health-care overhaul among seniors, most, 51percent, still think reform would hurt the popular program.

 

Overall, 57 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president and 40 percent disapprove. While those numbers have moved only marginally over the past few months, here, too, are fresh signs of restiveness among the party faithful: "Strong approval" among liberal Democrats is down 16 percentage points over the past month.

 

On the economy, 50 percent approve of Obama's efforts, while 48 percent disapprove.

 

The president receives better marks from all Americans for his handling of international affairs and his performance as commander in chief (57 percent approval on each). Slim majorities also approve of how he is dealing the situation with Iran and his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize. A majority disapprove of his work on the federal budget deficit.

 

Partisan divide

Despite those mixed reviews on domestic priorities, Obama continues to hold a big political advantage over Republicans.

 

Poll respondents are evenly divided when asked whether they have confidence in Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future, but just 19 percent express confidence in the Republicans in Congress to do so. Even among Republicans, only 40 percent express confidence in the GOP congressional leadership to make good choices.

 

Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats.

 

The wide gap in partisan leanings and the lack of confidence in the GOP carries into early assessments of the November 2010 midterm elections: Fifty-one percent say they would back the Democratic candidate in their congressional district if the elections were held now, while 39 percent would vote for the Republican. Independents split 45 percent for the Democrat, 41 percent for the Republican.

 

The poll was conducted by conventional and cellular telephone from Oct. 15 to 19 among a random sample of 1,004 adults. The margin of sampling error for the full poll is plus or minus three percentage points.

 

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

[Edie]

It isn't just Obama who says that our current system is wasteful:

 

Healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Maggie Fox, Health And Science Editor

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. healthcare system is just as wasteful as President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies, preventing mistakes and fighting fraud, according to a Thomson Reuters report released on Monday.

 

The U.S. healthcare system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year, the report from Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters, found.

 

"America's healthcare system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars, and the opportunities to slow the fiscal bleeding are substantial," the report reads.

 

"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's healthcare bill," Kelley said in a statement.

 

"The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care."

 

One example -- a paper-based system that discourages sharing of medical records accounts for 6 percent of annual overspending.

 

"It is waste when caregivers duplicate tests because results recorded in a patient's record with one provider are not available to another or when medical staff provides inappropriate treatment because relevant history of previous treatment cannot be accessed," the report reads.

 

Some other findings in the report from Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters:

 

* Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37 percent of healthcare waste or $200 to $300 billion a year.

 

* Fraud makes up 22 percent of healthcare waste, or up to $200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.

 

* Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18 percent of healthcare waste.

 

* Medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11 percent of the total.

 

* Preventable conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes cost $30 billion to $50 billion a year.

 

"The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada," reads the report, citing dozens of other research papers.

 

"American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada," it says, quoting a 2003 New England Journal of Medicine paper by Harvard University researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.

 

Yet primary care doctors are lacking, forcing wasteful use of emergency rooms, for instance, the report reads.

 

All this could help explain why Americans spend more per capita and the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country, yet has an unhealthier population with more diabetes, obesity and heart disease and higher rates of neonatal deaths than other developed nations.

 

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said on Sunday that Senate Democratic leaders are close to securing enough votes to pass legislation to start reform of the country's $2.5 trillion healthcare system.

 

Also, if you missed this on NPRs "This American Life" -- listen ASAP. This is part 2 of a two part program from the "Planet Money" team's take on healthcare, including a fascinating look at how the healthcare system evolved and who really is to blame for the escalating costs.

[ih8music]

looks like public pressure worked in the favor of liberals for a change... Reid says that the public option w/ an "opt out" clause for individual states will be included in the bill he takes to the Senate. He's banking that this will be enough of a compromise to prevent a filibuster, and something that can get 50+ votes to pass.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1009/Reid_to_announce_push_for_optout_option.html

 

kinda cool if it works out this way... Medicaid also has an opt out clause, but no states have done that (who's going to vote to take away someone's health insurance after they already have it?). Kudos to Reid for doing this... I'm actually starting to hate him less already.

[LouieB]

I'm actually starting to hate him less already.

Brilliant move....

 

LouieB

[jff]

(who's going to vote to take away someone's health insurance after they already have it?).

 

Georgia.

[Good Old Neon]

Though it’s 4 years old, this Malcolm Gladwell essay does a great job of summing up many of the issues surrounding health care policy.

 

http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Though it’s 4 years old, this Malcolm Gladwell essay does a great job of summing up many of the issues surrounding health care policy.

 

http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html

 

By the way...did you ever get that abcessed tooth looked at? It has really been bothering me since I read that post. Abcesses acan become VERY serious if not addressed.

[Good Old Neon]

By the way...did you ever get that abcessed tooth looked at? It has really been bothering me since I read that post. Abcesses acan become VERY serious if not addressed.

 

I did – my dentist is finishing up the root canal on Saturday. The crown will go on in January, when my benefit’s reset. All told, for one tooth, my out of pocket expenses will near two grand – ouch!

 

I appreciate your concern Crow.

[mountain bed]

Good news, Joe. Glad to hear things have been taken care of. As Crow said, abcessed teeth are not to be fucked with. 20 years ago I had an abcessed wisdom tooth and it was the sickest I've ever been in my life. It was touch-and-go there for awhile.

[Good Old Neon]

From Andrew Sullivan:

 

The Right And The Tinderbox

 

Unemployment is over 10 percent; economic insecurity is profound; we have been occupying two deeply Muslim countries for eight years with no end in sight; we are grappling with massive debt and an attempt to provide some basic health insurance for the working poor. There are perfectly reasonable and important debates to have about all this - whether this is the time to expand health insurance, whether we should have done it years ago, whether a public option is a good thing, whether Medicare can be cut enough to save enough to make this affordable. But the Republican right has not engaged such a debate in a meaningful way. And yesterday, the House GOP leadership gave their blessing to a raggedy bunch of extreme anti-government fanatics whose rally contained the following elements:

 

The angry folks at the protest -- which attracted several thousand conservatives -- held up signs with messages of hate: "Get the Red Out of the White House," "Waterboard Congress," "Ken-ya Trust Obama?" One called the president a "Traitor to the U.S. Constitution." Another sign showed pictures of dead bodies at the Dachau concentration camp and compared health care reform to the Holocaust. A different placard depicted Obama as Sambo. Yes, Sambo. Another read, "Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds" -- a reference to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory holding that one evil Jewish family has manipulated events around the globe for decades.

 

This kind of rhetoric - on the same day that the Fort Hood massacre took place - is gasoline on a fire of atavistic hate. Someone in the GOP leadership needs to call it out - before its logic propels us toward more violence and social division.

 

This kind of rhetoric is simply unacceptable for a major political party to institutionally embrace in a civil democracy:

 

Boehner, for one, declared that the health care bill is the "greatest threat to freedom that I have seen." That's some statement ... And at one point during the rally -- call it a Bachmannalia -- when John Ratzenberger, a.k.a Cliff Clavin from "Cheers," claimed that the Democrats were turning the United States into a land of European socialism, the audience shouted, "Nazis, Nazis." No Republican legislator left the stage in protest. Boehner and his fellow GOP leaders should be asked how they feel about mounting a rally that attracted intense hate-mongering.

 

link - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-right-and-the-tinderbox.html