Ted Kennedy to be succeeded by a toolbag

[Sparky speaks]

What is your solution to the health care problem?

 

 

I posted this a few pages back.....I think Schiff's ideas are worth a try. They seem to work for many other consumer items which health insurance is don't you think?

 

http://eclipptv.com/...p?video_id=9523

[Atticus]

Death panels and socialism.

 

[caliber66]

Likewise, if the Republicans take a completely obstructionist stand and filibuster everything that moves, the Democrats can try to use their recalcitrance as a rallying point.

[Atticus]

Personally, I think it has more to do with the absurd level of ignorance out there – as most of the objections I’ve heard with respect to “Obamacare” are about as nuanced and sophisticated as an episode of The Hill. When the name “Glenn” and “Beck” are used repeatedly, in the same sentence and in that order, by voters, you just sort of know where they're coming from, intellectually.

 

But seriously, it’s the economy, and that has more to do with 8 + years of mismanagement, than these so programs you’re referring to – which, if you were to ask the voting public – “Could you name two programs supported by the president?” – in return, you’d probably receive a blank stare. The Brown vote is more of a reflection of what the voters don’t know and/or don't remember, than what they do – imo.

 

wait, you're proposing that people who voted for a republican did so out of their overwhelming ignorance and stupidity rather than differing opinions than yours on issues? That's a WHOLE new direction for you (I kid)

[Dick Ctionary]

Likewise, if the Republicans take a completely obstructionist stand and filibuster everything that moves, the Democrats can try to use their recalcitrance as a rallying point.

 

re·cal·ci·trance

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈkal-sə-trən(t)s\

Function: noun

Date: 1856

: the state of being recalcitrant

 

re·cal·ci·trant

Pronunciation: \-trənt\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Late Latin recalcitrant-, recalcitrans, present participle of recalcitrare to be stubbornly disobedient, from Latin, to kick back, from re- + calcitrare to kick, from calc-, calx heel

Date: 1843

1: obstinately defiant of authority or restraint

2 a: difficult to manage or operate

b: not responsive to treatment

c: resistant

synonyms see unruly

[bjorn_skurj]

I posted this a few pages back.....I think Schiff's ideas are worth a try. They seem to work for many other consumer items which health insurance is don't you think?

 

http://eclipptv.com/...p?video_id=9523

OK - I respect that you have a concept and will put it out there. I don't think health care should be a consumer item. I don't want it left to the invisible hand.

[auctioneer69]

wait, you're proposing that people who voted for a republican did so out of their overwhelming ignorance and stupidity rather than differing opinions than yours on issues? That's a WHOLE new direction for you (I kid)

 

Taking a 20,000 feet many view, I think you have to still think this is a center-right country founded over two centuries ago on a grave fear and mistrust of government which continues. Coming from Europe originally I am always struck by how Americans will automatically blame the Government for problems and in Europe the blame always usually goes to private enterprise. Here in the USA, private enterprise is considered virtuous which feeds an environment in which sometimes big business gets a freer pass than it deserves. In Europe it's the exact opposite.

 

The very similar problems that the USA and Britain are facing right now vis-a-vis the financial crisis. it causes and aftermath illustrate this very well. Public wrath in Britain has been heavily weighted towards the bankers over the last 18 months whereas here people are more irate at the Government's handling of the crisis. So, many people seem more up in arms about Obama bailing out the banks than sins of the banks themselves. In Britain, the Government seems to have gotten a free pass on it's very lax regulatory oversight of the bank. Even more illustrating are people's views of the budget deficit in both countries. Many people here are very angry about the thought of future generations paying a heavy price for current deficits and act as though taxes have already been raised whereas in Britain, outside of broad generalities, politicians are even loath to bring up the subject in detail.

 

 

I don't like or agree with the Sean Hannities and Glen Becks of this world but they didn't create the underlying beliefs which they seek to exploit. What's interesting for me is how quickly Obama has changed his public tone in just two days. You could make an argument he's been a little aloof since taking office (I think the "Saturday Night Live" skit likening him to Spock hits home). Perhaps this election has the potential to have at least some silver lining for the Democrats if they can avoid a rout in November.

[D-Dogg]

OK - I respect that you have a concept and will put it out there. I don't think health care should be a consumer item. I don't want it left to the invisible hand.

