Political Discussions
Do you support Obama's health plan?
Posted by caspergirl35 • 8/12/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: health plan, healthcare, obama
In a general poll on this subject the majority of people said no. And in fact most are very upset at this plan. I have found with talking to people regarding this...that people that think it is a good plan...just don't know that true facts.
Healthcare for all. Yes it sounds good, but look at the 1012 pages it entails. By the way Obama himself hasn't even read all of it. I don't care to follow someone who is relying on others to tell him what to say and what to think...just to get the publics attention.
itsjustmyownopinion.blogspot.com
User Comments
-
Agree. When did it become common practice to pass bills into law that no one has read, save for the special interest groups who wrote them?-
But they can't require people to read them, it would be so embarrasing to start ordering the plan on audiobook for all the illiterate democrats.
Maybe they could call it stimulus and hide behind that... -
LOL
"Hey (insert congressional page's name here)!! Get in here and read me this damn bill!!!" -
Just as long as it's not an intern, we know what democrats do to them.
Get in here, i've got this cigar... -
heh heh
-
-
The current US medical system is expensive, yet oddly, also rather crap. On that basis it seems logical to reform the health care system.
The question is, why would anyone want to retain an inefficient and under performing system?-
Because they are part of the minority making big bucks off of it and/or they believe that American medical system is 10 times better than any other in the world. They may feel that even looking at other systems in a fair way to learn from other's successes/failures is somehow un-American. -
Indeed.
Much of it also seems to be political opportunism. If Obama fails to get his health reforms through then that would very seriously damage his presidency.
Nothing that wrong with political opportunism really but it is cynical to take this line of attack, so based on scaremongering misinformation, when in fact system badly needs reform.
The truth is Obama is more concerned about the well being of Granny than opponents to reform are. -
Political opportunism is playing huge right now. I may be nieve but I do feel that most people are really trying to do what they feel is best for their country. Too many times that gets forgotten and they attack the otherside on personal basis instead of based on policy differences. Note above exchange.
-
poly, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't live in the United States do you?
-
Antics, you seem to know surprisingly little about the people you "talk" to here. Don't you visit their blogs to find out who you're talking to before ripping on them? Polybore has also made abundantly clear here that he is from the UK, that place health care scare artists like to talk badly about (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/us-medical-care-ranks-37th-in-wo...). -
"ripping" them? How quaint coming from you. Do you not know facetiousness when you see it? I thought you were an educator, errr, sorry, I meant teacher.
-
Yes polybore is a UK citizen who has been dragged into this debate by ignorant and scurrilous attacks on the NHS.
The NHS whips the US medical "care" system's butt in all the important data comparisons while costing HALF the price of the current US health care system. -
"The NHS whips the US medical "care" system's butt in all the important data comparisons while costing HALF the price of the current US health care system."
Got any evidence to back up that wildly inaccurate claim? -
The facts speak for themselves. The US system is inefficient and less effective than the NHS.
Life expectancy is longer in the UK than in the US
Healthy life expectancy is longer in the UK than the US
Probability of dying under 5 is lower in the UK than the US
Probability of dying between the ages of 15 and 60 years is lower in the UK than the US
The US spends twice the percentage of GDP that the UK does on healthcare but can only achieve an inferior health car system.
www.who.int/countries/usa/en/
compared with
www.who.int/countries/gbr/en/ -
Um polybore, I followed the links you provided. The life expectancy compared between the two countries is practically the same. So that doesn't prove anything. Besides life expectancy has more to do with lifestyle, diet, amount of exercise, etc...
From your WHO US page -
"Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71"
From your WHO UK page -
"Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/81
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/72"
The stats you used to prove the "superiority" of UK health care have nothing or very little to do with the medical system and much more to do with lifestyle, etc... like I mentioned above.
Since when does how much of a country's GDP that is for medical care show anything about the quality of that care? The WHO reports use a biased methodology that is very suspicious. It ranks countries that have socialized medicine higher on the list, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. That is a built in bias.
We are going round and round here. You just like to ignore the facts in this. I posted in depth about the WHO report and how it lists the United States ahead of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in the world when it comes to the "responsiveness" (a WHO term that they came up with to say instead of "quality", because that is what their term means - quality).
I will re-post a small portion of what I said in that other thread.
""Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider)."
Our autonomy and ability to choose our own doctors, patient dignity (how much dignity does a patient have that is left laying on a stretcher for hours, sometimes days at a time due to health rationing?), access to social support and quality of basic amenities are what put us at the top of the "Responsiveness" list. Funny how the WHO burys that part in its report.
