|
|
| Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better (465079) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
|
| (466019) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Jun 23 21:48:11 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Jun 23 21:11:48 2009. You're missing a figure that shows the percentage of people that have health care. That's central to your position. |
|
|
| (466024) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jun 23 21:58:01 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 23 21:44:32 2009. Heh, that's so opposite of my experience with a hospital in Florida. Someone I know got sick when she was in Orlando at Disney, and we drove her to a hospital nearby on Irlo Bronson Hwy (Rt 192), in Celebration. I forgot the name of the hospital, but I think it was "Florida Hospital". My god, that is some hospital...I have never seen anything like it....it was like a hotel. It had marble floors, fancy carpeting, the room was a private room, and had it's own couch....and a flat screen large TV, as well as a smaller over the bed flat screen TV. it literally was like a hotel, and nothing like a hospital I have ever seen, and perhaps "what hospitals SHOULD look like"!!I believe it is run by Seventh Day Adventists, but not sure. |
|
|
| (466026) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Jun 23 21:59:22 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 19:02:39 2009. In LA we have "county" hospitals. County-USC and Harbor UCLA. The third was MLK/Drew which was forced to close by the medical board for inferior service.I once went to County-UCLA, which is near me. It was like going to a 3rd world hospital. People were just all over the place. Totally disorganized. I walked out without seeing a doctor. It was a terrible experience. I remember later reading that the average emergency room wait for people that walk in was over 12 hours. County UCLA was the hospital where the woman died on the floor after they refused to admit her because they thought that she was faking. |
|
|
| (466027) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jun 23 22:03:01 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Easy on Tue Jun 23 21:59:22 2009. Terrible. Unfortunately, I have had the same experience with some publically run hospitals. The image I have of them is one of horror. |
|
|
| (466041) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 23 23:42:29 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Jun 23 21:08:53 2009. A, I remember the people survey'd for HSA satisfaction was 81%.I think that a lot of that has to do with a few factors - not enough of the qualifying plans to link the HSAs to, the contribution limits are just too low for some places, and the last is more of a PR thing: most people don't know what on earth it is or how it works, which can be remedied (a few years ago, until then First Lady Clinton came out with her husband's healthcare plan, not many people knew what an HMO, PPO, and all of that jargon was either). One thing that I like about the HSA route for those that it helps is that it's probably going to be cheaper to do effective tax credits rather than to borrow whatever the HSA covered share of the $1-2 trillion would be and then paying the interest on that (which will surely be higher than the interest rate now). I forget the general health plan percent, but i remember when you add them up it's closer to 90%. Seems awfully high to have 90% satisfaction for anything except orgasms, but OK. I do think that satisfaction with service and satisfaction with cost of the service need to be distinguished though. Fun fact, most people use less than 5000 a year in health costs. Actually I forget the number exactly, it's more like 2-3k but I don't want to lowball it. The distribution problem is very real. I love one person, one vote but one person, one healthcare dollar would end up overcovering most and severely undercovering others. Here, I think that the questions really are thorny, and they're questions that we generally don't want to confront. If a person can pay his way, he gets whatever he wants - I think that we all accept this. But then what happens when someone wants some procedure that is relatively low probability success but at very high cost, and he's on insurance. (Doesn't matter for this purpose whether it's public or private - it's still other peoples money). To what extent is this person owed, or not owed, a subsidy by the rest? Economics is the dismal science, and I think that we have to accept that if costs keep accelerating or even stay where they are now, we are going to have a lot of these tough choices to make. I know that everyone wants to help, but at a certain point this ends up eating into ability to cover many more people. And what happens then? With that fact out there, you've given the most expensive states #'s with the only state left to even really have HMO's. With NY's regulations, and HMO's, it's the highest profit state in the country for insurance companies. As a NYer, I know that there is something wrong with our health insurance rates, which are linked to in that previous response, and it really hits the people who aren't covered by the employer and who make too much money to qualify as poor for medicaid. The ones with less regulations and CONSUMER driving plans have razer thin margins. The same as car insurers do. If we can increase the fraction of those plans much closer to unity, we're solving a lot of problems right there. Before my current job I was about to get a gap plan. Looked at several. I think that those coverage gaps are a huge problem. If I see one role for state coordination, I think that it's in covering people for at least as long as they're eligible for unemployment benefits, and then educate them during that period on what their options are if they don't get a job with health insurance benefits. There are Catasphropic only plans. Part of the problem with some of these is that cost can be so high that it's easy to think, oh, what are the odds of catastrophe versus my having to pay monthly premiums on this thing. And then some unfortunate fraction of these people do have a catastrophe, don't have any coverage, a few nights at the hospital wipes out any savings really fast especially for the younger people for who this is an option, and they're headed in bankruptcy while everyone else pays a higher share. So I want to see some sort of catastrophic coverage that's easy enough to purchase so that one doesn't have to put chunks of