 

The invisible hand lowers the price. The government's intervention raises prices. If not directly than indirectly.

[Guest Jules]

Wasn't Ted a toolbag too?

[bjorn_skurj]

The invisible hand lowers the price. The government's intervention raises prices. If not directly than indirectly.

Thank you, Adam Smith. Can you ask Mr. Hand to come up with a way to cover everybody?

[D-Dogg]

Thank you, Adam Smith. Can you ask Mr. Hand to come up with a way to cover everybody?

 

Impossible, and if that phenomenon did happen, the overage would dwindle over time while the costs increased.

 

I have worked in the field of Medicare and if a senior wants real coverage they best get a supplemental PRIVATE insurance.

 

Your sarcasm is not necessary, but if you want we can have fun trying to outwit each other.

 

If government controlled the flat screen tv market, those tubes would still be hovering over ten grand if not more instead the prices have fallen dramatically.

[auctioneer69]

Thank you, Adam Smith. Can you ask Mr. Hand to come up with a way to cover everybody?

 

 

The invisible hand actually raises prices for healthcare. People shop based on expertise not price. Also, people buy healthcare when they are in chronic need again giving the suppliers power over consumers. Have a serious accident and you aren't going to be either willing or able to bargain with your supplier or for that matter physically be able to go to a competing healthcare facility when you are bleeding to death at your local E.R.. Professionals in areas like law and medicine often have specialist skills which allow them to charge a premium for the services because there is no real competition amongst providers. Last but not least, health-care professionals are paid fees for services rendered not for results.

 

 

As a side-note we like to rail against the insurance companies who have a profit margin of 4% but would never malign health-practitioners whose profit margins might be a big multiple of this. The increase in medical costs isn't driven by insurance companies but by health-care providers, medical malpractice insurance costs, unnecessary testing,new technology, a willingness to extend life at end-of-life scenario's at any cost, the rise in obesity in society, pharmaceuticals,and the cost that hospitals have to absorb by treating those without insurance.

[auctioneer69]

Impossible, and if that phenomenon did happen, the overage would dwindle over time while the costs increased.

 

I have worked in the field of Medicare and if a senior wants real coverage they best get a supplemental PRIVATE insurance.

 

Your sarcasm is not necessary, but if you want we can have fun trying to outwit each other.

 

If government controlled the flat screen tv market, those tubes would still be hovering over ten grand if not more instead the prices have fallen dramatically.

 

Contradicted by the British model of a single-payer system funded by taxes. Not that I would advocate it for this country which has far different core values especially re: government involvement and taxed . Same or better health outcomes (except for worse cancer survival rates for certain cancers) than the US. At about half the cost in terms of GDP. And as someone who grew up there service ranks between adequate and excellent. Recently had an elderly relative who was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. Getting to see a specialist undoubtedly took longer than it might here but since then she has been delighted with her treatment and care. I myself had a serious accident as a teenager years and received excellent care and treatment over a nine month period. Finally, private insurance is available to all in Britain. Very few people buy it.

[Tweedling]

Wasn't Ted a toolbag too?

You're in big trouble now Mister!

[D-Dogg]

Contradicted by the British model of a single-payer system funded by taxes. Not that I would advocate it for this country which has far different core values especially re: government involvement and taxed . Same or better health outcomes (except for worse cancer survival rates for certain cancers) than the US. At about half the cost in terms of GDP. And as someone who grew up there service ranks between adequate and excellent. Recently had an elderly relative who was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. Getting to see a specialist undoubtedly took longer than it might here but since then she has been delighted with her treatment and care. I myself had a serious accident as a teenager years and received excellent care and treatment over a nine month period. Finally, private insurance is available to all in Britain. Very few people buy it.

 

It is not contradicted. The cost for coverage for all is a nice idea of utopia and may work for several generations, but the problem with relying on other peoples money is that it runs out. However the cost will still be there and will continue to increase. Also the good government intentions lead to unintended and usually negative consequences. For example, if a law stated that all businesses must cover their employees with health insurance small and midsized businesses might not hire more people due to the costs.

 

Sure US could cover everyone including the illegals right now.... but only right now.