So, if you break it down, the only thing the United States fails in is how much money is spent per capita on health care."
You still haven't proven to me how any health care system in the world is better than the U.S. system. It has its flaws, I will admit that, but every system has its flaws.
How do you defend the NHS and NICE when they deny cancer drugs to cancer patients?
-
-
1. Misleading premise. I assume you are referring to the House plan. Remember that the House and Senate are working on different bills. Can't really call either one Obama's plan until things progress a little more. My local news tried to do the same misleading poll. It's really a shame.
2. Most? If most were this hell bent at opposing health care reform Obama himself talked so much about during the campaign, McCain and Trailer Trash Barbie would have won. Pay very close attention to your wording. These polls are suspect. Does not compute.
3. "Just look at all (insert obscure number here) pages"
Most of us have not read it, yet claim to be experts based on news coverage alone. Uninformed all around, yourself included. I only say this as you've framed the question in reference to HR 3200 as Obama's plan and not the House plan. I have downloaded a PDF version floating around. I'm in the process of reading through it, but I've experienced health care under the NHS, so I'm biased in that I'm already sold on the idea.
As for when it became acceptable to pass bills without reading it, the Patriot Act comes to mind. If you want to make this about reading bills, then stand by that. I'm going to assume that even if every member of Congress reads it to the letter and on top of that, hires extras to read it with them for the sake of being thorough, you would still be in opposition. Reading an entire bill becomes somewhat of a moot point in that setting, unless you plan on holding your own conservative representatives accountable for not reading.
The more interesting story to me is whether or not the South is planning to rise again. It's down right scary...more scary (and justifiably so) than those on the Right are making Obamacare out to be.-
And my timer ran out while I was editing.
4. "Healthcare for all"
No. That's not what is being proposed. It sounds nice, but it's not what Congress has on the table at the moment. If John Edwards had been elected, then perhaps Single Payer would be on the table. Unfortunately, the scared town hall folks seem to think they are getting "gov't health care for all" crammed down their throats. Not so. Just one more lie we have to continue to debunk. -
I've also seen the strange notion that such legislation should be in bills that are short. Never did understand how that would be possible.
-
"trailer trash barbie"
How enlightened. I think that the health care "reform" opposition had little to do with the election. But it is a good opportunity for you to attack Sarah Palin.
Liberal Debating 101 - Attack and demonize.
You don't really think El Presidente doesn't want single payer? You are either very naive, or just so far in the tank for him that you can't/won't see it. -
I did not say Obama did not want Single Payer. I said Single Payer is not on the table right now. If you want to debate imaginary bills, I suggest you find a good time travel agency and skip ahead.
Attacking Sarah Palin? Out of all the stuff I wrote, you chose one little nickname? Should I go as far as to point out classic conservative tactics? Avoid serious debate by picking out anything so very minuscule that gets their panties in a wad? It's tangential speak. I see it online all the time. If you want a personal attack, trust me, I'm the guy who will toss them out if provoked without any sympathy for your well being. When you read "Trailer Trash Barbie," feel free to substitute "Sarah Palin" as needed. FFS, get on with it and read the post or go back to reading Trailer Life magazine. I skip over your "El Presidente" remarks. I know who you mean and I know the reference. I quite like the beer with the same name. -
Nice reply. Good faked outrage. I'll give you a....6 out of 10.
Now to address your being upset that I didn't reply to the whole of your post.
"Can't really call either one Obama's plan until things progress a little more."
I agree. For such a strong leader, El Presidente sure is leaving the grunt work to Pelosi, Reid and the rest. He says and has been saying for years now that health care reform is the keystone of his Presidency. If it is so important, where the hell is his bill? Oh that's right, he didn't write one.
As for the rest of your post, I really don't care that you like socialized medicine. Good for you, I guess by setting the bar low, you won't be disappointed. But here in the United States, we like our freedoms and personal liberties. Well most of us do, some libs, even some misguided souls here on BC think that socialism is just wonderful. -
Well auntie pop rocks, I see you're still lacking in substance. I assure you my outrage at your endless supply of inane comments is real and I've painted a target on your back. You continue to insist that there is some bill out there pushing gov't takeover of health care in the form of a Single Payer system. You are just one of these fringe folks using the word "socialism" as if it's some sort of legit talking point and you hide behind fake support for freedoms and personal liberties. I can't help that you've lost touch with reality, but perhaps one day when we can provide quality health care for everyone, we can get you some good psychiatric help for that paranoia of yours. Until then, as it stands, legislation is coming from Congress and Obama has the lead. His repeated appearances in town halls to deal with the lies is his way of doing the grunt work to defend what he was elected to do. Most of the elected officials on your side only have lies to spread and paranoid mobs to inspire. Let us know when your health insurance hikes your premiums a few more times. At some point you'll have to put down your ideology and take a stand against the people who have the red hot poker jammed up your arse. Only when it hits your wallet will someone like you realize who is really jerking you around.
