| Author |
Message |
    
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 2992
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 03:31 am: | 
|
...that Marcia Coakley, um, er, I mean Martha...MARTHA Coakley gave when she conceded. She was quite eloquent, and seemed pretty intelligent and likable.
To be honest, I have only seen short blurbs on Scott Brown, but what I have seen, he is the conservative answer to Obama. A watershed candidate that came out of nowhere and burst on the national scene with the wind in his sails.
There is a difference though. Brown seems to be about eliminating the B.S. and Obama is all about creating and perpetuating it.
WHOOOOOOOSH!!!
That is the sound of the political pendulum swinging back.
God Bless America!
God Bless Scott Brown!
Tea anyone? |
Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver
Post Number: 2318
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 03:39 am: |
|
I'll have an extra-large glass, iced and unsweetened, please, and decaffeinated if you have it 
(Message edited by t2driver on January 20, 2010) |
Connie
Senior Member
Username: Connie
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:06 am: |
|
WASHINGTON - The buck stops ... Well, it was hard to tell just where the buck stopped Tuesday when it came to the Democratic party's loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat that had been in the Kennedy family for more than half a century.
Thank God, the voters finally woke up!  |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 2993
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 12:59 pm: |
|
It's The People's Seat. |
Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 2229
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 02:22 pm: |
|
All I can say is....AAAAHHHHHH.....
You suppose there is any chance this will make them realize that ramrodding a worthless bill through and further bankrupting our country isn't a good idea? Any chance they'll actually try to talk to the GOP instead of just doing what they want?
I know...I'm a dreamer.... |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6923
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 02:39 pm: |
|
Oddly, I see a different view. . . . |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 2994
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 02:41 pm: |
|
Most Myopics do. |
Daniel Bishop
Junior Member
Username: Whatshisface
Post Number: 32
Registered: 01-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:22 pm: |
|
Just when you thought you’d seen it all. The collapse of the USSR and the Berlin wall goes down, a non Italian Pope and now a Republican elected to the senate in Massachusetts. Just when you think something is set in stone, you find out it's not. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11153
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 05:42 pm: |
|
I agree it's been a long time, but I'm old enough to remember Edward Brooke as a Republican senator from Massachusetts. He was also the first African-American elected to the Senate since Reconstruction, a fact Obama is likely mindful of. |
Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 2230
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:20 pm: |
|
Yeah but Bill, you were in Boston for Paul Revere's ride, weren't you?  |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11155
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 06:44 pm: |
|
Brooke served two terms in the Senate, well into the Carter administration. He is still alive at 90 and resides in Miami. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6924
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 07:59 pm: |
|
I have severe presbyopia. At 55, my distance vision is still 20/20, but I can't read a thing without glasses. |
Pete Mazurowski
Intermediate Member
Username: Pete_maz
Post Number: 408
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 08:05 pm: |
|
As happy as I am to see a republican win that seat, I'll hold off my evaluation until he's been in office for a while. I'm living in the state that produced Miss Lindsey Graham, so I've learned to be skeptical of campaign promises. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 2997
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Pete, I can certainly understand your healthy skepticism. After all, when Obama first came to national attention, he was whisked into office by the Chicago Machine and the hype about him was already buzzing. He was "Johnny Bravo." He "fit the suit."
Brown will be up for re-election in 2012. We'll see if he runs again...and for which office...? |
Tim Wi
Senior Member
Username: Riverkeeper
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 02:06 am: |
|
"You suppose there is any chance this will make them realize that ramrodding a worthless bill through and further bankrupting our country isn't a good idea? Any chance they'll actually try to talk to the GOP instead of just doing what they want?"
The answer was plain on January 21.
Who needed the proof of yesterday's pretend summit? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3058
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 04:14 pm: |
|
Tim,
Refresh my memory, What was January 21?
Not sure just what each side was trying to accomplish at that "summit." The Democrats were not there to listen, they were there to dictate. And there is no way the Republicans could get their points across in one day when the Democrats ignored them for an entire year. Nothing has changed.
What we are left with is the possibility of the Democrats using the Nuclear Option and creating a deeper divide between the parties. Obama made that explicit threat at the very end of the meeting. Real classy.
The wise move would be starting over with a real bipartisan effort that both parties can agree on fundamentally. Will that happen? I doubt it. It has been one year, and there has been not even one whiff of bipartisanship emanating from the majority, unless your definition of bipartisanship is to shut your mouth and follow along.
But it still vexes me that Congress is wasting time on this issue when we are in a deep recession. We have 10% unemployment with hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs each month. It has gotten to the point where a month with 200,000 jobs lost is considered an improvement.
It appears to me that the current leadership wants to keep the unemployment numbers at a high level. They need a large base of the population dependent on Government in order to garner support for their Socialist policies. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6960
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 04:25 pm: |
|
Bob, you are an unending source of amusement! |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3059
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 04:39 pm: |
|
Dan, got anything more to add besides personal attacks? |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7355
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 05:17 pm: |
|
Boy, Bob, I was nodding in agreement until those last 2 sentences.... |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3061
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 05:20 pm: |
|
Understood Denny. Why do you think the Obama administration wants to keep the unemployment numbers high? Is there another reason? |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7356
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 05:58 pm: |
|
I don't think they "want" to keep numbers high....with all due respect I can muster, Bob, I think that's a ridiculous statement. It serves no purpose to keep them high. If Dems want to do well in the elections, the numbers need to go down. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6961
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 06:32 pm: |
|
I thought it was a compliment! |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11330
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 07:34 pm: |
|
I agree entirely with Denny. High unemployment numbers are not good for the party in power, whether Democrats or Republicans.
Saying that keeping people unemployed and poor as a political goal is preposterous and intended as a taunt. The political parties want to take credit for prosperity. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3063
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 09:13 pm: |
|
On the contrary Bill. Almost everything the Democrats have on their agenda is either a tax-gobbler, or a job killer, or both. The two biggest are Healthcare and Cap & Tax.
Government Takeover of Healthcare: raises taxes, it rations care, and puts bureaucrats, instead of doctors and patients, in charge of medical decisions.