life savings at risk, but I don't want to see mandates for coverage - and like I said before, I don't see that passing politically anyway. Such as hospital only plans. The trouble with a lot of these plans that I gather from reading on it is that they don't cover a lot. They cover the hospital's bills. But then there are the bills of some of the physicians who work at the hospital (at some pretty high rates). So I think that there is the core of something here, but that people should know that this kind of catastrophic coverage might not be quite the right gamble for all types of cases. Don't always need to pay 700/month for a 75 dollar Urgent clinic visit. I agree, but it's tough to get those $75 urgent visits in some places. It would be great to have that option, so that at worst, it's more like going to the dentist than emptying out your bank accounts, but in too many places, the clinic is the ER, and they sure aren't cheap. I wouldn't recommend it for older people as they don't have the time to save up, but it's ok so far. I think it's a good idea. If your employer contributes. Older people get higher contribution limits, but I think that generally the holdup with HSAs is that we really have to up them, and more than than that, up them based on what insurance costs in the region. Or else get rid of this regional thing, and just have a national market with one federal set of rules and no 50+ markets nonsense. If it were great it would've worked in Hawaii. Just not following where you're going here... The only issue I don't have any answers for are the people who are self-employed etc. It's a very big issue for them, and for smaller businesses too. High deductible plans might be good for them. Why spend 1000 a month when you can have a 5000 deductible instead. It's a LOT of money, but if you can afford a grand a month, it'll be cheaper to just deal with the deductible when you need it imo. I think that may be right, especially if maybe this can be linked to some sort of reserve pool that they can build up by the time they really tend to get into the older years. It is still a problem, and I agree that this is one of the tougher areas. The only reason to control the money of the system, instead of the system itself, ie doctors etc, is for corruption and cronyism on a massive scale. People like Obama has a lot of friends and family members that need rewarding. The economy will not come back with 4/gallon gasoline just because we decided to tax people MORE for a public health system than whatever we pay now. I think that President Obama's heart is in the right place, but the question is whether the plan makes sense. We're talking about borrowing a lot of money - on the trillion dollar order, and that will have to be repaid. The program of bailouts and stimulus, whatever the merits, wasn't cheap. The war in Afghanistan and supporting our massive defense infrastructure isn't cheap. Supporting social security and medicare is going to be impossible if things don't change. Etc. In some ways, even though many critics of the President are lambasting him for proposing a single payer plan, I would have been much happier had he actually done that. At least we know what kind of creature that is, how it's run, the good points, bad points, all of that. We have endless vagueness on the current plans on many points, but based on what we do know, I think that it's a non-starter. And same thing for the bipartisan compromise bill, which I think is going to really be where the main battle is, going forward. |
|
|
| (466056) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jun 24 01:19:21 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 23 23:42:29 2009. If you're pro-choice, like most liberals are, you would agree that people should have the choice between getting health coverage, or not getting it. Obama would force it on people who can afford it, to pay to those who can't.I would use the same arguments made by the pro-choice crowd: It's my body and I deserve the privacy of being able to choose what I want to do. If people can kill a fetus, without gov't intervention, I don't see why people can't go without healthcare. |
|
|
| (466075) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 24 10:01:43 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jun 23 20:09:31 2009. So then Obama is being purposefully vague. Even worse."What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest. There are countries where a single-payer system may be working. But I believe – and I've even taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief – that it is important for us to build on our traditions here in the United States. So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this – they are not telling the truth." Too vague? The names of the countries are irrelevant to Obama's point, so Gibbs probably wasn't briefed on them. |
|
|
| (466080) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 24 10:24:11 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jun 23 20:44:17 2009. We were talking about how many types of transportation would be hard to pass a profit if held in private hands. I don't know what you are trying to argue here, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I mentioned the Jitney as a private carrier that was successful, and privately run, and that in an area where there is public transportation, the LIRR. But then I said that was because they had a niche. What you are saying is not untrue, and I never said it wasn't true. But it has nothing to do with the Jitney.I'm not disagreeing with you, but Hampton Jitney wasn't a good example because I was specifically referring to places with no public transit and no fare regulation. HJ is an example of something else entirely, a private carrier that is successful despite a publicly-funded alternative. |
|
|
| (466082) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 24 10:38:10 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jun 22 12:37:04 2009. The owner of the leases on the els was the City of New York, a government agency?That part was August Belmont's fault (greed) that came back to bite te IRT 30 years later. The IRT leased the els from the Manhattan Railway Co for 999 years partly to eliminate any competition for the subway. By the 1930's the els had become unprofitable, however the IRT did not have enough money to buy out the Manhattan El bondholders in order to terminate the lease. They were very comfortable because they collected rent from the IRT whether or not the els made money. In fact the complications involving the Manhattan El bondholders delayed transfer of the IRT to the city until 6/12/1940. The BMT which was in full control of all of its subsidiaries transferred on June 1. Had the IRT been able to terminate the Manhattan El lease it may never have entered bankruptcy and been in a stronger negotiating position. Perhaps a friendlier Supreme Court would have eventually ruled that the forced continuation of the five cent fare was in fact an unconstitutional "taking". We will never know.... |
