Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 1 of 5 1 2345
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Town Hall meetings (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/150239-town-hall-meetings.html)

rahl 08-11-2009 08:23 AM
Town Hall meetings
 
I've been hearing alot about these meetings in the past few days. They seem to be a very volatile environment. My question is, what is the purpose of these meetings? All they seem to be about is people coming to rant either for or against the issue, which is ok but these meetings are just inflaming and already touchy issue so why have them at all?

Derwood 08-11-2009 08:35 AM
The original point was for Obama to use his grass roots methods (that were very effective during his campaign) to champion his health care plan. Problem is, the Glenn Beck's of the world have taken this opportunity to fire up the crazies and organize them to go crash the parties, which has more or less eliminated their usefulness.

So what do the Democratic congressmen do? Cancel the town halls and hand "victory" to the nutbags, or go forward with them, even though they aren't doing what they were intended to do?

rahl 08-11-2009 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2686001)
The original point was for Obama to use his grass roots methods (that were very effective during his campaign) to champion his health care plan. Problem is, the Glenn Beck's of the world have taken this opportunity to fire up the crazies and organize them to go crash the parties, which has more or less eliminated their usefulness.

So what do the Democratic congressmen do? Cancel the town halls and hand "victory" to the nutbags, or go forward with them, even though they aren't doing what they were intended to do?

They do have a "tea party" feel to them. And at this point people are going to get hurt if and when a riot breaks out. The issue of healthcare reform has become so politicized that it's evoking strong emotions on both sides.

The_Dunedan 08-11-2009 09:09 AM
Quote:
The original point was for Obama to use his grass roots methods (that were very effective during his campaign) to champion his health care plan. Problem is, the Glenn Beck's of the world have taken this opportunity to fire up the crazies and organize them to go crash the parties, which has more or less eliminated their usefulness.
So when Mr. Obama organizes a grassroots PR campaign in favour of something, it's good. When his opponents allegedly organize a grassroots PR campaign in response and opposition, that's bad. Left-wing "Community Organizing" = Good, right-wing "Community Organizing" = Bad. This despite the fact that, wild and baseless accusations aside, nobody's been able to prove that the opposition/Tea Party folks -are- formally organized, unlike the Union/SEIU Sturmabteilung who've been proving so very useful lately.

Got it.

Quote:
And at this point people are going to get hurt if and when a riot breaks out.
People have already been hurt, by the Union/SEIU thugs who've been sent in to pack the houses and break heads. They've been caught at it, on video, repeatedly.

roachboy 08-11-2009 09:20 AM
anyone can play this game:
conservatives=victims. everyone else=Persecutor.
conservative community organization, whatever that means: good. every other form: bad.
militia group forms of organization=good. unions=bad.

how about we try to actually discuss the question rather than cutting directly to repeating the problem with the town hall format in the present situation?

YaWhateva 08-11-2009 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2686019)
Left-wing "Community Organizing" = Good, right-wing "Community Organizing" = Bad. This despite the fact that, wild and baseless accusations aside, nobody's been able to prove that the opposition/Tea Party folks -are- formally organized, unlike the Union/SEIU Sturmabteilung who've been proving so very useful lately.
When the entire point of the opposition "community organizing" is to disrupt and shout down any constructive dialog then yes it is bad. Freedom of speech only goes so far as to not impede on other people's freedom of speech and this is exactly what the disruptors are doing.

Derwood 08-11-2009 09:26 AM
At this point, it's working though, as the news is being dominated by stories about people talking about health care instead of stories about actual health care

The_Dunedan 08-11-2009 09:30 AM
Quote:
anyone can play this game:
conservatives=victims. everyone else=Persecutor.
conservative community organization, whatever that means: good. every other form: bad.
militia group forms of organization=good. unions=bad.

how about we try to actually discuss the question rather than cutting directly to repeating the problem with the town hall format in the present sit
Believe it or not, RB, that's precisely the point I was attempting to make; or part of it, rather. The party which elected a "Community Organizer" president (D)does not get to gripe about "community organization" in opposition to their programme, and the party which legitmated the use of repressive force in such contexts (R) can't bitch too much about the Union thugs.

Having never voted for a Demopublican or a Republicrat, and being opposed to -all- such violence, I have no difficulty denouncing both sides even while I agree with the objections raised by the one and the "diagnostic" info presented by the other.

Quote:
When the entire point of the opposition "community organizing" is to disrupt and shout down any constructive dialog then yes it is bad.
Kindy remind the SEIU folks, they seem to have gotten the notion that while shouting is impermissible, fisticuffs are perfectly fine. Furthermore, I do not recall reading anything in regards to manners, volume, or "constructive dialogue" in the 1st Amendment.

Quote:
Freedom of speech only goes so far as to not impede on other people's freedom of speech and this is exactly what the disruptors are doing.
Again, someone please make sure the SEIU gets this memo. Furthermore, I find it difficult to label them as "disruptive" when their primary demand seems to be that the Congresscritter in question actually try -reading- a bill before voting on it or trying to sell it. Yes, the hypocrisy of people who "A-OKed" the USA PATRIOT act (which was -also- passed before being read) but are bitching about this now disgusts me.

Cimarron29414 08-11-2009 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2686022)
anyone can play this game:
conservatives=victims. everyone else=Persecutor.
conservative community organization, whatever that means: good. every other form: bad.
militia group forms of organization=good. unions=bad.

how about we try to actually discuss the question rather than cutting directly to repeating the problem with the town hall format in the present situation?
Of course, you forget that it was Derwood who implied that anyone who opposes the bill before the House is a crazy and a nutbag. So, perhaps you should ask him to tone it down and not the person who took offense to being called a nutbag. Just a thought...

roachboy 08-11-2009 09:44 AM
Quote:
August 12, 2009
As Health-Care Debate Rages, Obama Takes to the Stump
By JIM RUTENBERG and JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — President Obama traveled to New Hampshire on Tuesday to try to defuse fears about his plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system, an issue at the center of one of the fiercest public-policy debates in decades.

Lawmakers across the political spectrum also weighed in and tried to calm angry and worried constituents as the president prepared for the early afternoon “town meeting.” Their efforts are part of a campaign to fight questionable but potentially damaging charges that the president’s vision would inevitably lead to “socialized medicine,” “rationed care” and even forced euthanasia for the elderly.

In introducing a Web site to defend the president’s proposals, White House officials were tacitly acknowledging a difficult reality: they are suddenly at risk of losing control of the public debate over a signature issue for Mr. Obama and are now playing defense in a way they have not since last year’s campaign.

Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who is one of the most liberal members in either House, said on Tuesday that “the Republicans are the party of do-nothingism, and because of them it is very hard to move forward.”

But Mr. Sanders said in an interview on MSNBC that “frankly, the Democrats have not handled this as clearly and effectively as they might have.”

A different perspective was offered by Representative Peter King, a Long Island Republican far to the right of Mr. Sanders. Mr. King said it was quite understandable that many Americans are not enthusiastic about “the radical type of reform that President Obama’s talking about.”

The health care system should be changed “incrementally” rather than by major surgery, Mr. King said in another interview on MSNBC. The congressman said he thought the White House had made a tactical error in its approach on health care. “It may not be perfect,” he said, conceding that Americans “may have problems with it.”

“But it’s not the rabid-type issue that had to be solved by Aug. 1 of this year, the way President Obama was saying,” Mr. King said.

And Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Republican-turned-Democrat, faced a crowd of emotional constituents in Lebanon, Pa. One participant drew loud applause when he said illegal immigrants should not be covered (Mr. Specter agreed), and another complained that the legislation was as complicated “as a Russian novel.”

Mr. Specter said the federal government has a “social compact” with the American people to “take care of people who need some help.” He pledged again not to vote for something that would add to the budget deficit, and he tried to reassure the crowd that people who are happy with their present health insurance do not have to worry about losing it.

“So far, no bill has passed the Congress,” Mr. Specter noted. “In the House of Representatives, five committees have passed bills, but the House has not passed a bill. In the Senate, we’re still working on a bill, trying to get bipartisanship.”

“I know the American people are sick and tired of Republicans and Democrats fighting, and the American people would like to see some bipartisanship and coming together in the public interest,” the senator said, in an appeal for calm that was not entirely successful.

President Obama, speaking at a summit of North American leaders in Mexico on Monday, sounded an optimistic note, predicting that “the American people are going to be glad that we acted to change an unsustainable system so that more people have coverage.”

But aides to Mr. Obama said the rapidly escalating threat to his health care plans had led him to order them to come up with a crisper message.

And Democratic Party officials enlisted in the fight by the White House acknowledged in interviews that the growing intensity of the opposition to the president’s health care plans — within the last week likened on talk radio to something out of Hitler’s Germany, lampooned by protesters at Congressional town-hall-style meetings and vilified in television commercials — had caught them off guard and forced them to begin an August counteroffensive.

In the process, the administration has had a harder time getting across the themes it wanted to strike in this period: that the current system is unsustainable and that Mr. Obama’s plan holds concrete benefits for people who already have health insurance as well as for those who do not.

“We all had a good sense that some of this was going to take place,” said Brad Woodhouse, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee. “To be fair, I think we were probably a little surprised — just a little — at the use of swastikas and the comparisons to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich that even Rush Limbaugh has fanned the flames on. And we were a little surprised at the mob mentality.” (Mr. Woodhouse’s use of the phrase “mob mentality” was itself part of the Democratic effort to paint opponents speaking out against the plan as part of an unruly but organized effort.)

For some of Mr. Obama’s supporters, the newly galvanized opposition to his proposed policies provided a troubling flashback to the successful effort to stop President Bill Clinton’s similarly ambitious plans 16 years ago — a fight Mr. Obama’s aides had studied carefully to avoid making the same fatal mistakes.

White House officials say such fears are unwarranted, arguing that the conservative protests are getting outsize coverage on cable news. “Don’t associate loud with effective,” Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said in an interview, adding that he detected no anxiety from supportive lawmakers in politically vulnerable districts. “What is coming across is a lot of noise and a lot of heat without a lot of light.”

And White House officials say their August counteroffensive is a break from the Clinton approach, which is now viewed as having failed to adequately address critics.

Mr. Obama will take the lead this week as he continues a series of public meetings to counter the opposition, events White House officials hope will offer a high-profile opportunity to confront and rebut critics.

As part of the effort, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the House majority leader, wrote an opinion article in USA Today on Monday calling conservative protests at Congressional town-hall-style meetings “un-American” for “drowning out opposing views.” (That prompted a swift rebuke from the House minority leader, Representative John A. Boehner, among other Republicans.)

New television commercials disputing the conservative attacks are in the works, Mr. Woodhouse said, and allied members of Congress have been sent home for the August break with a set of poll-tested talking points intended to shift the focus to the administration’s advertised benefits of the plan from the scary situations opponents have laid out.

“There’s a whole set of rumors that the old playbook would tell you not to do anything about because you draw attention,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House deputy communications director. “The lesson we’ve learned is you ignore these rumors at your peril, and the right answer is to take them head on in as big a way as possible.”

It was only weeks ago that Mr. Obama was pressing both the House and the Senate to complete work on their versions of health legislation before recessing for the summer, a goal that went unmet as divisions erupted among Democrats as well as between the two parties.

After getting much of what he wanted on high-risk initiatives like the economic stimulus package and bailouts of banks and auto companies, Mr. Obama had yet to face the full force of conservative opposition to his policies. Some supporters now wonder whether his earlier glide path left him unprepared for the sudden surge of opposition from conservative groups, which have found a rallying point on health care.