Cap & Tax: Nothing more than a scam based on the lies behind the Global Warming Alarmists. Higher energy costs will ripple throughout the economy causing a cascade of harmful affects for consumers and industry.
Then there was Cash for Clunkers. What did that do? According to Edmunds.com, it cost Tax-Payers $24,000.00 for each car that was traded in. Good Job Obama! Way to spend my tax money wisely!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/10/620000657/1
Obama may SAY out loud he wants to create jobs, but where ARE the jobs? And what kind of jobs are being created? Real, Long-term, Private-sector Jobs? Where are they?
But if we count all the "Saved" jobs, I guess we are doing all-right. Nothing to see here folks. Obama's got your back.
 |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6962
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 09:44 pm: |
|
I think we all should say something totally silly and unsupported!
The Republicans are bent on returning us to the Dark Ages. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 809
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 09:47 pm: |
|
I like the Dark Ages, great castles were built back then, all the food was organic and locally produced with no commuter traffic to get stuck in.
Good times..... |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11331
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 11:21 pm: |
|
It's a long leap from questioning the effects of Obama's economic programs to suggesting their unstated goal is to increase unemployment and poverty. I don't see how that furthers rational discussion of the issues.
I, too, suspect that some of these programs pander more to special interests and constituencies than improve the economy overall. If you "follow the money," as they said in the Watergate era, there is an uncanny correlation between the groups that have contributed the most money to the political parties and individual politicians, and the beneficiaries of the various stimulus programs. But can we discuss this without indulging in taunts and outrageous exaggerations? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3064
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 05:04 am: |
|
Bill, I am not taunting, nor am I exaggerating.
Look at who Obama has surrounded himself with during and since college; Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Michael Pfleger, and many more. These people are all left-wing criminals, radicals, and terrorists. Let's not forget how intertwined our Community Organizer in Chief is with ACORN, I shouldn't have to explain just how corrupt that organization is. Hell, in Obama's own words:
"I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
So, for a guy who is so careful about who he associates with, he sure picks some doozies. To say Obama is not a Leftist is to ignore his own words and his past associations. But that's ok, just write me off as a Tea-Bagging, Right Wing Loon. What do I know?
Well...there is this: The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis...
The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. (Healthcare anyone?)
Read more on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
and here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_strategy_of_e.html
Then there is Obama's proselytization of Saul Alinsky and his "Rules for Radicals"
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4784
http://article.nationalreview.com/394059/the-alinsky-administration/jim-geraghty
So I am definitely NOT exaggerating. Obama is writing his own conspiracy novel and you and I are merely the ink. Tom Clancy should be taking notes. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6964
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 01:04 pm: |
|
The Republicans are trying to destroy science. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11337
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 01:18 pm: |
|
Bob, I give up. I feel like I'm trying to argue with those who who brought up the the Trilateral Commission in the 1980s, the "black helicopters" in the 1990s and the "birther" issue today. You're entitled to your opinions, but these just aren't subjects for substantive discussion in my opinion. |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 2431
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 02:40 pm: |
|
Taken in again, Bill? Can't you see that Bob was just joking? Still can't tell when he's being serious and when he's just fooling around? I'm sure he'll tell us he was just jerking chains at some point. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3065
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 02:53 pm: |
|
Like I said, just write me off as a Tea-Bagging, Right Wing Loon. Nevermind the facts. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6965
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 03:23 pm: |
|
OK, Bob, you strike me as a "Tea-Bagging, Right Wing Loon." |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3066
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 03:39 pm: |
|
That figures Dan. I would expect as much from you. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 812
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 05:22 pm: |
|
Seems to me it's the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil party. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7357
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 05:26 pm: |
|
Bob, it's not the facts so much as the conclusions you draw from them that are preposterous. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3067
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 06:24 pm: |
|
Well Denny, I guess it boils down to seeing the same set of facts and drawing different conclusions. I hope I am wrong. But I doubt it.
Before the run-up to the election, polls indicated Obama was considered the most liberal Senator. Now magically, he is being heralded by the media as a centrist, yet he has shown time and time again that he is not interested in bipartisanship. How does this happen? Last week's dog-and-pony show exposed this sham. Who is pulling the strings in the media and waving their wand to obfuscate the truth and get everyone to ignore the facts? But if I point stuff like this out, I get labeled. You guys just believe what you are told, yet I am the crack-pot.
Tell me where I am off the mark. Please explain to me how Obama is not using the tactics of Saul Alinsky. Show me where the Cloward Piven Strategy is not being followed. Offer counterexamples and prove me wrong. Or, just hang a label on me and call it a day. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6966
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 06:53 pm: |
|
Republicans want to damage the physical health of small businessmen. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3068
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 07:22 pm: |
|
That's right Dan, We discussed it at our last closed-door meeting. Looks like we have a mole. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6969
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 08:21 pm: |
|
One good silly charge deserves another. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3070
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 08:55 pm: |
|
Back it up Dan. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6970
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 09:49 pm: |
|
Oh, thank you. I was waiting for that.
Have you followed the CA individual insurance premium increase story? You obviously know that most of these policies are sold to small businessmen. The insurance company noticed that their costs are rising so they must increase the policies' premium of course. This will drive out the healthier / younger subscribers, leaving the less healthy / older subscribers who require more health care. The company will them have to increase the premiums again driving out even more. The individual insurance market will enter into a death spiral. Soon small businessmen will simply not be able to afford health insurance and their health will suffer for it.
Now what is the Republican response to this obvious problem? Only limit malpractice suits and allow insurance companies to compete over state lines, if "compete" is the proper word for an industry that, like Major League Baseball, is exempt from anti-trust laws.
But you, Bob, don't have to worry about such things, do you? You got yours - for the moment . . . |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11344
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 01:00 am: |
|
It's called the "death spiral," a somewhat apt term. As healthy policyholders who don't want to pay the higher premiums exit for other options, it leaves the sick who have nowhere else to go, thereby driving up the claims per policyholder and forcing even more premium increases.