|
|
| (466092) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jun 24 11:43:07 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jun 24 01:19:21 2009. If you're pro-choice, like most liberals areI believe in a person's autonomy, yes, as against unreasonable restraint; and I also believe in the harm principle. you would agree that people should have the choice between getting health coverage, or not getting it. I am not of the view that one should be mandated to carry full blown health insurance. However, there is a potential caveat. The problem is with freeloaders, especially with respect to catastrophic coverage. These people often have little accumulated wealth (other than their homes), have little liquid assets (cash and things quickly convertible to cash equivalents) on hand, and then they come in on account of some emergency. So that can't pay for the procedure that they have. The freeloading comes in because believe me, the hospital doesn't bat an eyelash before resolving to collect it from everyone else in increased costs. Depending on how prevalent this problem is, I may be open to an effective catastrophic coverage mandate; I am not sure. If so, then I would like several ways to be able to meet it, maybe a catastrophic health crisis savings account with high limits, let some people post a bond maybe and there can be a market for that, etc. I would use the same arguments made by the pro-choice crowd: It's my body and I deserve the privacy of being able to choose what I want to do. If people can kill a fetus, without gov't intervention, I don't see why people can't go without healthcare. The analogy is not complete. The state has no obligation unless it undertakes to do so, to provide a woman with an abortion unless it is medically necessary. By contrast, the state is viewed as having an obligation not to let someone without health insurance and sufficient funds go with medically necessary treatment. |
|
|
| (466093) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jun 24 11:43:39 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jun 24 01:19:21 2009. coding corrected.If you're pro-choice, like most liberals are I believe in a person's autonomy, yes, as against unreasonable restraint; and I also believe in the harm principle. you would agree that people should have the choice between getting health coverage, or not getting it. I am not of the view that one should be mandated to carry full blown health insurance. However, there is a potential caveat. The problem is with freeloaders, especially with respect to catastrophic coverage. These people often have little accumulated wealth (other than their homes), have little liquid assets (cash and things quickly convertible to cash equivalents) on hand, and then they come in on account of some emergency. So that can't pay for the procedure that they have. The freeloading comes in because believe me, the hospital doesn't bat an eyelash before resolving to collect it from everyone else in increased costs. Depending on how prevalent this problem is, I may be open to an effective catastrophic coverage mandate; I am not sure. If so, then I would like several ways to be able to meet it, maybe a catastrophic health crisis savings account with high limits, let some people post a bond maybe and there can be a market for that, etc. I would use the same arguments made by the pro-choice crowd: It's my body and I deserve the privacy of being able to choose what I want to do. If people can kill a fetus, without gov't intervention, I don't see why people can't go without healthcare. The analogy is not complete. The state has no obligation unless it undertakes to do so, to provide a woman with an abortion unless it is medically necessary. By contrast, the state is viewed as having an obligation not to let someone without health insurance and sufficient funds go with medically necessary treatment. |
|
|
| (466099) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Jun 24 12:28:36 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 24 10:38:10 2009. I have a question: Why did the BMT keep the 3rd Ave section of the 5th Ave El? They apparently ran one car shuttle trains on it. |
|
|
| (466103) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jun 24 12:42:51 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Easy on Tue Jun 23 21:48:11 2009. Oops. I misread...or something. Still if 16% don't have health care and 9% of 84% are unhappy, that adds up to 23.5%, not 10%. |
|
|
| (466104) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Wed Jun 24 12:50:15 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Jun 24 12:28:36 2009. I'm not really sure - I have heard some people say that the BMT had a policy of not abandoning lines - it may have had something to do with trying to keep their franchises. The 4th Avenue subway was subject to "recapture" by the city so keeping the els may have been a negotiating stance also.I do know that they did not have a legal obligation to another company like the IRT did though. |
|
|
| (466376) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jun 25 07:31:00 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 24 10:24:11 2009. HJ is an example of something else entirely, a private carrier that is successful despite a publicly-funded alternative.I think that's what I said too at the beginning too, that the people that take the Jitney techinically "can" take the LIRR but the Jitney is successful anyway as they have a niche, so I have no idea what the disagreement is here. |
|
|
| (466428) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jun 25 09:42:38 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jun 25 07:31:00 2009. I think that's what I said too at the beginning too, that the people that take the Jitney techinically "can" take the LIRR but the Jitney is successful anyway as they have a niche, so I have no idea what the disagreement is here.No disagreement, as evidenced by "I'm not disagreeing with you." |
|
|
| (466805) | |