“The expectation was that things have gotten so bad in the last 16 years that there would be consensus on the need to act this time,” said Howard Paster, who was Mr. Clinton’s chief lobbyist in 1993. “That was a mistake, that assumption.”

Mr. Obama’s team won early, high marks for diverging from the Clinton approach, specifically by emphasizing the need to control costs and improve coverage for those who are already insured instead of making the same moral-duty argument Mr. Clinton had about the need to cover the uninsured.

Yet once Congress started filling in the details this summer and its analysts began pricing the House and Senate packages, the estimates of the government’s cost caused sticker shock again.

And once again that drew taxpayers’ attention to the main reason for those costs: covering the uninsured, through more Medicaid spending and subsidies for people to buy insurance and small businesses to provide it.

That helped conservatives who had been struggling to gain traction on health care to speak to a constituency that has managed to gain significant anti-Obama attention this year, the fiscally hawkish “tea party” activists opposed to the president’s spending. They have dismissed Mr. Obama’s promises that his plan will be fully paid for through offsetting spending cuts or increased taxes, and have cast the plan as a costly takeover of health care by the government.

“I think the combination of spending a trillion dollars that we don’t have and another rushed process really triggered this,” said Matt Kibbe, the president of the conservative group FreedomWorks. “People started paying attention.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/he...ef=global-home

personally, i think the quality of the "debate" is a good indication of just how degenerated american "democracy" has become.
i find it depressing, like i'm watching the richard bey show---you know, the talk show that was amongst the worst of them but which tried to embrace it's horrific content by making fun of itself.

seems to me that the issue has been a bit bungled by the obama administration in that they've not been clear enough about the plan itself. what they seem to be pitching mostly is that "we have to do something"
the idea of floating this as a consensus building basis in a context that's been hobbled in terms of substantive debate by not only the conservative media apparatus, but by the entire spectrum of commerically-dominated mass media, is a bad idea.
as for the opposition to the plan, so far they seem to me to oppose it mostly because it gives them something to mobilize their demographic around, so for it's own sake.

rahl 08-11-2009 10:05 AM
I guess what I was asking or trying to ask was, what is the point of these meetings? Are politicians trying to put a stop to the spins that the media is putting on this issue, or are they trying to put their own spin on the issue?

Derwood 08-11-2009 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2686029)
Of course, you forget that it was Derwood who implied that anyone who opposes the bill before the House is a crazy and a nutbag. So, perhaps you should ask him to tone it down and not the person who took offense to being called a nutbag. Just a thought...
I meant to imply neither of those things. Sorry if I was unclear.

hotandheavy 08-11-2009 10:25 AM
The point of the meetings, historically, was for the elected official to hear from his/her constituents. It's not a new idea. And it is getting ugly.

Obama wants the opposition to stop talking so he can get the job done.


The "angry mob" has been called un-American by Pelosi.


Pelosi also accuses people who show up at Town Hall meetings as being Astro-turf protesters (creating the impression of public support by paying people in the public to pretend to be supportive).


So after viewing these Craig's List job offers:

~~WORK TO MAKE HEALTH CARE AFFORDABLE!!!~~$9-$14/HR

classifieds - craigslist

***LEADERS WANTED to organize for health care reform $11-16/hour***

And after seeing these photos of organized, professionally printed protest signs and flags being held by color coordinated protesters:

http://www.truthout.org/files/images...1308_story.jpg

http://www.seiu.org/images/PertoRico...062009_web.jpg

I ask you why this administration is afraid of these unorganized people carrying home made signs:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2561/...8c4e2a893f.jpg

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...009/07/li3.jpg

And I ask who's really being paid to protest?

Rekna 08-11-2009 10:37 AM
What I think is bad is when people are showing up only to disrupt and not to discuss. If your only defense is to stop others from talking about instead of letting others know what is wrong with it then you have no defense at all.

dksuddeth 08-11-2009 11:02 AM
well, this guy looks peaceful at least.

ratbastid 08-11-2009 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
well, this guy looks peaceful at least.
See what his sign says? How is that not an open call for the assassination of the president?

It's a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote, by the way. Google it. Timothy McVeigh's favorite quote, by the way. When McVeigh was arrested, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of Lincoln on the front and a tree dripping blood on the back. By the way.

I don't have a problem with a man exercising his rights to open carry. I have a REAL problem with people pretending they don't get what this guy is saying. Forget his gun. It's the message on his sign that's disturbing.

The crazy right is whipping up all kinds of frenzy--about HEALTH CARE, for god's sake--and I'm honestly worried it's going to end in assassination attempts. And then the maniacs who are driving nutbag-right opinion can wring their hands and say, Oh, I NEVER meant for THAT to happen. THAT person was obviously UNWELL! It's disgusting.

Yeah, there was bitter outcry against the Bush administration. There were protests. The difference is, nobody called for Bush's assassination.

hotandheavy 08-11-2009 11:13 AM
I love the fact that the man in NH is carrying a gun, out in the open. It is his right. And yes, he won't be allowed anywhere near the President, and I'm fine with that too.

I hope he's got all his i's dotted and his t's crossed. he could be the next Joe the Plumber.

Cimarron29414 08-11-2009 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2686097)
See what his sign says? How is that not an open call for the assassination of the president?

It's a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote, by the way. Google it. Timothy McVeigh's favorite quote, by the way. When McVeigh was arrested, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of Lincoln on the front and a tree dripping blood on the back. By the way.

I don't have a problem with a man exercising his rights to open carry. I have a REAL problem with people pretending they don't get what this guy is saying. Forget his gun. It's the message on his sign that's disturbing.

The crazy right is whipping up all kinds of frenzy--about HEALTH CARE, for god's sake--and I'm honestly worried it's going to end in assassination attempts. And then the maniacs who are driving nutbag-right opinion can wring their hands and say, Oh, I NEVER meant for THAT to happen. THAT person was obviously UNWELL! It's disgusting.

Yeah, there was bitter outcry against the Bush administration. There were protests. The difference is, nobody called for Bush's assassination.

Do you remember the movie that was a Liberal wet dream regarding the assassination of Bush? Does that not count? That wasn't a 20 cent piece of cardboard with a magic marker - it was a multi-million dollar hollywood production.

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotandheavy (Post 2686101)
I love the fact that the man in NH is carrying a gun, out in the open. It is his right. And yes, he won't be allowed anywhere near the President, and I'm fine with that too.

I hope he's got all his i's dotted and his t's crossed. he could be the next Joe the Plumber.
He already is. See you back here on Thursday when we know his name and how many taxes he owes.

aceventura3 08-11-2009 11:25 AM
I think the frustration people are expressing in these meetings is a result of not having simple direct questions answered. For example: Given limited resources, under "Obama's plan" who is going to be the final arbiter on how those resources get allocated? Generally the response starts out like - well those crazy opponents to my plan say...and they just make stuff up...and the current system has your insurance company making those decisions...etc. etc., they never answer the question. Then people get pissed off. They just want a direct answer to a simple question.

Shauk 08-11-2009 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2686110)
Do you remember the movie that was a Liberal wet dream regarding the assassination of Bush? Does that not count? That wasn't a 20 cent piece of cardboard with a magic marker - it was a multi-million dollar hollywood production.
No

I don't remember such a movie and apparently neither do you if you can't recall the title.

The_Jazz 08-11-2009 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauk (Post 2686118)
No

I don't remember such a movie and apparently neither do you if you can't recall the title.
Neither do I.

Derwood 08-11-2009 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotandheavy (Post 2686101)
I love the fact that the man in NH is carrying a gun, out in the open. It is his right. And yes, he won't be allowed anywhere near the President, and I'm fine with that too.

I hope he's got all his i's dotted and his t's crossed. he could be the next Joe the Plumber.

why do you love it?

ratbastid 08-11-2009 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2686110)
Do you remember the movie that was a Liberal wet dream regarding the assassination of Bush? Does that not count? That wasn't a 20 cent piece of cardboard with a magic marker - it was a multi-million dollar hollywood production.
I don't remember that movie. Got a title?

EDIT: Besides, do you really think there were people out there honestly advocating taking Bush down the way people are about Obama? You REALLY think it rises to the same level?

And I'm not just saying that because he's my guy and Bush wasn't.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2686113)
I think the frustration people are expressing in these meetings is a result of not having simple direct questions answered. For example: Given limited resources, under "Obama's plan" who is going to be the final arbiter on how those resources get allocated? Generally the response starts out like - well those crazy opponents to my plan say...and they just make stuff up...and the current system has your insurance company making those decisions...etc. etc., they never answer the question. Then people get pissed off. They just want a direct answer to a simple question.
I don't think that's what the "frustration" is from. I think there's a lot of anger being generated by right-wing media lies. Spin it any way you want, that's really the bottom line here.

dksuddeth 08-11-2009 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2686097)
See what his sign says? How is that not an open call for the assassination of the president?

It's a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote, by the way. Google it. Timothy McVeigh's favorite quote, by the way. When McVeigh was arrested, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of Lincoln on the front and a tree dripping blood on the back. By the way.

I don't have a problem with a man exercising his rights to open carry. I have a REAL problem with people pretending they don't get what this guy is saying. Forget his gun. It's the message on his sign that's disturbing.

The crazy right is whipping up all kinds of frenzy--about HEALTH CARE, for god's sake--and I'm honestly worried it's going to end in assassination attempts. And then the maniacs who are driving nutbag-right opinion can wring their hands and say, Oh, I NEVER meant for THAT to happen. THAT person was obviously UNWELL! It's disgusting.

Yeah, there was bitter outcry against the Bush administration. There were protests. The difference is, nobody called for Bush's assassination.
This nation was founded on the possible threat of violence against it's elected officials, should they become oppressive. This guy and his sign, much like anyone that held similar during the Bush/Clinton/Reagan years and before.

how qualified are you to determine that person was 'unwell'. are you a psychiatrist?[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]



---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------


Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2686097)
EDIT: Besides, do you really think there were people out there honestly advocating taking Bush down the way people are about Obama? You REALLY think it rises to the same level?

And I'm not just saying that because he's my guy and Bush wasn't.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------



I don't think that's what the "frustration" is from. I think there's a lot of anger being generated by right-wing media lies. Spin it any way you want, that's really the bottom line here.
I think you ARE saying it because Obama is your guy and Bush wasn't and I also think you're somewhat deluded in thinking that the only reason people are frustrated is because of 'right wing media lies'.

aceventura3 08-11-2009 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2686122)
I don't think that's what the "frustration" is from. I think there's a lot of anger being generated by right-wing media lies. Spin it any way you want, that's really the bottom line here.
I guess I can specifically say that what I wrote frustrates me. If I went to one of these meetings and they started with the canned, double speak, talking point, response, I would interrupt and ask them to answer the question!

And, like you suggesting what I feel is "spin", when people get dismissed like that it illicits an increased emotional response. Perhaps, Obama should talk to Dr. Phil.

dc_dux 08-11-2009 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2686135)
I guess I can specifically say that what I wrote frustrates me. If I went to one of these meetings and they started with the canned, double speak, talking point, response, I would interrupt and ask them to answer the question!