The ultimate solution is to make the pool as big as possible by insuring everyone who is in it together. Of course this is socialism, and it's likely to give poor Bob a heart attack. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6971
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 03:11 am: |
|
The Republican position is just a wish list for insurance companies. Letting insurance companies deal across state lines would cause a rush to the bottom of regulation.
As for limits on malpractice, it sounds good until they tell you that you will need to reschedule your gall bladder surgery as the hysterectomy seemed like a bad idea after a bit. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3071
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 03:48 am: |
|
Why would Insurance companies be exempt from anti-trust laws? Where has this been proposed?
And yes Dan, I have health insurance provided by my employer. That was the agreement I made with my employer when I chose to take the job I am doing now. Are you jealous? Are you saying I am wrong for providing for my family?
Dan, you are a small businessman. Surely, you accounted for your family's health insurance when you went into business, didn't you? If I ventured out on my own, I know I certainly would. It would be wrapped in the costs of doing business.
I know you shared some health issues with the rest of a while back that have obviously raised your premiums, and I am sorry you have to deal with it. But when you strike out on your own and take risks you can reap great rewards in your business, or you can eke out a living and perhaps fail. Nothing is certain. That is the beauty of Capitalism in America, you have the choice to succeed and you have the choice to fail. It all depends on your perspective and how you face your challenges.
To be honest, I am unfamiliar with the CA individual insurance premium increase story, or as Bill calls it, the "death spiral." But from your description, it does sound like a shitty situation. But don't you think that if both houses of Congress really gave a crap about it, they would find ways to fix it? Why does health care have to be all about government takeover? Why can't there be serious discussions to create a fair and level playing field instead of handing over our health care management to the same government flunkies who run the DMV?
Please read this. It lists 10 things in the Republican plan. I am sure you can find agreement with at least a couple of them:
http://www.gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/11-06-09_10_Reasons_to_Support_the_GOP_He alth_Care_Bill.pdf
The first one out the chute talks about a 10% reduction in health care premiums for employees who get coverage through a small business (50 or fewer employees) Isn't that your biggest gripe? Do you not think a 10% reduction is enough?
And Bill. Are you really that comfortable with Socialism? Is that what you want? Don't be shy. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11345
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 04:57 am: |
|
Well, I hardly think socialism is the answer to all of our problems (nor do I see it as the invention of Satan). But I do believe that any truly effective health insurance program has to include everyone in the pool of the insured. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6972
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 02:04 pm: |
|
"The Republican Alternative makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition. So if you lose your health insurance because you lose your job, move, get divorced, or just want to change plans, you are protected. Through a new Universal Access Program, all patients with preexisting conditions will have access to affordable health care coverage--without waiting lists. The Republican Alternative also prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless an individually knowingly commits fraud on an application form. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits."
Sounds great, right? There is no mention of how this is supposed to be paid for. There is the rub.
"But don't you think that if both houses of Congress really gave a crap about it, they would find ways to fix it?"
The Democrats are trying to fix it, the Republicans are trying to scare the pants off everybody to not fix it. They know and serve their masters and the insurance companies do not have your, yes you,Bob, best interest at heart.
The death spiral is not confined to CA. There is no reason to think that it will not sweep the nation shortly. My cost is scheduled to go up about 35% in June.
The Republican much vaulted support of small business is as hollow as a carboy. 10% unfunded for a cost that easily outruns 10% annually. . .
Here is to you continued health and employment! |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6973
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 02:28 pm: |
|
"Why would Insurance companies be exempt from anti-trust laws? Where has this been proposed?"
Sorry, Bob. It is not being proposed, it is the law as it stands now. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3072
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 02:32 pm: |
|
"Sounds great, right? There is no mention of how this is supposed to be paid for. There is the rub."
That link is only a synopsis of the GOP plan. Neither of us have the time to chase that rabbit down the hole. But I am sure you have read all 2,000+ pages of the Democrat's plan, know everything about it, and can spit out any of the facts on command.
Tell me Dan, are you paying more than $12,000 a year on health care? That is what my family plan would cost me if I paid for it myself. Of course, my employer foots that bill, but will I automatically get paid an extra $12,000.00 a year if the Government takes over health care? Is that in the plan? One thing is certain, taxes will go up. You think you have it bad now? Wait until the government takes over. Someone's gotta pay the piper. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6974
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 02:51 pm: |
|
Look, I don't think they are serious about protecting pre-existing conditions, etc. They only know that to say otherwise, is politically very bad. They give it lip service and don't talk about how to pay for it for very good reasons.
After June, between the wife and me, we could spend twice what your company is paying for you. How about that for supporting small business?
Yes, I choose to become self-employed 18 years ago next month, and we had our health insurance covered at that time. Times have changed. Maybe I should shut down my small business, fire six employees and get a "job," huh? Great support, those Republicans . . .
(Message edited by listermann on March 01, 2010) |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6975
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 03:39 pm: |
|
Double post, sorry.
(Message edited by listermann on March 01, 2010) |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6977
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 03:39 pm: |
|
"Why would Insurance companies be exempt from anti-trust laws? Where has this been proposed?"
It has not been proposed. It is the current law.
What do the Republicans say, "Let the free competition of the market fix the problem."
Way to support small business, guys! |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11349
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 03:41 pm: |
|
Bob, here in Ontario we have a government sponsored insurance program. As you no doubt know, it is very similar to Medicare in the US except that it covers everyone rather than only seniors. No, it's clearly not perfect, but it has a more than 80 percent approval rating among the public. And a great majority of people believe it is superior to the insurance system in the US. Again, it's government health insurance, not government health care. I know you decry this as socialism and claim that anything run by the government costs more, but the percentage of administrative costs is considerably lower than that for the US private insurance system. Additionally, there is still a healthy (pun intended) industry for private supplemental insurance.