Re: interstates Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:29:36 2009, in response to Re: interstates Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Jun 23 18:23:54 2009. Oh, and the difference is, in teh south, the expressways are built to move traffic.In the north, it's built for the same reason as public healthcare is, another revenue stream for no-show jobs for cronies and relatives. |
|
|
| (466806) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:34:33 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Easy on Wed Jun 24 12:42:51 2009. I don't care about people who are unhappy. People are never happy. That's why the best civilizations always crumble with crap.They teach you something for business. You can't cater to 100% of the people, you have to learn to accept who your target is. Do that and you won't go out of business....until Obama targets you. Now they have to define unhappy. What, their plan doesn't cover gender bending operations? While my only concern with the current system is that 9%, it will be even worse or higher in public hands. Gov't programs love giant grey zones. You make too much for their option, and you don't make enough to do it yourself. My company has a plan that charges ZERO per paycheck, and there's still people who opt out!! So screw 'em. I haven't been on vacation in a year. Will they nationalize that too?that makes me unhappy. |
|
|
| (466820) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:48:39 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 23 23:42:29 2009. My Hawaii reference was how htey had to get rid of their public option as far as I had heard.I don't know what you're Urgent Care Clinic options are versus other places. We have a ton of them down here, and I heard good things. I don't think many health plans give you an incentive to go there versus the ER which is a shame. The costs are less with this market based idea. I was thinking of "administration" costs, which I don't know if that includes all the billing mistakes hospitals make, or the sleazy practices of providers, but half of it must me the new regulations coming out of whatever state weekly. The software these insurance companies use are MASSIVE. Beyond massive. And they have to change and add things each time a new law goes into effect. It's really messed up. The problem with a one size fits all federal system. Well, I don't live in NY, and I don't live in Montana. What's good for whatever crook heading things from Massachusetts, Connecticut or even Indonesia shouldn't be telling the rest of the country what to do I don't want to see the country NY or Californiazed. and not to give too much harshness to those two states, I'll add Michigan in there. Otherwise, if administration costs are too high, then who cares. Go with one of the 1300 other companies out there. Actually, outside of a Medicaid option, what business is it of barackhossein's anyway? He's not smart enough or experienced enough to even talk about the subject. He's lies in the debates were still staggering. It's not the White Houses problem nor concern. And while we're talking of the hospital only catastrophic plans, that's basically what you get when you get auto enrolled in Medicare part A. With a high deductible and no out of pocket max. |
|
|
| (466829) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:56:55 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jun 23 21:58:01 2009. I thought Florida Hospital was just a network of them, I dont' know if they're run by any religious group.They're building a big hospital around me, even though I'm a block from another one...actually I think i got 3...that has Plasma TV's in the rooms. I'm impressed with this building I see out near the country, surrounded by cows. It's called Pediatric Surgery Center. Looks like outpatient. It's new, very nice building. And I wish they had these urgent clinics next door to CVS(and inside sometimes) when I was young! I think we've come an EXTREMELY long way. Even the health plans aren't terrible like the 80's and 90's as much anymore. SMAZ posted data without information. I dont' know what he's thinking(maybe nothing) or what his point was. Let's think about these so called uninsured and unhealthy in florida. EVery convict on the run in the country, seems to come to Florida to get arrested. THey must have no insurance. Florida has what feels like More Illegals, or legal canadian snowbirds than citizens typically. I don't think they have insurance. Snowbirds, retiree's. Don't know how they're counted. Migrants who were all laid of from the hotel industry. All these people go to the Florida Hospital, and get treated. To compare one of the largest states, and the biggest microcosm of anything populationwise to New Hampshire, is a joke and a waste of my time. What's next, are we going to compare stats of Haifa to all of Russia? |
|
|
| (466830) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:57:43 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Tue Jun 23 20:29:52 2009. That explains your chemical imbalance. Maybe you do need Obama's mercy to treat you. |
|
|
| (466836) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:59:38 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jun 23 20:30:57 2009. I read the british papers, I have yet to see anyone here die in an ambulance because no one felt like taking you out for 3 days, or denying diagnostics of a girl because she's too young for a mamogram or whatever and then die of cancer.I have heard about what made this survey bogus, but i forgot. |
|
|
| (466923) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jun 25 22:20:03 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:34:33 2009. I don't care about people who are unhappy. People are never happy. That's why the best civilizations always crumble with crap.They teach you something for business. You can't cater to 100% of the people, you have to learn to accept who your target is. Do that and you won't go out of business....until Obama targets you. Now they have to define unhappy. What, their plan doesn't cover gender bending operations? While my only concern with the current system is that 9%, it will be even worse or higher in public hands. Gov't programs love giant grey zones. You make too much for their option, and you don't make enough to do it yourself. My company has a plan that charges ZERO per paycheck, and there's still people who opt out!! So screw 'em. I haven't been on vacation in a year. Will they nationalize that too?that makes me unhappy. 