And, like you suggesting what I feel is "spin", when people get dismissed like that it illicit an increased emotional response. Perhaps, Obama should talk to Dr. Phil.
I would suggest that the demonizing and the spin is on the side that has been saying that the Obama and/or various Congressional plans:
- are like a single payer European or socialist style program

- will ration health care and put personal health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats

- mandate government funded abortion on demand

- mandates euthanasia counseling for seniors

- will give the government total unfettered access to personal medical records
Summed up in the most ignorant bullshit description I have heard to-date - Sarah Palin's and "evil death panels":
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
IMO, that is ignorant and offensive fear-mongering by any standard.

hotandheavy 08-11-2009 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2686120)
why do you love it?
I support the second amendment. I think more people should carry.

Cimarron29414 08-11-2009 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2686122)
I don't remember that movie. Got a title?

EDIT: Besides, do you really think there were people out there honestly advocating taking Bush down the way people are about Obama? You REALLY think it rises to the same level?

And I'm not just saying that because he's my guy and Bush wasn't.
It was called "Death of a President".

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama| News | This is London

Tell me you don't think this was advocating...

In all honesty, my biggest fear is that something will happen to Obama. I make no secret of the fact that I want him to fail. However, he needs to ride that wave all the way to the shore so that Americans can see him for what he really is and avoid giving someone with his values so much power ever again. (Again, I know many of you will disagree.)

If something were to happen to him, I fear how it would tear at our country. While I completely disagree with his policies, I am pleased that America has, as a majority, elected someone other than a white guy. Anything other than a full term would wipe out that "accomplishment".

The_Dunedan 08-11-2009 12:25 PM
DC; have you read the bill? I've only recently managed to find a full copy (H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)), but the fact is that at least some of the "lies" you've posted appear to be either contained within the bill (rationing, Gov' bureaucratic control, etc) or will be required by its' mandate.

No, it isn't a single-payer system. Yes, DMV-type drones will be empowered to make decisions regarding care. Mrs. Palin was RIGHT, because that's what -all- State rationing of healthcare comes down to; a cost/benefit analysis with regards to a person's usefulness to The Collective. When a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority. Ask a few vets who've cycled through Walter Reed Army Medical Centre about how that dance goes; I can put you in touch with a Guadalcanal "Mud Marine" who's been denied treatment by the VA because of his age, likewise a Vietnam-era Army grunt with a bullet in his hip and lungs full of Agent Orange who's having to shell out 100% of his costs himself because one of the pencil-pushers whom you insist don't/won't exist arbitrarily decided that his injuries, sustained in service to his country, didn't merit the public nickle.

Cimarron29414 08-11-2009 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauk (Post 2686118)
No

I don't remember such a movie and apparently neither do you if you can't recall the title.
Read above. Apology accepted.

dippin 08-11-2009 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2686126)
it was called 'vantage point' starring dennis quaid.

Vantage Point (2008)

came out during GWs last year in office.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]
I really don't see how that movie can be seen in any way as a call to kill the president. Heck, the movie wasn't even about an assassination attempt, but a kidnapping attempt by terrorists portrayed in as negative light as possible.

Cimarron29414 08-11-2009 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2686160)
I really don't see how that movie can be seen in any way as a call to kill the president. Heck, the movie wasn't even about an assassination attempt, but a kidnapping attempt by terrorists portrayed in as negative light as possible.
He was incorrect. That wasn't the right movie. Read my above post.

dksuddeth 08-11-2009 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2686160)
I really don't see how that movie can be seen in any way as a call to kill the president. Heck, the movie wasn't even about an assassination attempt, but a kidnapping attempt by terrorists portrayed in as negative light as possible.
its not, see cimarrons post. I got my movies mixed up.

dc_dux 08-11-2009 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2686157)
DC; have you read the bill? I've only recently managed to find a full copy (H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)), but the fact is that at least some of the "lies" you've posted appear to be either contained within the bill (rationing, Gov' bureaucratic control, etc) or will be required by its' mandate.

No, it isn't a single-payer system. Yes, DMV-type drones will be empowered to make decisions regarding care. Mrs. Palin was RIGHT, because that's what -all- State rationing of healthcare comes down to; a cost/benefit analysis with regards to a person's usefulness to The Collective. When a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority. Ask a few vets who've cycled through Walter Reed Army Medical Centre about how that dance goes; I can put you in touch with a Guadalcanal "Mud Marine" who's been denied treatment by the VA because of his age, likewise a Vietnam-era Army grunt with a bullet in his hip and lungs full of Agent Orange who's having to shell out 100% of his costs himself because one of the pencil-pushers whom you insist don't/won't exist arbitrarily decided that his injuries, sustained in service to his country, didn't merit the public nickle.
I have ready fairly detailed summaries of the major House bill and one Senate bill.

The proposals under consideration are for universal care..not single payer.

There is no more rationing than currently exists by insurance companies approving or denying some treatments.

There is no plan for the government to collect more personal medical information than already collected.

And....there are no death panels.


In effect, Palin's characterization is complete bullshit and fear mongering.

added:

Sen Johnny Isakson, a conservative Republican from Georgia debunks Palins's death panel bullshit:
Quote:
ISAKSON: I have no idea. I understand — and you have to check this out — I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up. [...]

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother?

dippin 08-11-2009 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2686150)
It was called "Death of a President".

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama| News | This is London

Tell me you don't think this was advocating...

In all honesty, my biggest fear is that something will happen to Obama. I make no secret of the fact that I want him to fail. However, he needs to ride that wave all the way to the shore so that Americans can see him for what he really is and avoid giving someone with his values so much power ever again. (Again, I know many of you will disagree.)

If something were to happen to him, I fear how it would tear at our country. While I completely disagree with his policies, I am pleased that America has, as a majority, elected someone other than a white guy. Anything other than a full term would wipe out that "accomplishment".
So a British film about an assassination, imagining what would happen in that case, including a brutal Dick Chenney presidency, is akin to a call to arms against Bush??

The_Jazz 08-11-2009 12:33 PM
Let's see, made-for-TV movie that didn't air in the US. Relavence?

aceventura3 08-11-2009 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2686145)
I would suggest that the demonizing and the spin is on the side that has been saying that the Obama and/or various Congressional plans:
- are like a single payer European or socialist style program

- will ration health care and put personal health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats

- mandate government funded abortion on demand

- mandates euthanasia counseling for seniors

- will give the government total unfettered access to personal medical records
What about the demonetization of health care insurance companies coming from the WH and members of Congress?

Quote:
Summed up in the most ignorant bullshit description I have heard to-date - Sarah Palin's and "evil death panels":
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
IMO, that is ignorant and offensive fear-mongering by any standard.
It is interesting that in Obama's TH meeting today he addressed that issue twice. The first time in a dismissive tone, and then when a second question came up related to heath care panels for the purpose of addressing best practices, he did it in a much more serious manner but he still did not totally address the underlying concern. He went on about how the panel would make sure tests don't get duplicated, but he did not address treatment protocols - which is the issue. Palin may regret using the terms "death panel", but it did give Obama and others a tremendous opportunity to respond to the masses who are thinking that very thing. In my book it is always better to deal with real feeling in a direct and honest manner.

dippin 08-11-2009 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2686157)
DC; have you read the bill? I've only recently managed to find a full copy (H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)), but the fact is that at least some of the "lies" you've posted appear to be either contained within the bill (rationing, Gov' bureaucratic control, etc) or will be required by its' mandate.

No, it isn't a single-payer system. Yes, DMV-type drones will be empowered to make decisions regarding care. Mrs. Palin was RIGHT, because that's what -all- State rationing of healthcare comes down to; a cost/benefit analysis with regards to a person's usefulness to The Collective. When a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority. Ask a few vets who've cycled through Walter Reed Army Medical Centre about how that dance goes; I can put you in touch with a Guadalcanal "Mud Marine" who's been denied treatment by the VA because of his age, likewise a Vietnam-era Army grunt with a bullet in his hip and lungs full of Agent Orange who's having to shell out 100% of his costs himself because one of the pencil-pushers whom you insist don't/won't exist arbitrarily decided that his injuries, sustained in service to his country, didn't merit the public nickle.
Where, exactly, in the bill you linked to, are any of Palin's allegations? Where do you find any language that states "when a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority?"

This is the comical aspect of this debate. If a healthcare reform failed because of its merits (or lack thereof) it would be one thing. But if it fails because of absurd spin even by people who have claimed to read the bill, then its a tragedy.

So I am calling your bluff, the bluff of waving the bills and making false claims about what it contains: where exactly is anything you and Palin claimed to be true in there? In fact, section 102 of the bill, one of the first, clearly shows that everything that Palin et al are claiming is a complete and total lie.

Cimarron29414 08-11-2009 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2686172)
So a British film about an assassination, imagining what would happen in that case, including a brutal Dick Chenney presidency, is akin to a call to arms against Bush??
A British film shown at every major film festival in the world...and if you recall the context - someone above quoted a sign by the "evil gun carrier" as a direct call for assassinating Obama. I would say that a 250-year-old quote on a sign is a bit more indirect than a specific movie killing the exact person in question. That would be my point.

Rekna 08-11-2009 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz (Post 2686119)
Neither do I.
Actually I remember the movie, it was never aired in the US.... I never saw it but you could only find it online and it was produced outside of the US.

Cimarron29414 08-11-2009 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz (Post 2686173)
Let's see, made-for-TV movie that didn't air in the US. Relavence?
Do you want to rent it from NetFlix?

Netflix Online Movie Rentals - Rent DVDs, Classic Films to DVD New Releases

...how about BlockBuster?

Search Results

Apology accepted.

dippin 08-11-2009 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2686179)
A British film shown at every major film festival in the world...and if you recall the context - someone above quoted a sign by the "evil gun carrier" as a direct call for assassinating Obama. I would say that a 250-year-old quote on a sign is a bit more indirect than a specific movie killing the exact person in question. That would be my point.
Well, maybe because a sign that talks about watering trees with blood is a direct call to assassination, whereas a movie that imagines what would happen in the event of an assassination, and in no way paints it as a triumph or as something leading to desirable outcomes (quite the contrary) is not...

aceventura3 08-11-2009 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2686177)
Where, exactly, in the bill you linked to, are any of Palin's allegations? Where do you find any language that states "when a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority?"

This is the comical aspect of this debate. If a healthcare reform failed because of its merits (or lack thereof) it would be one thing. But if it fails because of absurd spin even by people who have claimed to read the bill, then its a tragedy.

So I am calling your bluff, the bluff of waving the bills and making false claims about what it contains: where exactly is anything you and Palin claimed to be true in there? In fact, section 102 of the bill, one of the first, clearly shows that everything that Palin et al are claiming is a complete and total lie.
Currently in Medicare there are medical practitioners that opt into Medicare and there are some that opt out. There are some that accept the Medicare "usual and customer" payment and some who don't. Medicare has standard protocols for common treatments that they reimburse or pay based on that national standard. If an individual's treatment involves a doctor who has opted out, or bills more the "usual and customary", or goes outside of the standard treatment protocol for common conditions, the cost has to be paid by the individual. This forms one of the basis' for the "death panel" concern.

dippin 08-11-2009 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2686182)
Do you want to rent it from NetFlix?

Netflix Online Movie Rentals - Rent DVDs, Classic Films to DVD New Releases

...how about BlockBuster?

Search Results

Apology accepted.
Except that the movie in no way portrays the outcome of the assassination as positive or desirable... that is akin to saying that "red dawn" was a call for a communist invasion...