(Message edited by BillPierce on March 01, 2010) |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6978
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 03:49 pm: |
|
Yea, but, yea but, yea but don't all Canadians have to come to the US for quicker medical care, huh? |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11350
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 04:00 pm: |
|
It's not unheard of, Dan, although the numbers are tiny and cause for great alarm among US opponents of government health insurance when it occurs. Some of the cause is due to the much larger US population and facilities for those who have rare conditions. Believe it or not, on occasion Canadian insurance pays for US treatment (however, again the numbers are not really statistically significant). |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6979
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 04:06 pm: |
|
Well maybe you don't talk to enough Republicans, Bill. Down here, that is everything you need to know about the Canadian health care system. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3073
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 04:19 pm: |
|
Go ahead and blame the Republicans if you wish. They hardly created your situation though. I think everyone wants what you want Dan. We all want costs to go down and pricing to be fair. But if we hand this completely over to the government, do you really think that will solve the problem?
Like I have been saying. If the Democrats are serious at all about real fixes to this situation, they would have been attacking it head on and getting input from the Republicans all along. Something that can get at least 70 votes in the Senate. Instead we have a power grab where the Democrats can play Santa Claus to the masses. Their goal is not real reform to health care. They just want a base of government dependent voters that will keep them in power in perpetuity.
Most people want real reform, and most people do not think Government takeover is the right solution. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6981
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 04:26 pm: |
|
It should be obvious, even to you, that the Republicans are not interested in cooperating at any level. They see political pointage in fighting it tooth and nail and have done that since day one.
How does this sound?
Their goal is not any reform to health care. They just to return to power.
Let me know how the Republicans think they will pay for eliminating pre-existing conditions, etc. exclusions. Here is betting that you can't. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3074
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 04:46 pm: |
|
"It should be obvious, even to you, that the Republicans are not interested in cooperating at any level."
Hogwash. The Democrats spent the last year telling the Republicans to sit down and shut up. Republicans have been trying to get their voices heard, but it is falling on deaf ears. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6982
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 04:54 pm: |
|
LOL! Right . . . Lip service quickly gets repetitive.
Any movement on paying for their "proposals?" I predict that they will get funding by eliminating "waste and fraud," again . . . . |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3075
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 05:12 pm: |
|
"Yea, but, yea but, yea but don't all Canadians have to come to the US for quicker medical care, huh?"
Just their Premiers:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/02/canadian_premier_has_heart_sur. html?wprss=checkup
 |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11351
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 05:40 pm: |
|
Bob, could you afford the treatment given to a Canadian premier or Middle Eastern oil sheikh? Citing an example of the level of care given to foreign VIPs is not relevant to ordinary Americans. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3076
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 06:10 pm: |
|
Bill, where are Canadians going to go when U.S. health care becomes socialized? |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11352
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 06:15 pm: |
|
Bob, what would change about American health care? I think we've been discussing health insurance. Almost no one is talking about government health care, especially not for the US. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6984
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 06:20 pm: |
|
All of them, Bob?
Oh, I forgot "abuse."
Make that "waste, fraud and abuse." as the Republican's source of funding for eliminating insurance denials for pre-existing conditions, etc.
Actually they don't even pretend to support eliminating these denials anymore. They have hit on "incrementalism" as their mantra. Reform insurance a little at a time. Sounds reasonable, right? Again, it is the financing that is the rub. "Waste, fraud and abuse!" |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3077
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 06:28 pm: |
|
Well Dan, 20 percent of every Medicare dollar goes to fraud:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/27/tom-coburn/coburn -says-20-percent-every-medicare-dollar-goes-/
Just imagine when all our healthcare is nationalized.... |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6985
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2010 - 06:57 pm: |
|
Well about the same amount of private insurance goes to administration - seemingly work toward avoiding pre-existing conditions, from my experience.
So Bob, how long can we endure our current "more of the same" system? At what point will your employer give up supplying health care as too expensive? |
Tim Wi
Senior Member
Username: Riverkeeper
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 04:26 am: |
|
January 21 is the day after Scott Brown was elected and the day the spin started.
T |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3078
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 08:53 am: |
|
ah, yes. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6986
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Ok Bob, tell us how much the Republicans value the physical health of small businessmen. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 813
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 08:45 pm: |
|
"tell us how much the Republicans value the physical health of small businessmen"
and the Democrats are different?
Dan, are the Democrats proposing any serious tort reform to protect doctors and hospitals?
You Dems this, you Repubs this crack me up. You are nothing but two sides of the same coin. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6988
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 09:10 pm: |
|
No Ron, there is a difference. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3079
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 09:14 pm: |
|
Ron,
I hope there some adults in D.C. who can look at this issue and implement laws that will be fair and beneficial to everyone without a government take-over of 1/6th of our economy. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 814
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 09:15 pm: |
|
All they want is to stay in power and to do so they have sold their souls. The only difference is to whom they sold them to. Nancy does not care about you.
Why no tort reform? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3080
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Dan, your prayers are answered:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/02/2574961/rancho-cordova-based-insurer-launches.h tml |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 815
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 - 10:47 pm: |
|
Bob, those types of folks don't go into politics. |
Brewzz
Advanced Member
Username: Brewzz
Post Number: 778
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 - 01:40 am: |
|
You Know,Guys?All this finger pointing is just Juvenile! What we NEED to do is quit giving names to the People you all think are to blame,and start to work together.The Demicans and Republicrats aren't the problem.Politicans are staring at their Dicks,and just wanting their's to be the bigger one.We Need to start over....
Rant Over..... Brewzz |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 816
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 11:27 pm: |
|
Starting over requires the inclusion of tort reform. I wonder why they don't have it.
Dan you have answers for everything, any clue on this one? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3085
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 03:26 am: |
|
Dammit Ron! |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6989
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 02:46 pm: |
|
It seems that, per the Republicans, all health care revolves around the insurance companies urge for tort reform. I hope that a doctor never screws you over. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11390
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 02:55 pm: |
|
There is a need to address the issue of tort settlements, but it should be examined objectively on its own merits in all of its aspects, and not used as a device to hold up and prevent health insurance reform. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3088
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 06:54 pm: |
|
"There is a need to address the issue of tort settlements"
Is that so?