|
|
|
| (467057) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 26 01:43:04 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jun 21 22:00:20 2009. Where do we contrast health insurance costs with actual costs of medical care? They seem intertwined, and too deeply so. |
|
|
| (467075) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 26 03:34:33 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:57:43 2009. Whatever you say Rabies Boy. |
|
|
| (467078) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 26 04:00:35 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:59:38 2009. I have heard about what made this survey bogus, but i forgot.This is kind of your anthem here. You talk shit. |
|
|
| (467089) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 26 04:33:51 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jun 25 09:42:38 2009. Stop mincing words and say what you mean, wouldja?your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (467252) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jun 26 17:49:29 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jun 25 22:20:03 2009. not very good at reading are you?I have no time for retards. If you're one of those unhappy because your copay is 5 bucks, screw you too. That's how retarded the so-called debate is. |
|
|
| (467254) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jun 26 17:50:19 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 26 03:34:33 2009. I don't think the public option will cover your hormone shots. |
|
|
| (467255) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jun 26 17:51:09 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 26 04:00:35 2009. *claps* another amazing counterpoint by you.Do you posts yourself, or do you cut and paste your stuff? |
|
|
| (467288) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jun 26 20:25:29 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 26 01:43:04 2009. Where do we contrast health insurance costs with actual costs of medical care? They seem intertwined, and too deeply so.Part of the disconnect is that for larger employers, the term 'health insurance' seems in some sense a misnomer, since it appears that these larger employers essentially pay more or less cost plus the fee for administrative coordination of the plan. Then you have other people who really are purchasing health insurance and the question is about what kind of product are they purchasing. Perhaps insurance should be insurance, and a claims processing system should be just that, which isn't insurance. |
|
|
| (467295) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jun 26 20:55:28 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Thu Jun 25 19:48:39 2009. My Hawaii reference was how htey had to get rid of their public option as far as I had heard.They had a public insurance program with open enrollment? I don't think many health plans give you an incentive to go there versus the ER which is a shame. I agree. I was thinking of "administration" costs, which I don't know if that includes all the billing mistakes hospitals make, or the sleazy practices of providers, but half of it must me the new regulations coming out of whatever state weekly. The software these insurance companies use are MASSIVE. Beyond massive. And they have to change and add things each time a new law goes into effect. It's really messed up. I think that it's a combination of factors. New regulations and law obviously add to the burden (e.g., in NY we just had a new law about outpatient surgery facilities). Sleazy practices, billing for procedures that aren't necessary but with aren't obviously frivolous (which is an interesting area itself, especially with probabilities) Well, I don't live in NY, and I don't live in Montana. What's good for whatever crook heading things from Massachusetts, Connecticut or even Indonesia shouldn't be telling the rest of the country what to do I don't want to see the country NY or Californiazed. and not to give too much harshness to those two states, I'll add Michigan in there. Otherwise, if administration costs are too high, then who cares. Go with one of the 1300 other companies out there. In too many states, there just aren't 1300 options. In mine, in most counties, count yourself very lucky if there are 13! So I would like to see one regulatory authority, which pre-empts state authority because I think that's necessary to have just one regulatory level, to register or license or whatever with, and then that entity can sell products all across the country. Actually, outside of a Medicaid option, what business is it of barackhossein's anyway? He's not smart enough or experienced enough to even talk about the subject. He's lies in the debates were still staggering. It's not the White Houses problem nor concern. By the same token, though, he's hardly any more stupid than the people in Congress. As I said, I don't view his plan as politically feasible or desirable given what he has to date made explicit about it. But it hardly seems to me that the bipartisan bill, the Healthy Americans Act, is any better. I do believe that reforms are necessary, and maybe the failure of these proposals will refocus attention on what I consider to be the core issues. And while we're talking of the hospital only catastrophic plans, that's basically what you get when you get auto enrolled in Medicare part A. With a high deductible and no out of pocket max. Perhaps a preview of whatever plan may eventually emerge. But who knows? We have very little detail at present. Closer to your neck of the woods than mine, I ran across this item in the Miami Herald while looking up some things about the abysmal South Florida real estate market yesterday, which seems to make clear that the freeloader problem with uninsured is quite real and even devastating, and even for thsoe covered Medicaid, hospitals and physicians aren't happy about that because of the decreased compensation for them. It's interesting enough for the general discussion that I'll excerpt it for others to follow the main points: ---- The Miami Herald Posted on Thu, Jun. 25, 2009 South Florida hospitals show signs of distress BY JOHN DORSCHNER jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com The past year has been brutal for South Florida hospitals -- and this year is likely to be worse. The Baptist Health system, which has been immensely prosperous in the past, suffered a $71.7 million loss in its 2008 fiscal year. Miami Children's lost $72 million. Holy Cross lost $25 million, and Mercy $34.8 million. All four of these suffered serious losses in their investment portfolios, but others, particularly Jackson and Homestead, are beginning to feel the effects of the recession as their number of uninsured patients grows. ''It's going to be a particularly tough year, more so for the public-financed facilities,'' said Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association. Both