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2686184)
Currently in Medicare there are medical practitioners that opt into Medicare and there are some that opt out. There are some that accept the Medicare "usual and customer" payment and some who don't. Medicare has standard protocols for common treatments that they reimburse or pay based on that national standard. If an individual's treatment involves a doctor who has opted out, or bills more the "usual and customary", or goes outside of the standard treatment protocol for common conditions, the cost has to be paid by the individual. This forms one of the basis' for the "death panel" concern.
how is that in any way a "death panel?" First, if it's something already in place then it can't be a feature of the proposed reform. Second, how is this a "death panel?" Third, so is she advocating that doctors be forced to take medicare?

roachboy 08-11-2009 12:49 PM
yeah, see this is what i was referencing when i talked about the degenerate state of political debate, particularly around this topic.
which is compounded in my view because obama is simply not going far enough fast enough in advancing a clear, coherent plan.
the problem seems to be tactical on his side: build consensus around the general proposition that the existing system is not sustainable/workable.

as for the right, it really appears that they have no coherent position from which to argue against the plan but a clear tactical imperative to appear to be politically viable by mobilizing their demographic to stop such debate as there is by generating a level of noise that simply grinds it to a halt. what's depressing within this is that to do this, they seem to have tapped into the same demographic that was running to buy up as many guns as possible when obama was elected---so what you've got, it seems to me, is an opportunity for far right petit bourgeois being-aggrieved as the center of a position regarding health care. which is absurd, and a pretty clear indication of the strategic debacle that the right now finds itself trying to work a way out of.

this isn't to say that all conservative opposition is like this--but it's pretty hard not to see in what the right is doing en bloc much beyond a reflection of total disarray.

so the right has found itself backed into a position where their strategy is to say everything and anything to grind the debate to a halt, as if by doing that there's anything possible beyond a pyrrhic victory.

dksuddeth 08-11-2009 12:56 PM
I found some interesting comments from some people here.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ed-panned.html

Cimarron29414 08-11-2009 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2686185)
Except that the movie in no way portrays the outcome of the assassination as positive or desirable... that is akin to saying that "red dawn" was a call for a communist invasion...

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------



how is that in any way a "death panel?" First, if it's something already in place then it can't be a feature of the proposed reform. Second, how is this a "death panel?" Third, so is she advocating that doctors be forced to take medicare?
I didn't watch the movie, so I couldn't say what it portrays. This guy had a sign and a gun. I don't know anything else about him, he was peaceably assemblying and breaking absolutely no laws. We are all looking at him through our political filter and trying to judge his intent. I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am pointing out that to suggest that others didn't think about assassinating Bush is simply disingenuous.

As to the "Death Panels", I believe the verbage that gives people pause is section 1233. Personally, I just think it is really poorly written and opens itself up to fear mongering. To me, this section is simply evidence that idiots are writing these laws - how could you write something so vague regarding something so important to people? I don't think there will be death panels to "go before" and plead for your life - but why write it so that it could even be open for (albeit ridiculous) interpretation.

How about this: An organization will be created and made available to the public which will help individuals arrange their affairs in the event of their death. This organization will be available to people of all ages but will focus on outreach to the elderly. Services available will include "How to write a living will" and "How to write a state specific will", as well as state-specific information on hospice and probate. There ya' go. Easy - Peasy.

Martian 08-11-2009 01:14 PM
I've been mostly a silent participant in these discussions so far, but I have to say that as an outsider I find it bizarre that so many people are opposed to something so basic and fundamental as universal healthcare. Perhaps other non-US members have different opinions, though.

I find myself wondering how opinions break down in terms of immigrants or US citizens who've spent time living abroad. Y'know, people who've experienced such systems in action.

Also, I miss Ustwo. It's been a long time since he's told me that the healthcare system I rely on is in a perpetual state of near-collapse.

As for the sign, not being an American citizen and being only passingly familiar with your history, I had to look up the quote in question. What I found was this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Taken in the context of some of the rhetoric swirling around President Obama, this seems like a pretty clear message to me; I doubt he's calling for the blood of patriots to be spilled. Adding the gun in that context is a bit of an odd choice on his part -- perhaps he was hoping that the secret service agents would be as poor history students as I am.

The whole thing is merely an aside, though.

roachboy 08-11-2009 01:21 PM
my sense is----but this is only my sense----that the opposition to universal health care from the right plays to the same logic that informed opposition to programs like welfare. the source of it is the usual sense of conservative-as-victim, the upstanding horatio alger type who did everything with no help from anybody or anything, pure gumption and will and all that, who is not being persecuted for real or imaginary financial success by being required to participate in evil programs that redistribute wealth. programs that fashion systems for killing other people in large number are just fine--but redistribution of wealth for some larger socio-political goal--well that's just bad. behind that probably lay class and/or status anxiety, but framed in such as a way as to stand it on it's head.

so the opposition is pitched more toward a kind of shared sensbility or demographic than toward the actual issues involved with this particular proposal.

i think while my exact sense is of course my own, the tactical choices being made by the conservative establishment are pretty clear.

connyosis 08-11-2009 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian (Post 2686201)
I've been mostly a silent participant in these discussions so far, but I have to say that as an outsider I find it bizarre that so many people are opposed to something so basic and fundamental as universal healthcare. Perhaps other non-US members have different opinions, though.
I agree with you. I keep reading that universal healthcare is the most horrible thing ever invented. Why is it so horrible? Really? I've lived with it for almost 30 years now and I still have not seen any death panels around. Maybe I'm just lucky though...

scout 08-11-2009 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2686188)
...... obama is simply not going far enough fast enough in advancing a clear, coherent plan.
the problem seems to be tactical on his side: build consensus around the general proposition that the existing system is not sustainable/workable.

as for the right, it really appears that they have no coherent position ....
If there is no coherent plan how can there possibly be a coherent response?

I'm with you, I think {Obama} jumped into this thing without any real plan other than to rally everyone around "we have to do something" rather than having a real plan with real solutions and I think it's a tactical misstep. If Obama had come out and said he was going to offer every legal resident the same plan our elected representatives are enjoying there wouldn't be near the outcry. He made some serious mistakes with this debate from the very beginning.

People are getting real sick of politics as usual and I think some of that is spilling over into these town hall meetings as not all the frustration is centered upon healthcare. People are generally mistrustful of their elected representatives and the government as whole.

Derwood 08-11-2009 02:49 PM
I also agree. Part of the reason that there is little to no reasoned, rational debate is because there aren't enough details to debate about

Rekna 08-11-2009 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2686184)
Currently in Medicare there are medical practitioners that opt into Medicare and there are some that opt out. There are some that accept the Medicare "usual and customer" payment and some who don't. Medicare has standard protocols for common treatments that they reimburse or pay based on that national standard. If an individual's treatment involves a doctor who has opted out, or bills more the "usual and customary", or goes outside of the standard treatment protocol for common conditions, the cost has to be paid by the individual. This forms one of the basis' for the "death panel" concern.
Don't the insurance companies already decide to not cover certain things or perform recission? It seems to me like the insurance companies are the death panels.

rahl 08-11-2009 03:06 PM
I think part of the outrage is that the bailouts didn't seem to sit well with most americans because it was rushed and didn't have many stipulations and the proposed healthcare bill seems to be more of the same

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna (Post 2686296)
Don't the insurance companies already decide to not cover certain things or perform recission? It seems to me like the insurance companies are the death panels.
Insurance companies don't decide not to cover someone based on a "death panel". If a procedure or condition isn't covered it is stated clearly in the policy that is issued.

ratbastid 08-11-2009 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2686150)
I make no secret of the fact that I want him to fail.
That's so interesting. I have a bunch of questions about that, if you'd be willing to flesh this out a little for me. The only other person I've seen lay it out so plainly like that is Rush Limbaugh, and he's not available for my questions. I really don't mean these questions as point-scoring questions. It's just that this statement is so unfathomable to me, I'm really interested in getting where you're coming from about it.

Do you consider yourself a patriot? If so, how does hoping for the failure of the President of the United States square with that?

See, I think if the president fails, the country fails. I think we failed for almost the entirety of our last administration, as a result of that administration failing. Are you really saying you want more of that? Or, perhaps you want us to fall down the other side of the mountain instead? OR perhaps you reject my assertion that if the president fails the country fails?

What does "fail" mean, in this context?

Will "Obama failing", whatever that means, restore the America you know and love?

What will "Obama failing" produce, exactly? What would his failure be useful for?

As opposed as I was to Bush, I always hoped he'd turn things around. All I really wanted from the guy was for him to not be such a miserable disappointment. I never would have said I hoped he'd fail. I observed his actions and interpreted them as failure. But I think that's different. I don't quite know what my question is related to that... something like: your thoughts?

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686308)
Insurance companies don't decide not to cover someone based on a "death panel". If a procedure or condition isn't covered it is stated clearly in the policy that is issued.
What about rescission? People are finding themselves being dropped the minute they come down with expensive conditions that are supposed to be covered, for any minute and sometimes even fictional reason the insurance company can find.

Tully Mars 08-11-2009 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686308)

Insurance companies don't decide not to cover someone based on a "death panel". If a procedure or condition isn't covered it is stated clearly in the policy that is issued.
I can't speak about death panels because, well that just sounds like BS to me. But I call BS on "If a procedure or condition isn't covered it is stated clearly in the policy that is issued." I had the same procedure 10 or 11 times on my spine, nerve block, in an attempt to repair nerve damage in my leg. This was clearly covered in my policy. My insurance, Cigna, covered the first, kick back the second without reason, paid for the four and fifth and then paid for, I think, the eighth. Now these procedures weren't questionable, three doctors told me this was the correct course of action. The insurance folks used excuses like incorrect coding, non preapproval etc... All of that was Bull Shit. They fought tooth and nail not to pay for the ones they rejected. I had to hire an attorney to get them to pay. I was lucky. I had the cash to hire legal help, lots of folks don't.

So to think that "insurance companies don't decide not to cover someone" that it's all in the policy, it's cut and dry. No they try to get out of every out pay they can. I had one lady at the insurance company literally tell me they'd been told to reject X number of claims and that their pay was increased (by bonus) if they successfully rejected a certain number of claims.

These health insurance companies that are spending major cash lobbying and getting this "Astroturf" movement moving are doing so out of fear they'll lose the option of bilking billions out of their policy holders. They want no part of a public option because they know to complete with it they'll have stop feeding at the trough.

ratbastid 08-11-2009 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars (Post 2686378)
These health insurance companies that are spending major cash lobbying and getting this "Astroturf" movement moving are doing so out of fear they'll lose the option of bilking billions out of their policy holders. They want no part of a public option because they know to complete with it they'll have stop feeding at the trough.
Bottom line, right there.

Fortunately, enough members of congress are getting pissed off about this bullshit that they're looking to take action.

Rekna 08-11-2009 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686308)
I think part of the outrage is that the bailouts didn't seem to sit well with most americans because it was rushed and didn't have many stipulations and the proposed healthcare bill seems to be more of the same

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------



Insurance companies don't decide not to cover someone based on a "death panel". If a procedure or condition isn't covered it is stated clearly in the policy that is issued.
Ever heard of rescission? Look it up.

rahl 08-11-2009 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars (Post 2686378)
I can't speak about death panels because, well that just sounds like BS to me. But I call BS on "If a procedure or condition isn't covered it is stated clearly in the policy that is issued." I had the same procedure 10 or 11 times on my spine, nerve block, in an attempt to repair nerve damage in my leg. This was clearly covered in my policy. My insurance, Cigna, covered the first, kick back the second without reason, paid for the four and fifth and then paid for, I think, the eights. Now these procedures weren't questionable, three doctors told me this was the correct course of action. The insurance folks used excuses like incorrect coding, non preapproval etc... All of that was Bull Shit. They fought tooth and nail not to pay for the ones they rejected. I had to hire an attorney to get them to pay. I was lucky. I had the cash to hire legal help, lots of folks don't.