-
ROFLMAO!!! You painted a target on my back? HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Okay, sorry. I regained my composure. Tell me handy, why is it that I need to be scared?
"You continue to insist that there is some bill out there pushing gov't takeover of health care in the form of a Single Payer system. You are just one of these fringe folks using the word "socialism" as if it's some sort of legit talking point and you hide behind fake support for freedoms and personal liberties."
So Barney Frank said this because...?
" Interviewer: Don’t you think we should scratch everything and start anew with single payer? Why not?
Frank: No…because we don’t have the votes for it. I wish we did. I think if we get a good public option it could lead to single payer, and that’s the best way to reach single payer. Saying you’ll do nothing until you get single payer is a sure way never to get it.
Interviewer: Right now, it’s not a strong public option, is it?
Frank: Well, we don’t know what the plan is. I’m for a strong public option. I think your strategy is suicidal for trying to get single payer. I think the best way we’re going to get single payer – the only way – is to have a public option demonstrate its strength and power."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98
And Obama said this because...?
"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan...
Obama also said this about single payer, government run health care...
"As I indicated before, I think that we're going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to -- I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage."
But none of this matters to you. I think you just like talking to hear the wind whistle through your empty head.
invinciblearmor.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-uncut-15-to-20-years-and.html
So once again, you are talking out of your 'arse' (as you Brits put it). -
*rolls eyes*
-
-
-
That poll would be more interesting if it were combined with what the people actually believed was being proposed. There's such a huge gap between reality and rumors, and so many opinions are based on rumors.
-
"There's such a huge gap between reality and rumors, and so many opinions are based on rumors."
I keep telling you that mark, yet you just keep following the DNC talking points. -
I wasn't aware of that, because the DNC isn't my news source. If there is a correspondence, then all that means is that the DNC's talking points are reality based. Is that a bad thing?
-
The thing is, conservative lobbyist talking points get shoved into the Town Hall meetings and other conservatives attending the events pick them up when heard because they find it oh so very appealing. Televise the crap, and independents across the country who are feeling sympathy with the ranting and raving types start using the same rhetoric. Slogans start with some lobbyist or think tank and catch on fast. It doesn't have to be correct. It just has to sound good when yelled really loud.
Many of these opinions did not start as opinions, but quickly became the opinions of the blatantly opinionated.
I don't see how independents who decided to vote for Obama can suddenly become so against what he so clearly said he was running for. "Most" is an inflated number.
The thing about polls these days...
Are you disappointed with Congress? Do you approve of the job they are doing? Several stances fit under the answer choice No. Lefties who wanted Single Payer now are not getting it, so they aren't happy. People for Obama's notion of health care reform are not happy with Blue Dogs. Many conservatives just don't like liberals, especially liberals in DC. It does not necessarily mean everyone in the US is in disapproval of the legislation being proposed.
At this point, the bills in question are very malleable.
-
-
YES... I support Obama's vision for health care/insurance reform.
Unfortunately, there is no finalized bill to fully analyze yet, so I cannot say I agree with all the provisions that may make it into the final version.
YES... people should look at the bill (or various versions being considered) for themselves since there is a MASSIVE amount of misinformation out there. Fact check sites are also a good resource for cutting through the distortion field:
FactCheck Wire: Health Care
wire.factcheck.org/category/health-care/
PolitiFact: Health Care
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/
Truth or Fiction: Health Care
www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/health-plan.htm
Regarding your blog post... I understand your frustration with the rising and uneven costs of health care. One of the main goals of the legislation currently being crafted is to get these costs under control.
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/health/policy/11drug.html
graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20090511_HealthGroups_Letter.pd... -
As to the original OP, there are numerous points that could be argued about... things that are ACTUALLY IN THE BILL!
-
wp
-
-
Here are some facts that must be heard. We know that Obama has been traveling all over pushing this healthcare reform. We also know that based on many things he has said this bill will do...a majority of the promises are not fully true. We also know that he has not read this bill and is going by what he has been told. For myself, I don't follow anyone as most people would lead you off a cliff...so then why should the President follow just what he has been told? Lets face it...Obama has said many things in haste and then had to come back and attempt to apoligize for them. Do we want a bill passed and then find out what it really entails? I would prefer to know the facts ahead of time.