Broward public hospital districts and, to a lesser extent, Miami-Dade's Jackson Health System depend on property taxes, which are declining as housing prices fall. Rising unemployment has worsened the situation. Quick said a recent survey showed that every 1 percent increase nationally in unemployment leads to 100,000 newly Medicaid-eligible patients -- a prospect that sends shivers down the backs of hospital executives because Medicaid reimbursement rates are often below their costs. Still, many executives have been surprised that the recession hasn't brought more uninsured patients to their emergency rooms. .... Several hospital executives suggested the reason might be that, with more than 800,000 uninsured in Miami-Dade and Broward, uncompensated care is already sky high and the newly uninsured haven't been that way long enough to have their health status decline. Jackson Memorial, however, is getting hammered. The public system reported a surplus of $26 million for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, including primary care and skilled nursing centers, but this year Jackson Memorial's uninsured patient load has increased from 15.4 to 19.5 percent. Jackson spokesman Robert Alonso reported the system is seeing a decline in revenue across the board -- from commercial insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and the half-penny sales tax. (The system also gets $178 million from county property taxes.) Cash on hand has dropped to $110 million -- enough for 23 days of operation. Alonso said Jackson officials have been talking to the Public Health Trust and to county commissioners about getting more tax dollars. By contrast, in spite of a drop in property-tax revenue, Broward public hospitals are doing quite well. Memorial Healthcare System, the South Broward public hospitals, raked in a total surplus of $120.8 million for its fiscal year ending April 30, 2009, assisted by about $20 million in one-time favorable settlements with public insurers, said CFO Matthew Muhart. Broward Health, which owns the North Broward public hospitals, had a $51 million surplus in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. That figure includes losses in the community health centers and physician practices. ''We continue to perform pretty strongly,'' said CFO Dawn Javersack. New patients are being drawn by new technologies, like the CyberKnife, for cancer radiation therapy. Broward Health has 140 days' cash on hand -- almost seven times Jackson's position. SUBURBAN SUCCESS Apart from its investment problems, the Baptist system continues to do well in the prosperous southern suburbs, led by Baptist Hospital with a net surplus of $81.6 million -- the biggest profit of any South Florida hospital. But the system's $1.4 billion investment portfolio experienced a stunning $210 million loss through the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2008, and the losses kept piling up in the months that followed. Altogether, Baptist's investments dropped 22 percent in an 18-month period ending April 1, said Lawson, still considerably below the 30 or 40 percent losses suffered by many individual investors in their retirement accounts. Miami Children's also had investment problems. The hospital eked out an operating surplus of $9.5 million, but ended up with a loss of $72 million because of investment losses and swap agreements in which it converted variable-rate securities to fixed rates, said CFO Pedro Alfaro. Much of those losses have since been recovered, he said. For the University of Miami hospitals, the latest report available from the state covers the fiscal year May 31, 2008. William Donelan, the medical school's chief operating officer, said he won't release the report for the year that ended last month until it has been audited and presented to the board of trustees. For fiscal 2008, the new University of Miami Hospital, formerly known as Cedars, suffered a loss of $11.5 million in its 560-bed facility, according to state data, but UM's two much smaller hospitals, handling the Sylvester Cancer Center and the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, had a surplus of $42 million, mostly from out-patient services. .... `UNUSUAL INCREASE' In Miami Beach, Mount Sinai Medical Center had a loss of $13.8 million for the year ending Dec. 31. The hospital has suffered for years because of the city's demographics changing from the aged to the young. Chief Executive Steven Sonenreich said part of the 2008 loss was attributable to ''the unusual increase in charitable and uncompensated care,'' but added that the first-quarter 2009 loss was $447,000 -- or one-seventh of the 2008 loss on an annualized basis. Sonenreich attributed the revenue improvement to patient increases in cardiac surgery, psychiatric care and inpatient rehabilitation. |
|
|
| (467327) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jun 26 22:24:58 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jun 26 20:55:28 2009. Thanks or the article. Not to familiar with the hospital operating end of things. Plus, you can't really go on Miami for just about anything. It's its own planet. People, siutations or things don't exist elsewhere. That's why there's a CSI Miami after Miami Vice.Least the article was more generic. Anyway.... "Sleazy practices, billing for procedures that aren't necessary but with aren't obviously frivolous (which is an interesting area itself, especially with probabilities)" Sometimes they bill for things they didn't even do. Reminds me of a stat that said most hospital bills are full of errors. I assume it's those long tedious itemized bills, the ones they send to the insurers aren't always that long as they lump the catagories at times. Well aside from a horrific car accident bill anyway. Doctors claim in Florida that they do a lot of procedures to cover for lawsuits. You get sued 3 times, you lose your license. I believe I heard sue and not actually convicted... At any rate, to solve a problem, it's best to know exactly what the problem is first or else you'll never solve it. The insurance companies seem very into this reform thing, and are backing it with their own ideas. Reminds me of a connection between one of the bigger CEO's and the president during the campaign. The guy isn't CEO anymore though. But they don't appear to be fighting it. Some of them are using reform in all their marketing and operations campaigns. I believe the reform that the gov't and the companies might be taking is going to lead to a bubble a la fannie or freddie mac. Nationalize one day I don't know. But something just feels shady. Or else they're just sucking up to stay in business. I can't tell. if we talked about what the problem is, I don't think it has to do with insurance or controling the money at all. Which is why us on the street are talking something different than the politicians. I think it's more sinister. think tammany and why we even have as many public services today as some of us do. There's money in it. If healthcare is the problem, why not do something about healthcare? |