So to think that "insurance companies don't decide not to cover someone" that it's all in the policy, it's cut and dry. No they try to get out of every out pay they can. I had one lady at the insurance company literally tell me they'd been told to reject X number of claims and that their pay was increased (by bonus) if they successfully rejected a certain number of claims.

These health insurance companies that are spending major cash lobbying and getting this "Astroturf" movement moving are doing so out of fear they'll lose the option of bilking billions out of their policy holders. They want no part of a public option because they know to complete with it they'll have stop feeding at the trough.
While your circumstance is a terrible one this is not general practice across the board. There is shady practices in insurance no question, but there is in virtually every business because those businesses are run by PEOPLE. I can't speak for cigna or the people that work there since I'm not employed by them, but with my company, we will deny a claim based on a few very specific reasons: a)was the policy in force at time of incident? b) was the injury or loss specifically excluded in writing on policy? and c) was the injury or loss intentional or occur during the process of a felony?

---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna (Post 2686387)
Ever heard of rescission? Look it up.

rescission has nothing to do with denying a claim. It has to do with cancelling a policy, which is limited to very few specific circumstances. One being lieing on an applicaiton

ratbastid 08-11-2009 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686394)
While your circumstance is a terrible one this is not general practice across the board. There is shady practices in insurance no question, but there is in virtually every business because those businesses are run by PEOPLE. I can't speak for cigna or the people that work there since I'm not employed by them, but with my company, we will deny a claim based on a few very specific reasons: a)was the policy in force at time of incident? b) was the injury or loss specifically excluded in writing on policy? and c) was the injury or loss intentional or occur during the process of a felony?
Really? Nobody goes back to look and see if the insured left their middle name off the application, when that multi-million dollar diagnosis comes in? Because insurance companies in general are doing that like crazy. If yours doesn't, then either you don't know about it (because really, who would tell the whole staff about your evilness?), or your company is the one saint in the cesspool.

rahl 08-11-2009 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2686405)
Really? Nobody goes back to look and see if the insured left their middle name off the application, when that multi-million dollar diagnosis comes in? Because insurance companies in general are doing that like crazy. If yours doesn't, then either you don't know about it (because really, who would tell the whole staff about your evilness?), or your company is the one saint in the cesspool.


That's really unfair. I already said that there may be some instances that people employed by insurance companies may act unethically. Show me a single industry that this isn't the case. Does the insurance industry AND medical industry need some tune ups? Absolutely. But you can't lay the blame entirely on Insurance companies. Just like you can't lay the blame for the financial crisis in this country entirely on the banks.

Charlatan 08-11-2009 04:42 PM
As an outsider, I am simply (and continually) amazed at how your nation manages to even function with such division over such basic ideas (and ideals).

Tully Mars 08-11-2009 04:42 PM
I call bull shit yet again. I spent a lot of time in waiting rooms over a two and half year period. I've heard so many people tell so many stories, many almost exactly like mine, that I in no way believe insurance companies don't spend a good deal of time and money simply making it difficult for people to get their claims processed. "This codes wrong, should be out patient.... denied" "Forms states patient is female, insured is male... denied." Form states procedure preformed on right shoulder, pre-approved for left... denied." And on and on. Once it's denied getting it not denied is like putting toothpaste back in the tube. Like some circle jerk from hell. "Oh, yes we'll just change the code." "Oh, that? That's an obvious mistake we'll change it. Don't worry about it." Two months later you're getting a letter and call from a collection agency. I used to see the same people in the waiting room so often we'd trade "war stories" about the insurance and collection agencies. I got to where I had a three inch thick file of names, conversations, dates and times. Really helped once I had to hire an attorney. I highly recommend keeping detailed notes if you find yourself in this situation. I have no doubt you'll be told "this" by person "A" and "that" by person "B." Or person "B" will have no idea what person "A" said or who they were.

I talked to a guy who must have been 55 or so and he was in tears because he didn't know how to get the insurance company to pay for his wife's care and the hospital was refusing to proceed without payment. After listening to him I think the good people at the insurance company were just playing a waiting game and figured dead people don't need care.

rahl 08-11-2009 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars (Post 2686423)
I call bull shit yet again. I spent a lot of time in waiting rooms over a two and half year period. I've heard so many people tell so many stories, many almost exactly like mine, that I in no way believe insurance companies don't spend a good deal of time and money simply making it difficult for people to get their claims processed. "This codes wrong, should be out patient.... denied" "Forms states patient is female, insured is male... denied." Form states procedure preformed on right shoulder, pre-approved for left... denied." And on and on. Once it's denied getting it not denied is like putting toothpaste back in the tube. Like some circle jerk from hell. "Oh, yes we'll just change the code." "Oh, that? That's an obvious mistake we'll change it. Don't worry about it." Two months later you're getting a letter and call from a collection agency. I used to see the same people in the waiting room so often we'd trade "war stories" about the insurance and collection agencies. I got to where I had a three inch thick file of names, conversations, dates and times. Really helped once I had to hire an attorney. I highly recommend keeping detailed notes if you find yourself in this situation. I have no doubt you'll be told "this" by person "A" and "that" by person "B." Or person "B" will have no idea what person "A" said or who they were.

I talked to a guy who must have been 55 or so and he was in tears because he didn't know how to get the insurance company to pay for his wife's care and the hospital was refusing to proceed without payment. After listening to him I think the good people at the insurance company were just playing a waiting game and figured dead people don't need care.

Like so many arguments in these forums, your personal experience or experiences of a few people you know can not and do not prove anything, other than the fact that you had a bad experience. There are proper procedures for filing any type of paperwork and if things aren't filled out properly they are void. If you write a check on 08/11/2009 but dated it 10/11/2009 and try to cash it before then the bank will say no way. Is the bank some evil corporation trying to steal your money from you? Of course not. Even though you made an honest mistake, perhaps like that of the person coding your claim, you can't circumvent procedure.

Tully Mars 08-11-2009 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686433)
Like so many arguments in these forums, your personal experience or experiences of a few people you know can not and do not prove anything, other than the fact that you had a bad experience.
Yeah, I just happen to run into 20 or 30 people who were having the same type problems as I was over a 30 month period solely by random. Obviously a complete anomaly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686433)
There are proper procedures for filing any type of paperwork and if things aren't filled out properly they are void. If you write a check on 08/11/2009 but dated it 10/11/2009 and try to cash it before then the bank will say no way. Is the bank some evil corporation trying to steal your money from you? Of course not. Even though you made an honest mistake, perhaps like that of the person coding your claim, you can't circumvent procedure.
And if an industry, as a whole, makes the process so confusing and difficult to follow half or more of customers' claims get denied it's the customers fault for not understanding it.

Credit card companies are doing the same thing. What used to be a two page contract any high school kid could understand has become a thirty page, fine print, bunch of legalese most people can't comprehend. Oh, they comprehend the gist of it once they're 5 days late and get hit with a $50 late fee and an 15% interest increase.

People are pissed off at these industries for a reason. They treat many of their clients the same way con men treat a mark. And until recently they had little to worry about. Most people have few options when it comes to their HI, they take whatever their employer is offering. If a public option was actually available a lot of this crap would dry up and blow away.

In a way this is kind of like the reason used car salesman became a punchline... because they were a joke.

dippin 08-11-2009 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686433)
Like so many arguments in these forums, your personal experience or experiences of a few people you know can not and do not prove anything, other than the fact that you had a bad experience. There are proper procedures for filing any type of paperwork and if things aren't filled out properly they are void. If you write a check on 08/11/2009 but dated it 10/11/2009 and try to cash it before then the bank will say no way. Is the bank some evil corporation trying to steal your money from you? Of course not. Even though you made an honest mistake, perhaps like that of the person coding your claim, you can't circumvent procedure.
I am amazed by this little game of yours. In the other thread, when people mentioned comprehensive, national level data, you sidestepped it. In this thread, when people use their own personal experiences, you dismiss as it as exceptional circumstances. What would it take to convince you that there is something majorly wrong in the American healthcare system? Because it seems no matter how comprehensive the evidence you find some way of dismissing it.

As for personal experiences and such, my uncle was a psychiatrist in a suburb of Baltimore for some 30 years. You will not find a single person more staunchly in favor of single payer healthcare.

The arrangement insurance companies had with his hospital was something that would make most people really pissed off: they got X amount for population covered in their area per year. If they kept their costs under X, they turned a profit, if it came out over X, they had to cover the difference themselves.

That (and other stories like that) are the reasons why I think tort reform is a major threat to people. Insurance companies really put a lot of pressure on doctors to reduce costs and tests, and the only thing that pushes against that is the threat of legal action.

dksuddeth 08-11-2009 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2686381)
Bottom line, right there.

Fortunately, enough members of congress are getting pissed off about this bullshit that they're looking to take action.
really? what action do they think they'll be able to take without paying for it at the polls?

ratbastid 08-11-2009 05:35 PM
The worst part is, you can't even get a god damn refund. You've been paying your premiums faithfully like a good little customer, they come along and say, "Oooh, sorry, no, there was something wrong with your application. We're taking back that we ever issued you a policy, but... yeaaah, we'll be... we'll be keeping your payments to date. Okay, so, yeah. Thanks."

I'm SO damn ready for a public option. Let the bastards die on the vine.

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2686453)
really? what action do they think they'll be able to take without paying for it at the polls?
I think they're ready to alter the rules under which an insurance company can reconsider whether they're going to cover a policyholder, for one thing.

Some of them will take a hit in their campaign contributions from the insurance industry, though, you're right about that.

rahl 08-11-2009 05:38 PM
And if an industry, as a whole, makes the process so confusing and difficult to follow half or more of customers' claims get denied it's the customers fault for not understanding it.

Credit card companies are doing the same thing. What used to be a two page contract any high school kid could understand has become a thirty page, fine print, bunch of legalese most people can't comprehend. Oh, they comprehend the gist of it once they're 5 days late once and get hit with a $50 late fee and an 15% interest increase.

People are pissed off at these industries for a reason. They treat many of their clients the same way con men treat a mark. And until recently they had little to worry about. Most people have few options when it comes to their HI, they take whatever their employer is offering. If a public option was actually available a lot of this crap would dry up and blow away.

In a way this is kind of like the reason used car salesman became a punchline... because they were a joke.[/QUOTE]


When you sign up for insurance the application is around 5 pages long. You fill out basic info like name, birthday, ssn, dependant info etc. Then there is a page(or more if needed) for previous medical history. Underwriters review your application and charge you a premium accordingly. If you have a pre-ex that will generally be excluded. I never said if a claim is denied it is YOUR fault. Like I said, hospitals have to process hundreds of claims each day, when dealing with so many codes and so many patients sometimes they get screwed up. It's not your fault, it's not the insurance companies fault. But if a claim comes in and it's incorrect what are they supposed to do?