[D-Dogg]

The invisible hand actually raises prices for healthcare. People shop based on expertise not price. Also, people buy healthcare when they are in chronic need again giving the suppliers power over consumers. Have a serious accident and you aren't going to be either willing or able to bargain with your supplier or for that matter physically be able to go to a competing healthcare facility when you are bleeding to death at your local E.R.. Professionals in areas like law and medicine often have specialist skills which allow them to charge a premium for the services because there is no real competition amongst providers. Last but not least, health-care professionals are paid fees for services rendered not for results.

 

 

As a side-note we like to rail against the insurance companies who have a profit margin of 4% but would never malign health-practitioners whose profit margins might be a big multiple of this. The increase in medical costs isn't driven by insurance companies but by health-care providers, medical malpractice insurance costs, unnecessary testing,new technology, a willingness to extend life at end-of-life scenario's at any cost, the rise in obesity in society, pharmaceuticals,and the cost that hospitals have to absorb by treating those without insurance.

 

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but:

 

The invisible hand has never been involved in health care, government both state and federal (and yes health care lobbyist) have had their hands all over it.

 

Laser eye surgery has had free run without government intervention and that price has dropped significantly. Also.. thank god same with boob jobs.

[auctioneer69]

It is not contradicted. The cost for coverage for all is a nice idea of utopia and may work for several generations, but the problem with relying on other peoples money is that it runs out. However the cost will still be there and will continue to increase. Also the good government intentions lead to unintended and usually negative consequences. For example, if a law stated that all businesses must cover their employees with health insurance small and midsized businesses might not hire more people due to the costs.

 

Sure US could cover everyone including the illegals right now.... but only right now.

 

Take a look at why wage growth has been non-existent in the US since the late nineties. A major reason is the cost to employers (both big and small) for health-insurance. Premiums for businesses have doubled in the last ten years. And that's before you factor in the rise in costs for individuals portion of health insurance at work. Hence, US workers getting pay increases barely in line with inflation despite being far more productive than those in most other developed countries. If healthcare costs continue to rise at current rates the chances for individuals to see their wages rise will continue to be extremely dim. So in theory taxes can stay where they are but the staggering and increasing cost of healthcare will continue to reduce the average persons' standard of living. As I have mentioned before the free market itself will do nothing to correct this.

[auctioneer69]

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but:

 

The invisible hand has never been involved in health care, government both state and federal (and yes health care lobbyist) have had their hands all over it.

 

Laser eye surgery has had free run without government intervention and that price has dropped significantly. Also.. thank god same with boob jobs.

 

 

Not to harp on about the same point but cosmetic surgery is completely optional and ,as such, with enough providers can be commoditized. That's not true when you are diagnosed with cancer or get badly hurt in an accident.i\

[JohnO]

Personally, I think it has more to do with the absurd level of ignorance out there – as most of the objections I’ve heard with respect to “Obamacare” are about as nuanced and sophisticated as an episode of The Hill. When the name “Glenn” and “Beck” are used repeatedly, in the same sentence and in that order, by voters, you just sort of know where they're coming from, intellectually.

 

But seriously, it’s the economy, and that has more to do with 8 + years of mismanagement, than these so programs you’re referring to – which, if you were to ask the voting public – “Could you name two programs supported by the president?” – in return, you’d probably receive a blank stare. The Brown vote is more of a reflection of what the voters don’t know and/or don't remember, than what they do – imo.

 

That's the Democratic response to everyone who disagrees with them. Keep calling the voters ignorant, homophobic, racist, reactionary, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and you'll be in the minority in no time.

 

You are correct, it is the economy. But it's about Obama not having his priorities straight not about George Bush. It's about deficit spending at historic levels, back room deals with special interests and the buying of votes with THE PEOPLES money. So yup were justa bunch o dumby's out har.

[JohnO]

The problem of millions being uninsured, smart ass.

As far as the uninsured go about a third of them can afford insurance but choose not to, another quarter are below the poverty line and qualify for SS/Medicare, another quarter either can't qualify for or cannot afford insurance and the remainder are illegal aliens.

 

The first group is made up of young healthy adults and I would do nothing with them except send them the bill if/when they show up at the hospital for treatment. They're rolling the dice and for the most part it's a good bet.

 

The second group is all set as far as I'm concerned. Maybe Obama can get his ACORN mafia to go out and enroll these people.