|
|
| (467368) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jun 26 23:39:02 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jun 26 22:24:58 2009. Plus, you can't really go on Miami for just about anything. It's its own planet.Miami IS different... Sometimes they bill for things they didn't even do. Reminds me of a stat that said most hospital bills are full of errors. I assume it's those long tedious itemized bills, the ones they send to the insurers aren't always that long as they lump the catagories at times. Part of the motivation to pad, as I understand it, comes from hospitals' and physicians' fears that they will not receive what they actually feel that they merit if they don't do pad the bill. Of course, on the flip side, insurers know that this is done, and they persist in not paying out in full on many claims, so the game continues. Doctors claim in Florida that they do a lot of procedures to cover for lawsuits. That's the same everywhere, just about. So called 'defensive medicine' is what the profession calls it. Part of it is that there really is a problem with a small fraction of physicians who commit most of the errors and massive screwups and yet continue on in the practice. And part of it is that there's a lot of money in it for the personal injury bar. You get sued 3 times, you lose your license. I believe I heard sue and not actually convicted... No, no - not just sued. Most physicians nowadays will probably be sued during their careers, some perhaps several times, their fault or not, more so in some specialties than others. Their malpractice insurance goes up, both on account of the personal injury bar and on account of the screwups whose premiums they are keeping to a tolerable level, and of course they and their employers pass those costs on to the end consumer. At any rate, to solve a problem, it's best to know exactly what the problem is first or else you'll never solve it. Definitely. The insurance companies seem very into this reform thing, and are backing it with their own ideas. Their industry sees an opportunity here. First, they want single payer off the table. And it is. Second, that out of the way, they want to shape whatever legislation that passes to most help themselves. From what I read, they are throwing their weight behind favorable (to them) forms of the Healthy Americans Act/Bipartisan Healthcare Bill/Wyden-Bennett (all names for the same legislation), because being good businessmen, why waste a chance to reap a windfall? And hell, if I were in their line of work, I would probably do the same. But they don't appear to be fighting it. Some of them are using reform in all their marketing and operations campaigns. They are by no means stupid. They realize that public opinion wants something called reform, and they can't stop that. But they can affect the content of the reform, and if it's beneficial to them, why not push things that way? Ultimately, I think that that we really have to review what we want out of our healthcare system, how we want to pay for it, how much we want to pay for it, and how effective it will be. And all of these factors affect each other. You pay very little for some system and there will be less innovation, less effectiveness, but you have more money to spend on other things. Healthcare isn't an unlimited resource, and I think that has to be a starting point for any discussion. Most of our limited resources are distributed according to ability and willingness to pay. I hear people on many sides of the debate talk as though either a private plan or a public plan should give them something like an inalienable right to healthcare, but for me, these people start off from an incorrect premise. I think that you start out from the right premise, correct the system where it is sabotaging one of the factors for no good reason (e.g., people going to the ER at very high cost for some chronic condition instead of going for checkups as appropriate at some clinic for much lower cost), promote competitiveness to lower prices, streamline regulation, try to get everyone some sort of catastrophic coverage, and try to arrange tax and other structures such that people can better afford healthcare (e.g., HSAs). If however one starts out either from the public sector or the private sector trying to arrive at unlimited healthcare resources for everyone, I think that this is the road to nowhere. |
|
|
| (467376) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Jun 26 23:58:15 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jun 26 22:24:58 2009. Sometimes they bill for things they didn't even do. Reminds me of a stat that said most hospital bills are full of errors. I assume it's those long tedious itemized bills, the ones they send to the insurers aren't always that long as they lump the catagories at times. Well aside from a horrific car accident bill anyway.I worked in the industry for many years and I can tell you that there was a time when the itemized bill really didn't matter. At one time hospitals were reimbursed "perdiem rates" by the major insurers such as Blue Cross, Medicare and Medicaid. The remainder of the bill was written off as a "contractual allowance" So it really didn't matter if the hospital billed for 10 lab tests or 20 lab tests - they would only get a perdiem rate of $200 per day no matter what was done. The patient would get a letter from Blue Cross stating that "if you did not have BC your bill would have been $40,000 (for example)" what BC did not tell their member is that they only paid the hospital $2000 which the hospital accepted as payment in full under the contract. Today all hospitals have contractual agreements with HMO's and other major insurers which also reimburse according to similar formulas although I believe they are related more to the diagnosis as opposed to the length of stay. Either way the itemized charges do not factor into the equation at all. The primary reason hospital bills were "wrong" was simple carelessness in the way the charge tickets were processed. When I did that work it was back in the day of batch processing and punch cards - how accurate do you think we were when we had thousands of "tickets" to process and less than a second to read a doctor's or nurse's quantity count and item code. Lets just say guestimates ruled!! Since it affected billing and not patient care - no-one really cared - speed had priority over accuracy! Today's improved computer systems should have resolved many of those billing issues. |
|
|
| (467398) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 27 06:01:49 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jun 26 17:51:09 2009. I'll tell you while you fellate me. |
|
|