Derwood 08-11-2009 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686458)
Like I said, hospitals have to process hundreds of claims each day, when dealing with so many codes and so many patients sometimes they get screwed up. It's not your fault, it's not the insurance companies fault. But if a claim comes in and it's incorrect what are they supposed to do?
allowing the simple problem to be fixed and resubmitted would be a start

rahl 08-11-2009 05:58 PM
[quote=ratbastid;2686455]The worst part is, you can't even get a god damn refund. You've been paying your premiums faithfully like a good little customer, they come along and say, "Oooh, sorry, no, there was something wrong with your application. We're taking back that we ever issued you a policy, but... yeaaah, we'll be... we'll be keeping your payments to date. Okay, so, yeah. Thanks."

If you receive a cancellation notice dated today 8/11/09 stating that your policy was cancelled effective 6/1/09 and you have paid premiums for all of june july and part of August, The insurance company is REQUIRED by law to refund your premiums, or they are subject to loose their status to sell policies in that particular state enforced by the state department of insurance. Also if you have insurance through work, they can not cancell your policy...YOU can't even cancell your own policy if you are using pre-tax dollars to pay your premiums under the "IRS section 125 plan" better know as a "cafeteria"plan unless you have a qualifying family status change(marriage, divorce, kid,etc).

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------

Let the bastards die on the vine.



Thanks:sad:

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2686451)
I am amazed by this little game of yours. In the other thread, when people mentioned comprehensive, national level data, you sidestepped it. In this thread, when people use their own personal experiences, you dismiss as it as exceptional circumstances. What would it take to convince you that there is something majorly wrong in the American healthcare system? Because it seems no matter how comprehensive the evidence you find some way of dismissing it.

As for personal experiences and such, my uncle was a psychiatrist in a suburb of Baltimore for some 30 years. You will not find a single person more staunchly in favor of single payer healthcare.

The arrangement insurance companies had with his hospital was something that would make most people really pissed off: they got X amount for population covered in their area per year. If they kept their costs under X, they turned a profit, if it came out over X, they had to cover the difference themselves.

That (and other stories like that) are the reasons why I think tort reform is a major threat to people. Insurance companies really put a lot of pressure on doctors to reduce costs and tests, and the only thing that pushes against that is the threat of legal action.

I'm not playing any games. I'm trying to convey how things work in the insurance industry. What national data did I side step exactly?
The other thread is a pub discussion so there was no data. I have stated countless times that I agree that things need fixed in the healthcare industry, but I'm also stating my opinion aboloshing Insurance companies(my job) is not desireable for me thats all

---------- Post added at 09:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2686460)
allowing the simple problem to be fixed and resubmitted would be a start
I agree. One thing people should know is that if you are having any problems with your claims or insurance company in general go to your HR director. They will get in touch with the Broker who has the case. It is in the Brokers interest to get all legitimate claims paid, so he will get the repeat business. I promise He will do everything in his power to assist you.

Tully Mars 08-11-2009 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686458)
Like I said, hospitals have to process hundreds of claims each day, when dealing with so many codes and so many patients sometimes they get screwed up. It's not your fault, it's not the insurance companies fault. But if a claim comes in and it's incorrect what are they supposed to do?
I refer you back to my previous comments-


Quote:
"This codes wrong, should be out patient.... denied" "Forms states patient is female, insured is male... denied." Form states procedure preformed on right shoulder, pre-approved for left... denied." And on and on. Once it's denied getting it not denied is like putting toothpaste back in the tube. Like some circle jerk from hell. "Oh, yes we'll just change the code." "Oh, that? That's an obvious mistake we'll change it. Don't worry about it." Two months later you're getting a letter and call from a collection agency.


First the codes are so difficult to understand even the people who do it for a living are getting them wrong... repeatedly. Hmm, now who would have an interest in making this confusing? I mean who would benefit if a claim was erroneously rejected for payment?

Second if, as I stated above, you contact the policy issuer and are told "Oh, that? That's an obvious mistake we'll change it. Don't worry about it" that should be the end of it. But I had this happen repeatedly and that was never the end of it. Again once it was denied getting not denied was like putting toothpaste back in the tube.

Third, the application may be a few pages with simple questions but the last policy I had filled three booklets, the shortest was about 25 pages and I think it discussed what was and wasn't covered regarding mental health care. After reading all three books I felt like filing a claim for some mental health care.

Finally I'll just quote ratbastid-

Quote:
Because insurance companies in general are doing that like crazy. If yours doesn't, then either you don't know about it (because really, who would tell the whole staff about your evilness?), or your company is the one saint in the cesspool.

The_Dunedan 08-11-2009 06:03 PM
In regards to The Plan itself, the quotations below are from HR 3200, my own commentary is in bold.

Section 102: prevents ensureres from changing rates, or enrolling new policy-holders as of the date the prospective Law went into effect. This will put private insurance companies out of business.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

Section 123: provides for an "advisory committee" to decide who gets what, composed mostly of career bureaucrats beholden to the President. Historically, such persons have been most reluctant to give The Man the Bad News, and so things like Walter Reed or Romanian orphanages persisted.

(1) IN GENERAL- There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

(2) CHAIR- The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.

(3) MEMBERSHIP- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.

(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.

(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.

Section 163 amends the Social Security Act to provide for real-time Federal-level access to all personal medical and financial data, including but not limited to bank-account information and credit ratings. It also provides for a machine-readable national ID card system, at least for those who are utilizing the system

SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.

(a) Standardizing Electronic Administrative Transactions-

(1) IN GENERAL- Part C of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1173 the following new section:

`SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.

`(a) Standards for Financial and Administrative Transactions-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2).

`(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS- The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall--

`(A) be unique with no conflicting or redundant standards;

`(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides;

`(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;

`(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;

`(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;

`(F) provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;

`(G) describe all data elements (such as reason and remark codes) in unambiguous terms, not permit optional fields, require that data elements be either required or conditioned upon set values in other fields, and prohibit additional conditions; and

`(H) harmonize all common data elements across administrative and clinical transaction standards.

Shall we continue? This thing is a monstrosity.

rahl 08-11-2009 06:08 PM
[quote=Tully Mars;2686473]I refer you back to my previous comments-




First the codes are so difficult to understand even the people who do it for a living are getting them wrong... repeatedly. Hmm, now who would have an interest in making this confusing? I mean who would benefit if a claim was erroneously rejected for payment?

Conspiracy theorist much?

---------- Post added at 10:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars (Post 2686473)
I refer you back to my previous comments-




Second if, as I stated above, you contact the policy issuer and are told "Oh, that? That's an obvious mistake we'll change it. Don't worry about it" that should be the end of it. But I had this happen repeatedly and that was never the end of it. Again once it was denied getting not denied was like putting toothpaste back in the tube.

Third, the application may be a few pages with simple questions but the last policy I had filled three booklets, the shortest was about 25 pages and I think it discussed what was and wasn't covered regarding mental health care. After reading all three books I felt like filing a claim for some mental health care.

Finally I'll just quote ratbastid-

They can't just take your word for it just because you said so. You need to work with the hospital and get them to contact the insurance company and refile the claim correctly.

As to your third point. The 25 page booklet you receive is not an application it's called an explanation of benefits. There are alot of things involved with healthcare...ER, Urgent Care, Primary Care Physician, and yes mental Health.

ratbastid 08-11-2009 06:32 PM
This is a nice summary, from the "aging" blog at psychologytoday.com. it begins with all you need to know about health care in 25 words.

Health Care In Exactly 25 Words | Psychology Today

Quote:
Here's all you need to know about health care.

All of us put our money into a big pot, and when you have medical expenses, you take some money out of the big pot.

That—in 25 words—is everything you need to know about health-care insurance.

This is no different from the Golden Rule, originally formulated by Rabbi Hillel, who added, “The rest is commentary.”

But here’s some commentary.

Those who are sick will have enough money to take out of the pot because many who put money into the pot will not be sick and won’t need any money.

Those who typically won’t get sick—the young, a healthy portion of the aged—are buying an insurance policy in case they fall off a cliff or win the unfortunate lottery and get something like cancer or Parkinson’s. (And if you keel over suddenly from a heart attack, you won’t need any of the pot money either.) This is no different from the millions who have been driving for decades, paying their automobile insurance premiums, but never had an accident. It’s nice to know the money will be there, on the off chance you will need it.

If only sick people put money into the pot, there will not be enough to pay for their illnesses. That’s why everyone needs to be in the pot.

Some of us don’t put our own money into the pot, because our employers will do it for us.

Others don’t put our own money into the pot, because we don’t have any money. So we adjust the amount of money from those who have it to make sure there’s enough for those who don’t.

What about insurance companies?

I don’t understand why they need to exist in their current form. Basically, they exist to mind the pot—or their own private pots. They spend loads of money trying to induce people to put money into their pot rather than their rivals’ pots. So, cumulatively, there’s less money in all pots. Since their pots are private, they take some money out of their pots to pay those people (shareholders) who own the pots. And because the pot owners want as much money as they can get, the pot managers come up with reasons why you can’t take money out. Doctors and other health-care providers have to hire people to argue with the pot owners about getting pot money—which means there will be less money for the pot.

All you need is a computer to regulate input and output from the pot.

I tend to believe that there should be only one pot—single payer. It’s simpler. There’s less overhead. You get to choose your own doctor and make your own decisions without government interference.

Medicare, essentially the one-pot system for those over 65, is—along with the VA, another government system—the most popular government program. As a health-care provider, I can attest that it is the most hassle-free reimbursement vehicle, and that if there were Medicare for all, all those people in doctors’ office who spend their days arguing with the private pot owners could be put to more productive uses.

Medicare for all is, in fact, a form of socialism. It is socialized health-care insurance. The health care system itself will remain largely private.

But I am willing to accept the idea that Medicare for all—or another single payer system—may be a bridge too far in our political terrain. So taking a cue from places like France, or Japan, or Germany, or Korea, or Switzerland, I’m willing to accept the continued existence of insurance companies as long as they—like all of the aforementioned countries—mind their pots on a nonprofit basis.

In these countries, everyone is covered, and nobody goes bankrupt. Inability to pay medical expenses is the number one reason for bankruptcies in the United States.

And we rank behind all other industrialized countries in health care outcomes—pesky little things like life expectancy and infant mortality.

What about doctors?

One of the reasons why Medicare works is because its huge pot can demand lower rates, meaning less money is needed for the pot. Doctors like to complain about this, but they don’t imagine a world without Medicare. Would they be driving their BMWs and Lexuses if the millions of the elderly had no Medicare? I don’t think so. Who would be paying for their tax deductible auto leases?

Another problem is that doctors graduate with huge loan liabilities to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars their medical education cost. This is why there is a glut of highly paid dermatologists and a shortage of less highly paid primary care physicians.

I’m all for a program that would pay for the medical education of a majority—if not all—doctors in exchange for five years of public health service.

And so they won’t feel deprived compared to their peers who went before them, as part of the deal, they will be granted the luxury car of their choice.

I hope it’s an Escalade.

Buy American.

rahl 08-11-2009 06:46 PM
The only problem I have with that is that the vast majority of seniors need to buy medicare supplement plans to cover the things that medicare doesn't, mainly prescriptions. So IMO medicare is not the perfect template or solution to the health care crisis

Tully Mars 08-11-2009 07:07 PM
[quote=rahl;2686476]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars (Post 2686473)

Conspiracy theorist much?
No, I'm not. Just had the displeasure of being treated like a tool and taken for a fool (and watched other people suffer the same) for 30 months or so by the insurance industry.

As to your other point...