Then why have the Democrats been dragged kicking and screaming into seeing it that way? Could it be possibly that Trial Lawyers are lining their campaign coffers? Does it cost less for the trial lawyers to buy off the Democrats than it does to let them pass a moral and ethical bill?
Follow the money guys. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6990
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 - 08:01 pm: |
|
Does it cost less for the insurance companies to buy off the Republicans than it does to let them pass a moral and ethical bill?
Follow the money, guys.
(Message edited by listermann on March 09, 2010) |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 817
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 - 06:31 pm: |
|
"I hope that a doctor never screws you over."
I have been to many doctors in my life and have found all of them professional and caring. Have they been perfect? No, but then only God is perfect. I have never found one that I thought was in the business to screw me over. I have found a lot of them that order tests that drive up my co-pays just to cover their butts. Given the lawyer situation, I really can't blame them.
Bill, I believe figuring out tort reform is critical to any bill that passes.
Look at it from the Doctor's angle. They have to buy insurance and the insurance companies know this. Insurance companies, like lawyers are part of the problem so both parties are at fault here.
Dan, the money flows in two directions here. One path republican and one path democrat. Your side is just a guilty.
But I will ask the question again, why aren't the democrats pushing tort reform? |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6994
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 04:04 pm: |
|
"But I will ask the question again, why aren't the democrats pushing tort reform?"
Possibly for the same reason the Republicans are fighting insurance reform. I don't think they see as as severe a problem as the Republicans, who are using it as an excuse to avoid insurance reform, make it out to be. Have you seem any estimates as to the actual cost - preferably not from the right wing media. . . . . ?
I am concerned about doctors who have a strong financial interest in testing equipment, using their position to pump up the cash flow.
Back to your opening statement, how much is the life of your child worth to an really dumb doctor decision? We hear "tort reform" all over the place, but we don't see any numbers. |
Brewzz
Advanced Member
Username: Brewzz
Post Number: 783
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 12:35 am: |
|
Take a look at Texas,Dan.Doctors are moving their practices here in droves.....WE have limited the amount you can sue a doctor for,I belive, to $250K,but don't quote me on that,I'm not sure at the moment.It seems to work just fine here....
Cheers,Brewzz |
Jeff Rankert
Member
Username: Hopfenundmalz
Post Number: 167
Registered: 06-2008
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 01:04 am: |
|
You also have the Texas Futile Care Act to keep costs down. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6996
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 03:51 am: |
|
So you would be satisfied with a $250,000 settlement for a doctor who botched a prescription that killed your child? I happen to know somebody in the homebrew biz where exactly this happened. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 3093
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 01:54 pm: |
|
How much did your friend win in his settlement? |
John Baer
Intermediate Member
Username: Beerman
Post Number: 307
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 02:40 pm: |
|
Dan,
Is any amount of money going to bring your child back?
JB |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6997
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 02:44 pm: |
|
I didn't ask about any legal settlements. If they wanted to talk about it, they would.
No John, no amount of money will bring a child back . . . Do you think your child is only worth $250,000 to you? |
John Baer
Intermediate Member
Username: Beerman
Post Number: 308
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 03:11 pm: |
|
I can't put a price tag on my child's life. If a doctor was negligent and something happened to my baby I'd be more concerned about making sure the guy couldn't practice medicine again. All the money Bill Gates has isn't going to bring a loved one back, nor would it assuage my grief.
JB |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6998
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 03:44 pm: |
|
But you seem to think that a limit of $250,000 is reasonable. |
John Baer
Intermediate Member
Username: Beerman
Post Number: 310
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 04:18 pm: |
|
Dan,
To me the money is irrelevent in this type of situation. What's the object under those circumstances, to have the negligent party held responsible or cashing in on your misfortune. What do you mean by "reasonable", $250,000 or $250MM is not going to change a thing, you're still missing a loved one.
JB |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6999
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 05:42 pm: |
|
Nobody doubts that you will miss your loved one.
Would you feel any sense of justice at $250,000? Our friends' son was an adult. In simple monetary terms, how much do you think it took to raise him?
What I am trying to get across is that it might seem reasonable to arbitrarily fix a price on tort awards, but when you put yourself in a wronged position, things might seem different. Maybe you can't do that.
You said that you would like to see that the doctor never practice medicine again. His practice is worth far more than a mere $250,000 to him. I doubt that his premium would be much different or his "defensive medicine" would be less, if his practice were be on the line.
All this about tort reform is just a Republican delaying tactic. They have no interest in health insurance reform at any level, quite the contrary, their masters don't want it. But here is the rub, the status quo is not sustainable. Soon the individual market will be priced out of existence. So where is the much vaulted Republican support of the small businessman? Oh, right, unfunded tax breaks and reduced regulation. Great! |
Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 2235
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 06:17 pm: |
|
And because the Dems care about you, the uninsured/under-insured citizen so much, they are offering this government controlled health care to you, right Dan? They are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, because they feel bad for those who can't get insurance due to various reasons?
It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with them having direct control of ONE SIXTH of our economy if they get it to pass. Nah...they don't want to control everything in this country. Well, other than our health care finances...and our automotive companies...and our financial companies...and our...well, who knows what they'll go after next.
I am completely and totally dumbfounded that some of our citizens think that it's a GOOD idea to give the same people that give us the DMV and the IRS control over our health care finances. Unbelievable.
Does our health care financial system need an overhaul? Absolutely! Does the overhaul the Dems are proposing do anything to help? Absolutely not!
The vast majority of the people in this country are telling them to scrap it and start over. What's Pelosi's response? Just vote for it and figure out what's in it later. Nice. |
John Baer
Intermediate Member
Username: Beerman
Post Number: 312
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 06:18 pm: |
|
"but when you put yourself in a wronged position, things might seem different. Maybe you can't do that."
I've been in this position Dan, my grandfather died on an operating table. A healthy active man having a major, but routine procedure. Could my family have sued, absolutely, would we have won some money, probably, but it wasn't going to bring my grandfather back. What would a "sense of justice" have done for me and my family, I wouldn't miss him less driving around in a shiny new car.