| (467402) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jun 27 08:14:04 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 27 06:01:49 2009. More power to you, If that's what your are into..... |
|
|
| (467407) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 09:24:39 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Jun 23 17:59:11 2009. You're assuming that a state will grant the government plan a license to operate in that state (a state could opt out by having its Insurance Department (or equivalent) deny a license to that company). |
|
|
| (467410) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sat Jun 27 09:59:18 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 09:24:39 2009. Unless they took the stimulus money, then they can't do anything the feds don't want them right? |
|
|
| (467411) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 10:05:29 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sat Jun 27 09:59:18 2009. Not relevant here. |
|
|
| (467412) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 10:08:11 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sat Jun 27 09:59:18 2009. Not unless the feds want a long and protracted court case, with insurance companies taking the side of the state. |
|
|
| (467413) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 10:09:53 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 10:08:11 2009. Think of the term "destructive competition". |
|
|
| (467414) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sat Jun 27 10:35:28 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 10:09:53 2009. There is the precedent of exempting things from lawsuits. I can't recall what industries they tried to do this to a few years ago, but I bet it's harder to sue the government.If hospital bills have errors, and the gov't is going to adminster the billing, who thinks they can fight city hall? And I don't know about you guys, but if you can't win suing against the resources of a large corporation, how about a government that prints money? Think you can win without a miracle of a large outcry? And here's our problem. Complaining of who pays for a doctors visit has nothing to do with fixing anything. It's taking away your freedoms and rights, for a crony nepotistic giant agency. Like the IRS. Who wants to argue with them too??? Or FEMA during a flu?? If you want to compete with CVS giving out cheap flu shots and get into the care business, you open your own. Let's have a publically run drug store across the street from Eckard! Want competition, build a federal run hospital. Think people will give up the new hospital and go to the Walter Reed version instead??! Rationing and "price controls" won't fix squat. So I pay with Discover instead of Visa. Why no snob on the radio or country bumpkin doesn't point this out? Or even think tank? Cuz unlike them I've lived in that culture for years, I see what's coming as I've foresaw most of this. Take that to your nationalized bank. To find the solution, you must know what the problem is. We're "fixing" the wrong problem. |
|
|
| (467416) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 10:52:54 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sat Jun 27 10:35:28 2009. This is different as the argument against the plan will be made on states' rights. At every level, the courts will be divided.Similarly, if the feds try to exempt this from lawsuits, that may also be challenged on the same grounds---that the feds are overstepping their authority as per Amendment 10. See here for a discussion on this (I do post there). They are prepared to fight all the way to the US Supreme Court, and I predict that it will be a 5-4 decision with Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote---but which way? |
|
|
| (467420) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sat Jun 27 12:09:32 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 10:52:54 2009. Florida governor vetoed a bill yesterday to deregulate the property insurance market. That's a bigger issue in these parts imo.As far as health.... but but but but... When has the states ever fought and gotten it's rights returned? Pass this law or we'll withhold federal highway money sound familiar? It doesn't matter what they do, a bill that isn't really thought out and mashed through always has unintended consequences. Something this complex, I can't wait to see how this fails long term. Thre's always some panic because something unexpected by the writers happens. I was just reading a column in the local paper, although he's syndicated, asking if the Democrats have the political capital to get this done. With 7 of 10 people polled not liking government interference, and more than half of the people polled being agsinst the stimulus rammed through during month 1, and the GM takeover, banks etc, do these people have the ability keep moving "forward"? |
|
|
| (467421) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 12:30:20 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sat Jun 27 12:09:32 2009. The law has to actually say that it would be a punishment or else it cannot be done.If cap-and-trade is likely to die by filibuster (it passed by just two votes in the House and required 8 Republicans to cross sides just to get it to the Senate) the vote was 219-212), what makes you think that this will survive a filibuster? James Inhofe is probably correct when he says it will not pass; this has successful filibuster written all over it. With that in mind, you may want to reconsider your thoughts. |
|
|
| (467422) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sat Jun 27 12:45:16 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 12:30:20 2009. wrong topic, But on that topic, who is going to get rich?EPA analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act projects that firms regulated under the bill's cap and trade program will opt to purchase over one billion tons of offsets each year from 2012-2020 rather than reduce their own emissions. |
|
|
| (467424) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Jun 27 12:51:53 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Sat Jun 27 12:45:16 2009. Actually, what is happening with Cap-and-Trade figures to be a harbinger for what happens on healthcare (they're not as far off as you think). |
|
|
| (467425) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 27 12:53:18 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jun 26 17:50:19 2009. As long as Prozac is covered, you'll be functional, at least good for you. |
|
|
| (467426) | |
Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 27 12:56:32 2009, in response to Re: Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Government Health Care Works Better, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jun 27 08:14:04 2009. Watching him die is what I'm into, but I'll settle...your pal, Fred |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||