Ok if they shouldn't take your word for it then they should tell you stuff like "Oh, that? That's an obvious mistake we'll change it. Don't worry about it" Yet a started a detailed file because I got so damn tried of hearing that then getting contacted by a collection agency. By the time I was due to go to court, which never happened- they settled, that file was as thick as a average dictionary.

You want to believe your industry is by and large a helpful customer friendly business by all mens do so. Personally I don't and won't buy that pig. I was and I know a lot of other people who have been screwed raw, sans lube, by your industry.

I keep hearing people talk about how the US has the best health care system in the world, like that's some fact not in question. Sure the US has some of the best hospitals, wealthy people from all over the world travel to seek care from them. But that's not the care most people have access to, how many times have we've seen the videos of people being pushed out onto skid row because the hospital wouldn't care for patients? Or the people dying in the ER after waiting 17+ hours. I currently live in Mexico and the health care system here is (yep just my opinion, no data here) hands down better then that of the US' My doctor, very capable and well trained, makes house calls if needed, spends about 45 mins with me each visit... total cost $60 USD a visit. If I just need an Rx refill no charge. I if can't find my Rx, she'll personally call around and find it for me. I'm a US citizen, I pay full price for my health care here. Mexicans are charged a yearly premium based on income. Some pay nothing others pay as much as 500 USD a year. After they pay their premium there are no co-pays or deductibles. Get hurt or sick, go the doctor and it's covered.

rahl 08-11-2009 07:14 PM
[QUOTE=Tully Mars;2686510][quote=rahl;2686476]


But that's not the care most people have access to, how many times have we've seen the videos of people being pushed out onto skid row because the hospital wouldn't care for patients? Or the people dying in the ER after waiting 17+ hours. QUOTE]


I've never seen one of these video's. Hospitals are required to treat every patient that walks through the doors, insurance or no insurance, that's the law. I've also never heard of anyone waiting 17+ hours in an ER unless there was some sort of disaster like a flood, earchquake or 9/11. Both of these points have nothing to do with an Insurance company

Tully Mars 08-11-2009 07:22 PM
[quote=rahl;2686515][QUOTE=Tully Mars;2686510]
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686476)


But that's not the care most people have access to, how many times have we've seen the videos of people being pushed out onto skid row because the hospital wouldn't care for patients? Or the people dying in the ER after waiting 17+ hours. QUOTE]


I've never seen one of these video's. Hospitals are required to treat every patient that walks through the doors, insurance or no insurance, that's the law. I've also never heard of anyone waiting 17+ hours in an ER unless there was some sort of disaster like a flood, earchquake or 9/11. Both of these points have nothing to do with an Insurance company
I'm not going to search youtube for you right now, I have things to do at the moment. These have both been on CNN, Fox, and all the major networks. I'm sure the videos are out there somewhere.

And they absolutely have to do with health care (that's the topic of this thread, yes?) If there were a public option and safety net these people's care would have been paid for and they would have received care. No 9-11, no natural disaster... just didn't have coverage.

dippin 08-11-2009 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2686475)
In regards to The Plan itself, the quotations below are from HR 3200, my own commentary is in bold.

Section 102: prevents ensureres from changing rates, or enrolling new policy-holders as of the date the prospective Law went into effect. This will put private insurance companies out of business.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.
Bullshit, either generated by lack of reading comprehension or willful distortion. It doesn't say private companies will not be able to enroll new people, nor that companies can't change rates. This section simply means that current health insurances can continue to exist exempt from the coming new regulations, but that it can't enroll new people under the old policies after the regulations go into effect. It in no way prevents insurance companies from enrolling people in new policies under the new guidelines. It takes a considerable amount of spin to turn something that is essentially making a whole set of policies immune to the new regulations as some sort of new draconian regulation


Quote:


Section 123: provides for an "advisory committee" to decide who gets what, composed mostly of career bureaucrats beholden to the President. Historically, such persons have been most reluctant to give The Man the Bad News, and so things like Walter Reed or Romanian orphanages persisted.

(1) IN GENERAL- There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

(2) CHAIR- The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.

(3) MEMBERSHIP- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.

(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.

(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.
Bullshit. The text itself already contains language that debunks the "career bureaucrats" spin, given that the number of "federal employees and officers" cannot exceed 8, and given how 9 members are nominated by the Comptroller General, who is not in any way under the president. Add to that the missing part ("duties") and the whole notion of career bureaucrats deciding "who gets what" is ludicrous. The "advisory committee" doesnt even make decisions, but advises the secretary of health and human services what the standard benefits should be like.


Quote:
Section 163 amends the Social Security Act to provide for real-time Federal-level access to all personal medical and financial data, including but not limited to bank-account information and credit ratings. It also provides for a machine-readable national ID card system, at least for those who are utilizing the system

SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.

(a) Standardizing Electronic Administrative Transactions-

(1) IN GENERAL- Part C of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1173 the following new section:

`SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.

`(a) Standards for Financial and Administrative Transactions-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2).

`(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS- The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall--

`(A) be unique with no conflicting or redundant standards;

`(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides;

`(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;

`(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;

`(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;

`(F) provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;

`(G) describe all data elements (such as reason and remark codes) in unambiguous terms, not permit optional fields, require that data elements be either required or conditioned upon set values in other fields, and prohibit additional conditions; and

`(H) harmonize all common data elements across administrative and clinical transaction standards.

Shall we continue? This thing is a monstrosity.
bullshit. I wonder why you stopped quoting it there, and did not include the following sections:

"(b) Limitations on Use of Data- Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the use of information collected under this section in a manner that would adversely affect any individual.

‘(c) Protection of Data- The Secretary shall ensure (through the promulgation of regulations or otherwise) that all data collected pursuant to subsection (a) are--

‘(1) used and disclosed in a manner that meets the HIPAA privacy and security law (as defined in section 3009(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act), including any privacy or security standard adopted under section 3004 of such Act; and

‘(2) protected from all inappropriate internal use by any entity that collects, stores, or receives the data, including use of such data in determinations of eligibility (or continued eligibility) in health plans, and from other inappropriate uses, as defined by the Secretary.’."



This is what pisses me off. People want to be against it because they don't like the merits? Fine. People want to mislead others, selectively quoting and spinning the legislation to make a false claim? That is bullshit.

The first section basically says that none of the new regulations and standards affect the old policies. It doesn't prevent any insurance companies from selling new policies, it simply prevents them from selling the old policies to new clients, which is a given when any new regulations come into effect.


The second section basically means that there is an advisory committee that makes recommendations on what the basic level of coverage should be. The advice is non binding, is not individualized, and does not stop anyone from getting additional health coverage if the public system has insufficient benefits for a given condition.

The third section coded simply says that the new public system should be constructed in a way as to reduce paperwork and increase efficiency by creating an electronic database. It does not allow anyone to collect any additional data, or any of the data that the government is currently not allowed to have.

rahl 08-11-2009 09:10 PM
[quote=Tully Mars;2686519][quote=rahl;2686515]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars (Post 2686510)

I'm not going to search youtube for you right now, I have things to do at the moment. These have both been on CNN, Fox, and all the major networks. I'm sure the videos are out there somewhere.

And they absolutely have to do with health care (that's the topic of this thread, yes?) If there were a public option and safety net these people's care would have been paid for and they would have received care. No 9-11, no natural disaster... just didn't have coverage.

No actually the topic of this thread was about the townhall meetings, but anyway what I said was it had nothing to do with insurance companies that a hospital may have ushered people out, or someone waited 17+hours in an ER waiting room.

Tully Mars 08-12-2009 02:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686574)


No actually the topic of this thread was about the townhall meetings, but anyway what I said was it had nothing to do with insurance companies that a hospital may have ushered people out, or someone waited 17+hours in an ER waiting room.
You're right this thread isn't about health care reform. This thread is about town hall meetings... where the main topic is health care reform.

WSJ Story here



Left on Skid row story here

Cimarron29414 08-12-2009 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2686358)
That's so interesting. I have a bunch of questions about that, if you'd be willing to flesh this out a little for me. The only other person I've seen lay it out so plainly like that is Rush Limbaugh, and he's not available for my questions. I really don't mean these questions as point-scoring questions. It's just that this statement is so unfathomable to me, I'm really interested in getting where you're coming from about it.

Do you consider yourself a patriot? If so, how does hoping for the failure of the President of the United States square with that?

See, I think if the president fails, the country fails. I think we failed for almost the entirety of our last administration, as a result of that administration failing. Are you really saying you want more of that? Or, perhaps you want us to fall down the other side of the mountain instead? OR perhaps you reject my assertion that if the president fails the country fails?

What does "fail" mean, in this context?

Will "Obama failing", whatever that means, restore the America you know and love?

What will "Obama failing" produce, exactly? What would his failure be useful for?

As opposed as I was to Bush, I always hoped he'd turn things around. All I really wanted from the guy was for him to not be such a miserable disappointment. I never would have said I hoped he'd fail. I observed his actions and interpreted them as failure. But I think that's different. I don't quite know what my question is related to that... something like: your thoughts
While I would not expect any level of agreement on your part as we have different political ideologies, I appreciate the fact that you asked the questions that were only ever so slightly condescending. :)

I am a Libertarian. I believe the federal government should build roads and ports for the sake of interstate/international commerce; maintain an army and defend our borders; maintain relationships with other nations; and settle disputes among states. I believe all social programs from gay marriage, to abortion, to retirement programs, to drug legalization, insurance programs, welfare, education, health care, et al. should be state funded and state specific. I believe citizens should live in the state with the correct mix of taxation/benefits.

Having said that, you can see that Obama's entire ideology would be counter to mine. Hence, his failing to enact anything he wishes would bring the country closer to what I see as ideal. I also sincerely believe that my view of how the government should work (see above) would provide the most opportunity and prosperity for the people. One can also see that I don't care any more for the Republican party than I do the Democrats.

So, there's my answer. I accept that yours is different and that yours is wrong. :D There's no reason to debate the merits of them as I seriously doubt we will ever agree.

dc_dux 08-12-2009 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2686702)
While I would not expect any level of agreement on your part as we have different political ideologies, I appreciate the fact that you asked the questions that were only ever so slightly condescending. :)

I am a Libertarian. I believe the federal government should build roads and ports for the sake of interstate/international commerce; maintain an army and defend our borders; maintain relationships with other nations; and settle disputes among states. I believe all social programs from gay marriage, to abortion, to retirement programs, to drug legalization, insurance programs, welfare, education, health care, et al. should be state funded and state specific. I believe citizens should live in the state with the correct mix of taxation/benefits.

Having said that, you can see that Obama's entire ideology would be counter to mine. Hence, his failing to enact anything he wishes would bring the country closer to what I see as ideal. I also sincerely believe that my view of how the government should work (see above) would provide the most opportunity and prosperity for the people. One can also see that I don't care any more for the Republican party than I do the Democrats.

So, there's my answer. I accept that yours is different and that yours is wrong. :D There's no reason to debate the merits of them as I seriously doubt we will ever agree.
Have you wanted every president in your lifetime to have failed with such equal vigor?

Not one comes anywhere near your ideology.

roachboy 08-12-2009 05:55 AM
what i dont get is the contradiction between libertarian doctrine, which calls for state control as opposed to say federal because it's closer to "the volk" and so capable of being more nuanced and/or responsive. and the way in which libertarians approach political questions, treating their own position as a kind of inflexible a priori, and not even feeling the need to engage the actual issues in any real way. it makes no sense to me. why would flexibility and responsiveness not apply to how libertarians use their own political viewpoint?