Both the Republicans and Democrats have their masters and that's why they are much more similar than dissimilar. One of the Dem's masters is the Bar Association, huh, interesting. The majority of members in BOTH parties are more interested in looking after themselves and their special interests than they are in serving their constituents.
And, seriously, this nonsense about the Republicans holding things up or delaying things is ridiculous. The dems have the majority necessary in both houses of congress to do whatever they want. The fact is if Nancy Pelosi had the votes to get this done they'd have voted on it by now.
JB |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7001
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 08:27 pm: |
|
Mike, you do realize that the government already controls about half the health care in this country already through Medicare, ect. Show me the politician who wants to break up Medicare. He won't be a politician very long. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7002
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 08:33 pm: |
|
John, the Democrats are not the monolithic single mind that the Republicans have been able to paint themselves into. They still have a range of views that need to be addressed.
Do you think that a $250,000 cap is a good idea? What about a screw up that causes very high maintenance costs? The patient did not die, but he will burn through a quarter million quickly. Then who pays for the screw up? How about you and me? |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 818
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 08:48 pm: |
|
Again, doctors are not perfect, mistake happen and will continue.
The issue is how do we control health care costs and one issue not being addressed is tort reform. The key word is reform Dan, not elimination - my position is that neither party is looking at it seriously and with a $1 Trillion price tag that will be born by us, it needs to be. Your $250,000 question is a red herring as not every injury suffered through the course of one's life have to be born by the rest of us - stuff happens and sometimes it sucks.
BTW - you mention Medicare being controlled by the govt. You do realize how screwed up that is right? And that you are arguing for more of the same? |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7003
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Ron, so tell me how you envision tort reform?
Are you arguing for the elimination of Medicare? If you think insuring those with pre-existing conditions is difficult, try to insure an eighty year old. This is why Medicare exists. Imagine getting old with out it. There was a time . . . |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 819
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Maybe one way is to handle it the same way insurance is bought for death and dismemberment. The funding could be the same methodology as FDIC.
Dan, are you arguing there is absolutely no solution so we shouldn't even try? |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11415
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2010 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Medicare is government health insurance for seniors, not government health care. The federal government acts as a single insurer and payer, not the provider of health care. About 70 percent of seniors say they are "generally satisfied" with the system, roughly the percentage of the larger public who say they are dissatisfied with the performance of Congress.
I still don't see why Medicare isn't a workable model for the general population. It's remarkably similar to the system in much of Canada, where each province administers its own insurance, with federal subsidies. The level of general satisfaction is above 80 percent. And there remains a healthy competitive market for private supplemental insurance.
(Message edited by BillPierce on March 13, 2010) |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 820
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 12:10 am: |
|
"About 70 percent of seniors say they are "generally satisfied" with the system"
Well yeah, other people are paying for it.
BTW Bill, Medicare is running a surplus isn't it? No fraud or anything of that kind? |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11416
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 01:35 am: |
|
Obviously, Medicare is not immune from demographic trends. It begins at age 65, and as people live longer they require medical care for for more years. It can't be a pay as you go system for those who are no longer working, and it is funded by the contributions of those who are. By various estimates, the fund will remain solvent at current levels for about another 25 years.
However, extending it to everyone would greatly increase the pool, that is, the increased contributions of the working would pay both for themselves and those who are retired. No, there is no free lunch. It's going to cost money. But the current mix of private employer-paid insurance, individual insurance, Medicare and Medicaid is increasingly expensive, inefficient and leaves huge gaps for the uninsured and those who are not receiving the care they need. This, too, has a cost, and many people argue that it is already higher than that of insurance that would cover virtually everyone.
Currently the US ranks 11th among nations in per capita GDP. To find the next wealthiest nation that does not provide some form of nearly universal health insurance for its citizens you have to go to number 47 on the list and the Bahamas. The lack of universal health insurance is damaging the US and making it less competitive in the world.
(Message edited by BillPierce on March 13, 2010) |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7005
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 03:32 am: |
|
No, you can reform tort law until you are blue in the face, but please recognize that this issue is a "red herring" for the Republicans to avoid real health care insurance reform per their donors needs.
Now, tell us how to insure an eighty year old privately. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11418
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 02:53 pm: |
|
Thank God there is Medicare to provide basic health insurance for the 80-year-old, and supplemental insurance, while certainly expensive, is available if she or he is relatively well-off. The biggest problems today are faced by those with chronic medical conditions and who are also self-employed or whose employers do not provide insurance. Even those who are on welfare have Medicaid, wretched as it is, but the working poor without insurance are in dire straits indeed. And in the current employment environment, where job security is anything but, tens of millions of middle-class people are also in jeopardy. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7008
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Yea but, yea but, Bill, what about tort reform! |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 821
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 08:55 pm: |
|
Dan, no possibility of a workable tort reform - none at all? You really need to get out of the box.
BTW -no one is stopping you from personally insuring as many 80 year olds as you desire. |
Pete Mazurowski
Intermediate Member
Username: Pete_maz
Post Number: 423
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 09:16 pm: |
|
The lack of universal health insurance is damaging the US and making it less competitive in the world.
If the bill passes, and if this message board is still around, let's come back and revisit this statement in 15 years or so. Not arguing one way or the other, but I'm struggling to see how this bill will really improve access to health insurance without reducing the quality & availability of care. Maybe it will, but I just don't see it happening. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 822
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 09:40 pm: |
|
How many pages is this bill?
Has anyone supporting it read it in its entirety? |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7016
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Ron, where did I ever say that there is no possibility of workable tort reform? I would have thought better of you than to erect a strawman. I did say that, "No, you can reform tort law until you are blue in the face, but please recognize that this issue is a "red herring" for the Republicans to avoid real health care insurance reform per their donors needs."
Did you venture to describe what tort reform might look like? |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 823
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 10:53 pm: |
|
No Dan you did not say that because you never answer any questions - you only ask them ad nauseum - your own strawmen in fact.