I don't go buy a car without knowing the history and having the car checked out before I sign my name...why are we being asked to believe just on talk?-
"We know . . . We also know . . . We also know . . ."
I guess that's a variation on the "Everybody knows" argument, the kind that requires no substantiation of any kind. -
I hear you casper. Hell today he said this about doctors...
"All I'm saying is let's take the example of something like diabetes, one of --- a disease that's skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it's not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family -- if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we're also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money."
newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/08/13/surgical-strike-surgeons-group-...
$30,000 or more dollars for a foot amputation? Wow. But how much do doctors get for that procedure?
The American College of Surgeons had this to say about it.
"We agree with President Obama on the importance of prevention. However, a recent example used to illustrate his important point was misleading. Surgeons are not paid $30,000 to $50,000 to amputate a diabetic’s foot. Medicare pays a surgeon, on average, from $541.72 to $708.71 for one of two procedures involving a foot amputation."
And the media said McCain was out of touch with America because he didn't get on the internet...
Okay, let's look at this. Obama wants to get socialized medicine for America. He first calls it Health Care Reform, then when the polls show the majority of Americans are against it, he then starts calling it Health Insurance Reform. Now, he is attacking the doctors.
He is attacking the doctors, the one profession that he really ought to reach out to if he wanted to get this passed into law. But no, it is better to demonize them and accuse them of amputating people's limbs so they can make..how much was it? Oh yeah, $500 to $700 or so bucks. Nice move El Presidente. -
Okay auntie pop rocks (aka ye of little substance), it seems we need to correct you again. You cannot get off this kick of yours where Obama is bringing socialized medicine to everyone. If Single Payer were on the table, you'd be talking about the right legislation. It's not. The majority of Americans are not against it either. If you would have bothered reading my previous post pertaining to polls instead of coming off like the Britney Spears fan crying on YouTube ("leave britney alone") when I used my pet name for Sarah Palin, maybe you'd be on target with your reply.
I missed the footage of the quote you're referring to, so I don't have it in context. If I take a look at your italicized excerpt, I can honestly say I don't see any sort of attack on doctors. In fact, I see a reasonable thought about reimbursing those who work their asses off to prevent some diabetics foot from getting lopped off. Catching diabetes early is a heck of a lot cheaper than letting a case of uncontrolled diabetes turn into a peripheral neuropathy case with vascular compromise added on top giving you the perfect storm for ulceration, whether it's as a result of vascular compromise or minor trauma they couldn't feel because of the neuropathy. Better to help the diabetic at the FP level than in the OR.
There is only one area where I take issue with going after doctors. We should not come down too hard on all of these procedures that cost so much money. Sure, there are some that are nonessential, but up and coming docs are practicing based on evidence based medicine. The medical education system is going to be the place to handle problems related to tests and procedures we don't need to do. Legislation isn't going to suddenly produce a sea of doctors writing better orders. Evidence based medicine and proper training as a med student and resident dictates that sort of responsibility. If young physicians want a test these days, they have to justify it. It's pretty easy to justify a test if you have enough clinical suspicion. Here's the thing about evidence based medicine. It changes with new data all the time. Guidelines change.
It's no surprise surgeons are going to get a little testy about all of this. Preventative care is going to cut into their business. If you've ever met a surgical resident, they are prepared to whip out the knife at a moments notice. Uncontrolled diabetics can get quite expensive, but just like hip replacements, orthos have no qualms with diving in with their fun toys. Yeah, they feel bad for the guy with the big toe their about to cut off, but that's as far as their sympathy goes. After that, it's just another case of poorly controlled diabetes. I've met a few surgeons who live to keep their procedure quotas up. So yes, a little bit of demonizing is warranted. Note that I never said this was easy to sort out. Hospitals are going to appreciate the push towards cost effectiveness though.
Thing is, diabetics are not easy to manage. Some do well on their meds. Some adhere to a good diet. Many others misbehave and indulge their sweet tooth, forget to check their glucose, or skip out on meds. You can't punish the physicians for such a variable patient population like diabetics. Sometimes a bad doc is to blame, but many times, a noncompliant patient is the problem. On an added note, if we were to make their meds cheaper and provide better coverage, many diabetics who are not that well off will start taking their meds instead of being forced to choose between a medication and things like food, fuel, bills, etc.