 

The third group can be addressed through legislation. Eliminate the arcane laws that prevent insurers from selling across State lines. In larger States where multiple insurance companies compete the rates are lower. Allowing companies to pool insurers will have the same affect. Then they also need to eliminate the preexisting condition exclusion.

 

The last group should go home and get treatment.

 

You didn't ask about drug prices but I'll give you my thoughts anyway. The United States gets price gouged on drugs. The same drugs can be had for much less, up to 75% less in some cases, by ordering from a supplier in Canada or India. This makes no sense at all. Either we are subsidizing drug prices for the world or we are getting royally ripped off! Unfortunately Obama is so far in bed with both big Pharma and the one world crowd that he would rather bankrupt the country or tax us to death in order to curry their favor.

[Sir Stewart]

Wasn't Ted a toolbag too?

 

No, he was a dingus.

[Guest Speed Racer]

As far as the uninsured go about a third of them can afford insurance but choose not to, another quarter are below the poverty line and qualify for SS/Medicare, another quarter either can't qualify for or cannot afford insurance and the remainder are illegal aliens.

 

Facts and figures, sir?

 

The first group is made up of young healthy adults

 

Are you daft?

 

The second group is all set as far as I'm concerned. Maybe Obama can get his ACORN mafia to go out and enroll these people.

 

Are you daft?

 

The third group can be addressed through legislation. Eliminate the arcane laws that prevent insurers from selling across State lines. In larger States where multiple insurance companies compete the rates are lower. Allowing companies to pool insurers will have the same affect. Then they also need to eliminate the preexisting condition exclusion.

 

Pardon me if I'm daft, but wouldn't that be health care reform you're describing?

 

The last group should go home and get treatment.

 

No one in any part of the health care reform argument is talking about treating undocumented aliens.

[calvino]

 

No one in any part of the health care reform argument is talking about treating undocumented aliens.

 

 

"You lie!!!!"

Perhaps JohnO heard it from this guy.

[D-Dogg]

Take a look at why wage growth has been non-existent in the US since the late nineties. A major reason is the cost to employers (both big and small) for health-insurance. Premiums for businesses have doubled in the last ten years. And that's before you factor in the rise in costs for individuals portion of health insurance at work. Hence, US workers getting pay increases barely in line with inflation despite being far more productive than those in most other developed countries. If healthcare costs continue to rise at current rates the chances for individuals to see their wages rise will continue to be extremely dim. So in theory taxes can stay where they are but the staggering and increasing cost of healthcare will continue to reduce the average persons' standard of living. As I have mentioned before the free market itself will do nothing to correct this.

 

I do agree with you, I just do not agree that single payer is America's solution. I do not think employees should offer health insurance. Which again is another unintended consequence for government intervention in the middle of the 20th century. Our health care system is fucked up, but a lot of it has to do with red tape regulations. There are many factors that have gone into raising the cost, there is not one silver bullet, but I think we should open up the doors for companies to compete across state line, which I think some companies might not want. Introducing an a la carte menu - which means stop the state and federal regulations of what must be covered because that raises the prices. I am not sure torte reform.

 

 

 

Not to harp on about the same point but cosmetic surgery is completely optional and ,as such, with enough providers can be commoditized. That's not true when you are diagnosed with cancer or get badly hurt in an accident.i\

 

Part of the problem is that people do not shop around when they have insurance coverage. I am not talking about emergency care, but treatment and preventative care is hardly shopped around, because someone else (insurance) is paying for it. Two doctors each on the other end of town may have a difference in $300.00 when it comes to treatment or surgery or whatever. If you were shopping for a tv you would be driving across town to pick it up, but if you were using another person's money you might not make the effort to go across town. On that notion I like the idea of health savings account.

 

If you are being respectful, I do not mind the harp.

 

When Republicans where in control in the early 2000 Bush signed into the law medicare prescription bill. With the assumption that the price would not skyrocket. Well the price has skyrocketed. Its the same story here. Price will skyrocket. We need to stop doing the exact thing over and over again.

[JohnO]

Facts and figures, sir?

 

No one in any part of the health care reform argument is talking about treating undocumented aliens.

 

You can research it for yourself.

 

The question to me was, "What is my proposal for the uninsured?" Try to stay with the thread.

 

If you can't tell the difference between what I've proposed and the monstrosity that is Obamacare then yes you are daft.