And if you re-read my post above, you will see that in fact I did answer your original question on tort reform. Care to do the same? |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11451
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Pete, I agree the bill is not a very good bill. But I would argue that it's a start and better than doing nothing at all. The current situation is a drag on the American economy that will only grow worse. If there is no health insurance reform, ultraconservatives will have nearly succeeded in making the country ungovernable, which some would argue has been their intention all along. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7017
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 12:02 am: |
|
"Maybe one way is to handle it the same way insurance is bought for death and dismemberment. The funding could be the same methodology as FDIC."
Did not strike me as much of an answer. Is not the goal of tort reform, if you don't count derailing health care insurance reform, to limit jury awards?
Please expand on your "answer." |
Pete Mazurowski
Intermediate Member
Username: Pete_maz
Post Number: 424
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 12:31 am: |
|
With all due respect Bill, I really disagree that it's better than doing nothing at all. That's part of the problem with this situation: entitlement programs are put in place, but once people are using them it becomes increasingly difficult to make major changes if it's discovered that they cost too much, have unintended consequences, or don't solve the problem they were originally enacted to solve.
To say there's major disagreement among relative experts in this discussion is an understatement. (And by experts, I don't mean those in Washington .) Instead of coming up with a true bipartisan bill, this has mostly been a very one-sided effort. Those in the majority literally locked themselves away from the opposing party when writing it, and are saying we're going to pass this bill "whatever it takes". And what happens if they're wrong? We've heard President Obama say "the time for talk is over", and that we must pass this bill asap (how many deadlines has he set?).
In essence, this is a one-shot deal. One try to get it right. Because after the bill is passed, the taxes are collected, the programs are in place, and the uninsured find themselves suddenly having health insurance, it's going to be very hard to put the brakes on.
And at the risk of casting myself into the "right wing loon" category, this brings up an important point. Once those programs are in place, a whole new group of beneficiaries have a reason to vote Democrat. Say what you want about Bob's reference to keeping unemployment numbers high, it's an intriguing concept. And one that makes me even less comfortable when applied to something as important as healthcare. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7018
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 12:53 am: |
|
Pete, it does not take much that the Republicans are not out to save the country from Bob's communism. They are out to damage the Obama presidency in any way they can. It takes two to tango and the Republicans aren't coming to the ball. Yes it is now one sided, but not for Obama's trying. All the Republicans are willing to offer is poison pills. |
Pete Mazurowski
Intermediate Member
Username: Pete_maz
Post Number: 425
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 01:37 am: |
|
It takes two to tango and the Republicans aren't coming to the ball.
Can't say as I disagree with this at all. I've been really frustrated at the Republicans' lack of meaningful alternatives to the Pelosi & Reid plans. I know DeMint had an alternative, but it had its own flaws. This is where sitting down & combining the best ideas from both sides would have been a good thing. Let's not bring up the dog & pony show they held on CSPAN recently, that's not what I'm talking about.
Yes it is now one sided, but not for Obama's trying. OK, here's one I can disagree with. Granted, writing the bill behind closed doors with no input from the Right came late in the game, but it was pretty emblematic of the entire process. The Left held the majority in both House & Senate, not to mention the Presidency, and they knew it. They didn't have to involve the Right.....so they didn't. I don't know if the Republicans would have done it any different. I like to think they would, but who the hell knows. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11452
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 01:56 am: |
|
Pete, I respectfully disagree with you, but your points are reasoned and not intended to provoke. My opinion is that most of the cries to start over are really veiled attempts to sink reform once and for all. I'm beginning to fear that would lead to the public giving up entirely on the ability of both Congress and the president to address critical issues and govern.
More moderate Republicans have been lured into an alliance with the Limbaugh wing of the party in the belief that by standing firm in opposition to anything the president advocates they are positioning themselves to govern again in the future. However, I fear the true goal of the ultraconservatives is beyond "starving the beast" of government, but instead to create a climate in which government is held in such disregard that governing becomes impossible except for the most basic of functions. I don't see how such a major nation could endure in the world today. |
Nephalist
Intermediate Member
Username: Nephi
Post Number: 275
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 06:13 am: |
|
Bill,
You're saying you think ultraconservatives would choose a non-functioning but large government in place of their ideal of limited government? That may be where this heads but I wouldn't have considered it in their playbook. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7019
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 02:21 pm: |
|
Naphalist, I think that they think they can achieve their stated goal of some sort of "limited government" by making the current government "non-functioning." In other words, the non-functioning part is a means to an end, not the final goal. How a non-functioning government can maintain its status as a global power is beyond me. |
Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 2236
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 02:32 pm: |
|
And again I repeat, I can't believe you guys actually believe the Dems are doing this because they feel bad for people without insurance. This is a power grab to gain control over 1/6th of our economy period. THEY ARE POLITICIANS, they couldn't care less if you are healthy or not Dan, they just want to buy your future votes. They are only interested in power and control. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11454
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 03:02 pm: |
|
Mike, do you believe that the rationale for government-mandated health insurance in virtually all of the developed world apart from the US was "a power grab to gain control over 1/6 of our economy period"? |
Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 2237
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 03:09 pm: |
|
Bill I would have to say we would have to review that on a country by country basis. Many of the countries that provide government funded health insurance are socialist in nature so it's part of the fundamentals of their government. Much to the current administration's dismay we do not have a socialist government in this country. Not yet anyway.
Like I said earlier, until the Dems get serious about actual reform instead of just blaming everything on the insurance companies and throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at a problem that money won't fix, I'm not buying it. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7020
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 03:26 pm: |
|
I suppose, Mike, you don't see the Republican resistance to this as an attempted "power grab." Frankly I doubt that they really want to protect the insurance companies any more that they want to save us from "socialism." They want back in power and they see blocking health insurance reform as a means of getting there.
"THEY ARE POLITICIANS, they couldn't care less if you are healthy or not Dan, they just want to buy your future votes. They are only interested in power and control."
Please explain how the Republicans cannot be described equally this way.