I'm still perusing the bill for sections which fall under what I heard Obama talk about at that evening special on health care (I think it was with Charles Gibson, wasn't it?). It pertained to what he was calling unnecessary procedures and/or tests. Because guidelines change so often, I'm not sure the legislation could keep up. It's a little more complicated than that, but I've typed enough as it is.
And newsbusters? Come on now. You can do better than that auntie pop rocks. -
Agh! I hate typos. I pulled a their/they're.
-
daily, thanks! I love the nickname!! Pop rocks...well they rock!!!!!
As to the "context" of what El Presidente said, I posted it in its entirety. If you can't fathom what he was saying, that's not my fault. I guess you didn't eat your mental wheaties this morning. *shrug*
El Presidente also said something very similar about Pediatricians (those are doctors that provide health care to children). He accused them of taking out their tonsils instead of treating their sore throat. Okay, first of all, Obama doesn't have an M.D. after his name. (once again let me explain what that means...and I will type slow for you like I have to for other liberal whackos on BC - M.D. stands for Medical Doctor) So if he isn't a doctor, how is he qualified to make stupid suppositions about tonsils? Secondly, even if a Pediatrician decides that a child needs his tonsils removed, he won't be the one removing them. The child will visit a Surgeon to have them removed. So it makes no difference financially to the Pediatrician which path is chosen. They make their decisions based on what is best for the patient, not how much money they make. Obama is proving how little he knows about the health care system that he wants to take over.
Now for the diabetics, I know for a fact the trials and tribulations they face. My wife is a diabetic. A very brittle diabetic and so we are very familiar with what is needed for the successful treatment of that disease. But once again Obama just opens his mouth and says stupid crap that is accusing the doctors of milking the system at the expense of the patient.
At least we agree on the so called "over testing of patients" that El Presidente rails about ad nauseum. We just disagree on why it happens. The reason that doctors order a lot of tests is twofold. One, they don't usually know until after the fact that a test was inconclusive. In other words, they order tests to narrow down the diagnoses. Secondly almost all doctors have to practice what they call 'defensive medicine.' Which is a nice way of saying "cover your a$$." If Obama wants to reduce the amounts of those kinds of tests, then he should go after tort reform, yet he is strangely silent on that. I guess he took too much campaign money from his lawyer buddies...
And lastly. If you want to insult me, go for it. You see I care about what you say or think of me about as much as I care about tiddlywinks becoming an Olympic sport. And this coming from a guy named hand, errr, I mean mindjob.
*rolls eyes* -
pop rocks, hate to break it to you this way, but I do hold that degree, so I can vouch for a little more than you on this subject. I know all too well why physicians write orders for certain things. I know a lot of docs who are "rack 'em and stack 'em" types trying to see the most patients in the least amount of time in order to make money. Some get paid for referrals. Most don't, but some sneaky ones do. Roll your eyes at someone else. Obama is pretty well informed on these issues.
The physicians I talk to who are against this reform are more concerned about their paycheck or taxes. The ones supporting the reform care more about the well being of their patients. Personally, I'd rather see a doctor who cares more about me than the paycheck. That's the way I try to treat all of my patients. Then you have southern good ole boy doctors who have a poor attitude about their patients and have that insane look in their eyes hinting at the same kind of paranoia you have over socialism, etc. I consider myself fortunate to have done some of my training under the NHS. It has made me a much better physician as a result.
It seems to me your problem is that nobody else has the qualifications that meet your expectations. Obama is spot on with many of his claims with regard to wasteful spending. You just don't like Obama. We get it already.
If you think doctors under the current system make decisions based on what is best for the patient, you have no idea what goes on in a doctor's office or on the wards. Insurance companies make that decision more often. Doctors are being pushed around just as much as patients. They tell us who a patient can see, whether or not they can be treated, and how much time we are allowed to spend with them, among other things. Several doctors also do whatever the insurance company will pay them more for. If we want to get reimbursed, we have to play ball with the insurance companies. If anyone is cramming anything down throats, it's the insurance companies, not the gov't. I welcome any change that'll remove the noose the insurance companies have around our necks.
With tests, I've met residents who tick boxes because it's routine, not because it's evidence based. They don't really think about why a test has to be ordered. No, "almost all" doctors do not practice "cover your ass" care. I've met some quality residents in hospitals where program directors teach them to cover their asses, but they turn around and give quality care instead. I've been taught to justify my orders. We don't waste our time sending off a huge list of tests just to rule out every possible diagnosis. We do have a differential and good physicians can practice without relying on many tests at all. A good history and physical exam is all some docs need. Long ago, I was told by more than one physician that if you have to turn to a test for an answer, perhaps the history or physical exam you took was lacking.