Cimarron29414 08-12-2009 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2686712)
Have you wanted every president in your lifetime to have failed with such equal vigor?

Not one comes anywhere near your ideology.
I have always voted for the Libertarian candidate, if that is your question.

ratbastid 08-12-2009 06:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2686727)
I have always voted for the Libertarian candidate, if that is your question.
I don't think that's his question.

I got there's never been a president you'd consider to be "your" president. The question is, did you wish for Bush's failure, and Clinton's, and Bush's, and Regan's? Was there ever a president you didn't hope wouldn't be able to implement their vision?

Cimarron29414 08-12-2009 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2686718)
what i dont get is the contradiction between libertarian doctrine, which calls for state control as opposed to say federal because it's closer to "the volk" and so capable of being more nuanced and/or responsive. and the way in which libertarians approach political questions, treating their own position as a kind of inflexible a priori, and not even feeling the need to engage the actual issues in any real way. it makes no sense to me. why would flexibility and responsiveness not apply to how libertarians use their own political viewpoint?
I don't know what to tell you. My experience is that anyone who does not agree with the Libertarian ideology writes it off as lunacy. I'm not going to spend time here trying to convince you that I'm not crazy, nor will I waste my time here trying to convince you that my way would be better for everyone. I know that isn't possible. There is zero personal responsibility written into the current flavor of liberal doctrine, therefore the Libertarian principles would certainly seem alien.

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2686730)
I don't think that's his question.

I got there's never been a president you'd consider to be "your" president. The question is, did you wish for Bush's failure, and Clinton's, and Bush's, and Regan's? Was there ever a president you didn't hope wouldn't be able to implement their vision?
There have certainly been policies by other president's which fell in line with what I wanted to see out of the federal government and I supported those things. However, the current administration hasn't done one yet. When they do, I'll let you know and I will support it. Again, I don't expect to adequately explain any of it to you since I'm now officially the elephant man in the room, looked upon with intrigued disgust. If you want to better understand where I am coming from, you should just read up on the LP and the texts written around the birth of our nation.

dksuddeth 08-12-2009 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2686718)
what i dont get is the contradiction between libertarian doctrine, which calls for state control as opposed to say federal because it's closer to "the volk" and so capable of being more nuanced and/or responsive.
are you totally incapable of expressing anything other than disdain for non liberal/democrat groups? 'the volk' is so cute, to attempt the intimation that libertarians are associated with the third reich.

aceventura3 08-12-2009 07:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2686185)
Except that the movie in no way portrays the outcome of the assassination as positive or desirable... that is akin to saying that "red dawn" was a call for a communist invasion...

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------



how is that in any way a "death panel?" First, if it's something already in place then it can't be a feature of the proposed reform. Second, how is this a "death panel?" Third, so is she advocating that doctors be forced to take medicare?
It is not a "death panel", I think they are called Quality Improvement Organizations or QIOs. Among other things QIOs investigate and resolve issues relating to non-coverage and appeals for coverage reconsideration. If you have an issue, you present your case to one of these panels.

Medicare pays claims that are "deemed medically necessary." And the medically necessary procedures are subject to treatment and care based on a set of "approved charges". If you are poor and you have a doctor that does not accept these charges, if you face a life or death issue with lets say using some some cutting edge "experimental" procedure or drug, you may have no options other than death. So the question is what criteria is used and what criteria will be used under Obama's plan.

This is a legitimate concern. The issue is being ignored, Obama's platitudes and dismissive attitude is disturbing.

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna (Post 2686296)
Don't the insurance companies already decide to not cover certain things or perform recission? It seems to me like the insurance companies are the death panels.
Yes, insurance companies make these kinds of decisions, and I have some problems with our existing system. However, Obama ignoring the question regarding the public option is not helpful. Simply saying it is being done in the private sector does not make me feel better about it, nor does it address the problems with it.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2686308)
Insurance companies don't decide not to cover someone based on a "death panel". If a procedure or condition isn't covered it is stated clearly in the policy that is issued.
Not always. And in HMO's with the "gate keeper", that person has too much power in my view. And I will say it again, I doubt having the "gate keeper" being a federal government employee solves that problem.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2686422)
As an outsider, I am simply (and continually) amazed at how your nation manages to even function with such division over such basic ideas (and ideals).
I am amazed by stuff like this:

Quote:
More than 70% of adults in countries with government-controlled health care — Britain, Germany, Australia and New Zealand, as well as Canada — complain that their systems need either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

That's because they wait longer for treatment and die sooner than Americans from common cancers and other diseases, according to a study by Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.

Consider breast cancer mortality, which is 88% higher in Britain and 9% higher in Canada. Or prostate cancer mortality, which is 604% higher in Britain and 184% higher in Canada.

We have better cancer survival rates not only because we have better treatment, but because we have earlier detection. And we have earlier detection because we have better access to tests that screen for cancer.

For example, almost 90% of middle-aged U.S. women have had a mammogram, compared with 72% of Canadians; more than half of U.S. men — 54% — have had a prostate-specific antigen test, while only 16% of Canadians have had a PSA, and fully 30% of Americans have had a colonoscopy — the procedure for detecting colon cancer — compared with 5% of Canadians.
Investors.com - Third World Care?

Derwood 08-12-2009 07:25 AM
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Not All Socialist Countries are Alike

Cimarron29414 08-12-2009 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2686767)
It is not a "death panel", I think they are called Quality Improvement Organizations or QIOs. Among other things QIOs investigate and resolve issues relating to non-coverage and appeals for coverage reconsideration. If you have an issue, you present your case to one of these panels.

Medicare pays claims that are "deemed medically necessary." And the medically necessary procedures are subject to treatment and care based on a set of "approved charges". If you are poor and you have a doctor that does not accept these charges, if you face a life or death issue with lets say using some some cutting edge "experimental" procedure or drug, you may have no options other than death. So the question is what criteria is used and what criteria will be used under Obama's plan.

This is a legitimate concern. The issue is being ignored, Obama's platitudes and dismissive attitude is disturbing.

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------



Yes, insurance companies make these kinds of decisions, and I have some problems with our existing system. However, Obama ignoring the question regarding the public option is not helpful. Simply saying it is being done in the private sector does not make me feel better about it, nor does it address the problems with it.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------



Not always. And in HMO's with the "gate keeper", that person has too much power in my view. And I will say it again, I doubt having the "gate keeper" being a federal government employee solves that problem.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------



I am amazed by stuff like this:



Investors.com - Third World Care?

Socialized medicine: You're dead, but it's cheaper to get there.

roachboy 08-12-2009 07:48 AM
dk: fine, i retract the word. substitute another you like more. "real americans" say or "patriots" or whatever. it's not important.

but how about you answer the question?

dksuddeth 08-12-2009 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2686816)
dk: fine, i retract the word. substitute another you like more. "real americans" say or "patriots" or whatever. it's not important.

but how about you answer the question?
the question I see you asking is this:
Quote:
why would flexibility and responsiveness not apply to how libertarians use their own political viewpoint?
it's a moot question when you consider that the libertarian doctrine sees no flexibility and responsiveness in a bloated government. Smaller governments and entities are better capable of dealing with most crises due to the lack of beauracratic red tape and increased logistics in pursuing actions to react to said crises. Despite the usual rhetoric about Libertarians being 'me, me, me', it's more historically accurate to depict the libertarian philosophy of smaller government is better government because it doesn't hamper the individual in liberty, spirit, or collective cooperation.

roachboy 08-12-2009 07:56 AM
so i take it then that you have no particular problem with the existing health care system and oppose current efforts to alter it?

filtherton 08-12-2009 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2686767)
I am amazed by stuff like this:
I'm amazed that some folks are so quick to believe uncited statistics that support their preconceived notions whilst decrying the deceptive use of statistics that don't support preconceived notions.

Like refuting the "desperate lies" of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius by citing completely irrelevant facts. If her lies were so desperate, one would expect them to be easily refuted with information that actually refutes them.

Or quoting unattributed stats "poll after poll" about how much more satisfied Americans are than their socialist peers. If these polls are so damning, why not link to their results or mention their names?

Or relying on the results of an unnamed, possibly unpublished study as explained by a doctor who may or may not have an axe to grind. Does his study have a name; is it findable? Did he do the study by himself? Was it performed at the behest of the think tank he works for, or Stanford Medical Center?

All of the claims made in your link could be true, but you'd have to be either very naive or very unconcerned with basing your opinions on verifiable data to accept them at face value.

Derwood 08-12-2009 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2686821)
it's a moot question when you consider that the libertarian doctrine sees no flexibility and responsiveness in a bloated government. Smaller governments and entities are better capable of dealing with most crises due to the lack of beauracratic red tape and increased logistics in pursuing actions to react to said crises. Despite the usual rhetoric about Libertarians being 'me, me, me', it's more historically accurate to depict the libertarian philosophy of smaller government is better government because it doesn't hamper the individual in liberty, spirit, or collective cooperation.
I'm not sure why a shift to state/local government power wouldn't result in bloated/corrupt/ineffective state and local governments

dc_dux 08-12-2009 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2686828)
I'm amazed that some folks are so quick to believe uncited statistics that support their preconceived notions whilst decrying the deceptive use of statistics that don't support preconceived notions.

Like refuting the "desperate lies" of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius by citing completely irrelevant facts. If her lies were so desperate, one would expect them to be easily refuted with information that actually refutes them.

Or quoting unattributed stats "poll after poll" about how much more satisfied Americans are than their socialist peers. If these polls are so damning, why not link to their results or mention their names?

Or relying on the results of an unnamed, possibly unpublished study as explained by a doctor who may or may not have an axe to grind. Does his study have a name; is it findable? Did he do the study by himself? Was it performed at the behest of the think tank he works for, or Stanford Medical Center?

All of the claims made in your link could be true, but you'd have to be either very naive or very unconcerned with basing your opinions on verifiable data to accept them at face value.
Or ace and cimarron attempts to perpetuate the myth at the heart of conservative rhetoric that the current WH/Congressional proposals for universal coverage, with a public option (or a public/private cooperative exchange), is comparable to European (the socialist boogeymen) type single payer systems.

ace and cimarron:
repeat after me.....universal coverage is not the same as single payer.

dksuddeth 08-12-2009 08:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2686824)
so i take it then that you have no particular problem with the existing health care system and oppose current efforts to alter it?
you would take it wrong. the current health care system doesn't work well at all. I do not oppose altering it, I oppose the current proposal to alter it.

The issue that needs to be fixed isn't forcing price and access controls, it's removing the influence of the health insurers. They are the ones fixing the prices, controlling the care given, and even contracting who doctors can and cannot see as patients. It's totally out of hand.

Mind you, this outlook is given to me by a doctor who has to deal with insurance companies.

If you let doctors be doctors, they can control their own costs and keep healthcare affordable, but most of all, accessible.

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2686832)
I'm not sure why a shift to state/local government power wouldn't result in bloated/corrupt/ineffective state and local governments
There is no guarantee that it wouldn't, but a smaller corrupt entity is easier to remove/remedy than a monstrous federal entity. You see it every state election cycle, except in totally jacked up places like Illinois or New Jersey.

Cimarron29414 08-12-2009 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2686832)
I'm not sure why a shift to state/local government power wouldn't result in bloated/corrupt/ineffective state and local governments
Because if you don't like the way your state does it, you can move.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:56 AM.
Page 1 of 5 1 2345
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360