Oh, it is only 1/12th of the economy, the other 12th being all ready under government control via Medicare. |
Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 2238
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 03:36 pm: |
|
Dan, I'm not saying the GOP is any better. I agree with you, they are obstructing because they are power hungry as well. I'm pretty well convinced there isn't a single person in the current administration or Congress that is interested in anything but power. I believe I will be voting for "anyone but the incumbent" in every upcoming election.
But anyway, yes, we need reform. This thing we are looking at today is not reform. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 824
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 03:37 pm: |
|
"Did not strike me as much of an answer. Is not the goal of tort reform, if you don't count derailing health care insurance reform, to limit jury awards?"
First of all, it is more of an answer than you ever give.
My thoughts are there are no jury awards as there are none when you buy AD&D insurance - unless there is gross malpractice due to a doctor doing something bad to the person on purpose and then only the doctor is liable - not the rest of us. There will not be awards over and above AD&D standards just because a doctor/hospital made a mistake. Lawyers, for the most part are taken out of the game - and that is why Democrats do not support it. And yes Republicans are using it as a way to kill the proposal.
To pay the awards, insurance companies have to contribute to a compensation pool just like banks have to do for FDIC.
There is my answer Dan - can you do better?
Why do you support a plan that will cost $1 Trillion and most likely you have not even read? |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7021
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 05:32 pm: |
|
I will answer your question first. You failed to mention that the Trillion is over ten years - a fraction of what we spend trying to fix up Iraq and make up for a botched attack on Afghanistan. Just a little perspective.
Pardon me from not reading legislation. I doubt that you have read it either.
So you feel that you can give a "one size fits all" sorts of awards to the malpractice of doctors, if you pardon my "strawman." Did you address my concern about someone who did not die, but will require very high maintence for the rest of their lives? |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 825
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 07:39 pm: |
|
A Trillion over 10 years is just an estimate. History tells us it will be much more. The spending on Iraq and Afghanistan is completely non-relevent. Why not throw in the Cash for Clunkers, or the bank bail outs?
"Pardon me from not reading legislation. I doubt that you have read it either"
No I haven't, but I don't support it nor do I DEFEND it to the ferver that you do. I believe that if you support it like you do, you have an obligation to read it.
"So you feel that you can give a "one size fits all" sorts of awards to the malpractice of doctors, if you pardon my "strawman." Did you address my concern about someone who did not die, but will require very high maintence for the rest of their lives?"
Sometimes life deals you a very bad hand and it sucks and emphathy abounds however, you will have to deal with it within the means of support that that can be afforded - not justified by a lawyer that will reap millions themselves. There are all sorts of bad hands, not just fiscal. There are financial as well. How about all the Bernie Madoff victims that are now elderly and are left with nothing? After all, they have a need based on someone doing something bad to them too? I am sure we can come up with and endless list of victims with a need for compensation. In the end though, it us you and I who pay for this, not some nameless entity. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11456
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 08:56 pm: |
|
Tort reform is a worthy issue to be addressed, but linking it to health insurance reform is a tactic to oppose and defeat the latter. Tort reform deserves a comprehensive and fair discussion in a less politically charged atmosphere than the current debate. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 826
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Bill, how do you achieve the cost savings needed to make this work without tort reform at least being addressed in some serious manner up front? The fact that they do not want to touch it leaves me with very little confidence that their cost savings will be real let alone achieved. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11458
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - 10:44 pm: |
|
Ron, first let's find a way to ensure that virtually everyone is covered by health insurance. Then let's address the tort reform issue, of which medical malpractice is only a part. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 7022
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2010 - 01:43 am: |
|
Ron, those with high maintence costs would blow a cieling quickly and end up on the dole - you and me would be paying for the doctor's screw up. Here is the ultimate Republican retort, "Taxes would go up!"
No Bill, everything depends on tort reform. . . . |
Pivo Cerveza
Junior Member
Username: Pivo
Post Number: 43
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 07:11 am: |
|
Tort reform could cut health care spending about 1/2 of one percent:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
Some states have already implemented it, so that part of the savings has already been realized, so this is really a non-issue.
This country is long overdue for health insurance reform. The idea that you could be one job loss and one sickness away from financial ruin for yourself and your family is unacceptable. Even though this bill isn't exactly what I had in mind when the process started, it does some basic things that we really need - stop insurance companies from refusing to insure somebody due to pre-existing conditions, keep them from dropping sick people, and require everybody to get insurance to help spread the risk among the population.
One other thing that gets me is the talk about abortion coverage. Do anti-abortion people only care about the lives of unwanted unborn children? What about the lives of wanted children of uninsured mothers? This country has a long way to go on infant mortality, so insurance reform should help to move our numbers in the right direction. Shouldn't that be a position of people who claim to be pro-life? |
HEU Brewer
Intermediate Member
Username: Heu_brewer
Post Number: 477
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 05:00 pm: |
|
While a generalization, I have found it to be true that
Oil Companies
Insurance companies
Large financial institutions
have never done anything for my "best interest". Usually if they are in favor of it it will cost me more. I am always reminded of the phrase "In order to serve you better..." which is followed by added fees and cuts in service |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 11470
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 05:21 pm: |
|
The last time I saw my banker (in Canada 90 percent of the assets are controlled by five banks) I said, "You know, every time I hear from you I assume that what I am being told is in your interest and not in mine." She looked hurt, and I went on to say, "It's up to you to prove otherwise." She changed the subject and went on to other matters. |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 828
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 08:44 pm: |
|
Okay, I am willing to revise my view basis was Pivo submitted - good facts.
HEU - I have found the exact same thing to be true of individuals - after all, companies are all run by individuals. The same kind individuals you want to health care.
Bill - that's the nature of the financial system. |
Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 2240
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2010 - 11:54 pm: |
|
"While a generalization, I have found it to be true that
Oil Companies
Insurance companies
Large financial institutions
have never done anything for my "best interest". Usually if they are in favor of it it will cost me more. I am always reminded of the phrase "In order to serve you better..." which is followed by added fees and cuts in service"
No doubt...the only people who I've seen that are worse are politicians. |
World Expressions