If Obama wants to reduce those kinds of tests, he has to speak to the medical education community, not pass legislation. If he wants to reduce costs, on the other hand, preventative care is the ticket.
I insult you because you threw a hissy fit when I used my pet name for Sarah Palin, but you also sit on BC doing nothing more than repeat far too much misinformation and you do little to advance the discussion in the direction needed.
And for the last time, Obama is not trying to take over health care. That's your own paranoid delusion and your willingness to go along with the fear driven socialism claims. In almost every single exchange you and I have had here, you have tried to portray Obama as someone who is going to usher in socialism and completely take over health care with the current legislation. That's not what is on the table at this point in time. -
So you are a doctor, yet you have the time to post on BC constantly? LOL yeeeeahhhh, riiiiggghhhtt.
But maybe I'm not being fair. Maybe you are a doctor. I mean on WKRP in Cincinnati they had a DJ named Doctor Johnny Fever!!! Okay Dr. Handy Job it is!
If Obama wants to reduce medical costs, the best way is to get control of the purse strings back into the hands of the patients. Make them the consumers of medicine and you will see costs being driven down over time. When you have 3rd party pay, then the consumer doesn't stop to think about the cost.
You also said, buried somewhere in that incoherent rant that "No, "almost all" doctors do not practice "cover your ass" care."
Really? The Journal of the American Medical Association thinks otherwise. I mean being a doctor and all (*snicker*) I am sure you have heard of JAMA, right?
"According to a 2005 study in JAMA, over 90 percent of physicians surveyed admitted to practicing defensive medicine. This can range from “positive” defensive medicine, like ordering unnecessary tests, referring to consultants, or performing unneeded procedures; to “negative” defensive medicine, like avoiding high-risk patients or procedures."
www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/04/defensive-medicine.html
And here is a link to the abstract of that article.
jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/293/21/2609
Gee, I wonder where you practice medicine, if all the docs you know don't practice defensive medicine...
Illuminate us Dr. Handy Job -
First you say that what Obama needs is an MD to guide his policy because an MD knows what's up. An MD comes here and provides insight into the world of medicine and it isn't enough for you. In fact, you questioned my credentials. If an MD commenting on the health care legislation in question is not good enough, perhaps you are the one who needs to rethink things. The tone in your last post was very revealing. You cannot have it both ways. A physician's input is either valuable or useless. Which is it? Don't answer that. It's only going to be more of your nonsense. I'm aware now that your posts are more about yourself and your fear of socialism than about improving health care in this country. If my opinion is something you scoff at, I will not waste my valuable time trying to win you over. You can get back out on the street waving your Hitler posters or whatever other propaganda you've taken as truth.
You've also somehow twisted the wording in my last post to fit your fancy. I didn't say all the docs I know did not practice cover your ass care. You're not a careful reader. You've also spun it as though I am constantly on this board posting. That too is incorrect. I rarely come on these boards. Health care is my thing, so it's only fitting that I dedicate some time to an online discussion on the subject to dispel any rumors going around. You seem to be one of the folks stirring the pot of misinformation. That is unacceptable. I will not be misquoted and I will not have my posts questioned by a careless reader.
Misinformation seems to be your thing. I spend much of my time discussing research articles from journals with people who are able to process information. Misinformation is not something we respect or tolerate in these teaching sessions. You would be asked to leave the room for parroting like you do.
You seem to be thrilled at the notion of repeating yourself, but as it stands, single payer is not on the table. Your posts are more about your insane fear of socialism than a realistic look at the legislation being proposed at this point in time. Unfortunately, you won't let that paranoia go. It's so intertwined in your being that it makes a discussion about the real bills going through right now impossible. I will not sit here and repeat myself.
You deserve to have a target on your back for your behavior on this board. It's not something I would laugh at, especially when you've been branded as a troll. Nobody will take you seriously. I certainly don't. Course, you're the one who doesn't take the President or an MD seriously. As it stands, you are positioning yourself to block reform, put patients at greater financial burden, and stand in opposition of physicians who are working to improve lives. I have chosen to take a stand against the insurance companies. I have chosen to take a stand for my patients. -
I'm not saying a physician's input is not of value. I am saying I doubt you are a doctor. But you say you are a doctor. I wonder where you got your degree?
"You've also somehow twisted the wording in my last post to fit your fancy. I didn't say all the docs I know did not practice cover your ass care."
Oh? You didn't say this? - "No, "almost all" doctors do not practice "cover your ass" care."
The JAMA says that 90% of physicians do. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. How did you mean "almost all" doctors do not practice defensive (CYA) medicine? Is not 90% most?
Every doctor knows that because there is no tort reform in the U.S., they HAVE to practice defensive medicine. If you were a doctor, you would know that.
"You would be asked to leave the room for parroting like you do."
lol...okay number one, I am not a doctor and number two, neither are you.
"Course, you're the one who doesn't take the President or an MD seriously."
Oh I take our President very seriously, it is you who I do not take seriously. I truly believe he wants to fundamentally change the United States of America...just not for the better. Because when personal freedoms and liberties are taken away, then it is not change for the better.
You want serious debate? Okay, try this on for size. Right now we have Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is fully funded by the Government (I am not getting into the unfunded liability aspect of it - for this discussion we will assume it is fully funded). Medicaid is subsidized by the Federal Government and the rest is paid by the States. With different percentages being paid by different States. For most States, Medicaid is 20% of their budgets.
Anyway, we have basically two separate pies, if you will. When one pie needs to be made bigger, or smaller, it does not affect the other pie. They are compartmentalized and paid by its own tax on wages. By erasing the walls between them, adding millions more patients into the equation and having everyone fall into one lump sum fund you create problems. You cannot take away from Senior Citizens without affecting the middle class or children and vice versa for each segment of the population.
Obama has said that he intends to fund Obamacare partially by cutting Medicare. Therefore you are affecting the people that get Medicare.
But this is not my brain child, it is a very, very good article by Shannon Love and I will provide the link to it. I know that doctors are busy people, but do try to take the time to read this.
www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/08/the_dangers_of.php
For this reason alone, I am against Obamacare. He wanted to rush this through, and had he gotten his way, no one would be debating it now. It is one fifth or one sixth of our economy and it is worth slowing down and taking a long time to work it out. There are provisions in the bill, (H.R. 3200) which do nothing but add bureaucracy and cost to our already over burdened health care system. It has nothing in it addressing tort reform, which is needed to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance. I live in Illinois and we have an alarming shortage of OBGYNs because of malpractice insurance premiums that are outrageously high. I have an infant daughter who is was born in January of this year. We had to go almost an hour's drive away to have the baby delivered. When we chose a doctor in our state capitol, I asked on one visit why there weren't many "baby doctors," and she said because of malpractice premiums. She shared with me that her's was just over $200,000. So with this being a big factor with driving up health care costs, why then does your messiah not put in tort reform as part of H.R. 3200 - or part of Obamacare in general?
Now that is my serious question, which you will no doubt ignore. You can call me all the names you want. Boy it really pissed you off when I said you were demonizing and attacking Sarah Palin by calling her names. You would think a person of such advanced education like yourself would refrain from being an internet troll. But I guess not. So if it makes you happy and you laugh a bit to yourself when you think you are insulting me, go for it. You really are not very good at it anyway. -
Excellent retort dailymindjob. You described antics and his tactics perfectly. He spends a lot of time here spewing misinformation regarding health care reform and other initiatives put forth by the administration. He seems to live in a paranoid fantasy world where everything is interpreted with extreme prejudice and he's driven by imaginary socialist bogeymen.
Like many on the far right, if he disagrees with your views or the facts you've presented he'll ramp up the personal attacks. He'll also spend a great deal of time answering questions that are not being asked and then finish off his rant by questioning your credentials and/or ability to read. Everything he says is peppered with twisted logic and distorted facts and often delivered in a condescending tone.
Many here recognize him as our resident troll. Sometimes it's better to just ignore him rather than waste time responding to his outlandish claims. I believe intelligent people reading these threads will see him as the dishonest and divisive person he truly is. -
ruin, I have on many occasions tried to have civil discussions with you, yet you attack as soon as anyone disagrees with you.
You and handy job call me names and accuse me of being a big ole' meanie. *shrugs* If you can't stand the heat...
And accusing me of being a troll when you post ad nauseum ANYTHING with the words "health care" and "republicans are stupid" in them. I have long said Obama could say health care reform is a box of band aids for each American and you would lap it up as the best piece of legislation ever.
I have yet to see you disagree with anything El Presidente does or proposes. You are a drone, as is handy job and mark. The three of you put together possess about as much intelligence thoughtfulness as Bill Clinton has morals. -
What was it I told ruin about Obama's health care reform? Oh yes! "I have long said Obama could say health care reform is a box of band aids for each American and you would lap it up as the best piece of legislation ever."
-
I wonder who is being lampooned there...
-
-
-
Back to the OP. I don't know enough about it. We need healthcare reform. I'm generally for many points on the right; i.e. tort reform, minimizing cross state border rules, perhaps changes to the tax code to encourage more preventative care. I would add to that considering if anti trust measures are needed. I like expansion of clinics into poor neighborhoods.
I don't want to pay for illegal alien's health care. With most other major countries having price controls on meds, the pharm companies have raised their prices in the U.S. We are effectively subsidizing healthcare costs for the rest of the world. I don't have an answer for that but I would like to minimize it.-
We agree on this xmarks. Securing the border would be a good first step. It is ironic that the Republicans offered two amendments in different committees to exclude the illegal aliens from being covered by H.R. 3200, yet the Democrats voted right down party lines to defeat both of those amendments. It makes you wonder if they really want reform, or not.
Also we agree on the high costs of our health care, but in its defense, we have brought down the fatality rate on a whole host of diseases. Cardiovascular disease springs to mind, for one. And also, we have the most Nobel Prize winners in Medicine.
"To get some objective measure of the contribution of foreign-born scientists to U.S. biomedical research, we analyzed the list of all Nobel Prizes in Medicine and Physiology awarded between 1901 and 2005 (1 , 2) . The total number of winners and co-winners of this prize from the U.S. is 87. (Parenthetically, there is a much higher proportion of Americans among the winners after 1950 than in the first half of the 20th century: we counted a total 11 U.S. winners between 1901 and1949, and 76 between 1950 and 2005. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the growing importance of the U.S. biomedical research enterprise after World War II.)"
vilcek.org/print/news_media.php?view=7
That really speaks for itself. -
Antics, this is often the result of government research grants to medical institutions. The NIH funding for cancer research, for instance, is up to 6+ billion for budget year 2010
-
The demos are for legalizing the illegals. I don't think securing the border will actually do much. Mainly because 10 to 20 million of illegals are already her.
Immigration reform is a much bigger subject than the border. It has to do with everify, ICE datachecks on all arrests, crack downs on employers and those who harbor and reforming legal immigration. -
I understand x, I just over simplified my statement. Yes, I have long said that the fastest way to cut down or virtually eliminate illegal immigrants (for you will always have people wanting in and getting in no matter what) is to remove the incentive. By levying hefty fines against companies or businesses that hire illegals (in the percentage of the income of said company or business - not just a dollar amount because some big corps can afford those fines that are painful to small business), you would take away the reasons for entering the U.S.
-
anticsrocks Interesting article thanks for that. 30% of US Nobel (medical) winners are immigrants. Facinating.
vilcek.org/print/news_media.php?view=7 -
Fascinating - spelled correctly, just for you poly.
-
30% are immigrants, but they choose to come to the US to work on health related issues. Fascinating.
-
Thanks for the typo correction the logitech diNovo edge never usually misses a keystroke but even it struggles when a toddlers 10 digits of mischief are in play.
-
How old is your child? Grandchild? My newest is 7 months old and has already stolen my heart.
-
-
"the fastest way to cut down or virtually eliminate illegal immigrants (for you will always have people wanting in and getting in no matter what) is to remove the incentive. By levying hefty fines against companies or businesses that hire illegals (in the percentage of the income of said company or business - not just a dollar amount because some big corps can afford those fines that are painful to small business), you would take away the reasons for entering the U.S."
Ditto. Couldn't have said it better myself.-
Hey! We agree on something. It is good to find common ground.
-
-
If Obama keeps it up, he will be the gift that keeps giving to those opposed to Government run health care. Especially those of us who say that the Government can't run anything properly.
Case in point:
Hat-tip to Flopping Aces. -
We already have Medicaid. Couldn't we just improve it, eliminate waste, and offer it to more income brackets. laCHIP (which is part of Medicaid) has both a free option and then a $50 a month option for those making more money. How about a Medicaid Supplemental policy to cover high deductibles for those of us who have them. It could act of a secondary insurance to our primary.-
I think Medicare would be a better choice to extend coverage to those who cannot afford or cannot obtain coverage. (I don't think that people who don't want insurance should be forced into taking it.)
Medicaid is partially funded by the states, so Medicare would be a better choice. If the Federal Government wants to expand something, they shouldn't force part of the cost onto the states. On average Medicaid is 20% of a state's budget. If you look at states like California or Illinois that have huge deficits, then expanding Medicaid would only increase those deficits and create a bigger problem. It would be much easier to utilize the Medicare program with a separate payroll tax that funds coverage to the non-elderly and non-disabled, both of which are segments of the population currently covered under Medicare.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
