Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said he expects there to be
somewhere close to 250 House members to vote for the plan to defund Obamacare in the Continuing Resolution (CR) on Friday, when House GOP leadership brings the plan up for a vote.
“I would predict that will we get closer to 250 votes,” Meadows said at a Conversations with Conservatives (CWC) press event that the Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey moderated on Thursday. “If you look at the Democrats, 25 of the most competitive Democratic races are outlined. Twenty-one of those people voted with us to delay the individual mandate. Now if that says that they aren’t paying attention to what the people say back home I don’t know what is. They’re having to vote so that they justify that.
Meadows added that “I’m hopeful that we get an overwhelming majority tomorrow, and I believe that we will.”
217 comments:
1 – 200 of 217 Newer› Newest»FORCE THE SENTATE DEMOCRATS TO RE-VOTE ON OBAMACARE.
doesn't matter if it goes down in flames in the senate. The democrats need to eat it.
How many times is this? Talk about the perfect representation of an ineffectual do-nothing congress.
What does it say about the intellectual honesty of a party that votes for Obamacare on party line vote, in the dead of night... - But now - these same democrats cannot stand behind Obamacare and they are actually hiding behind republicans and voting against it. In the House.
If Obamacare is so amazing - why not re-vote for it and stand behind it?
Come on democrats. Where is your integrity?
Actually - voting to defund something most Americans do not want falls under the category of:
"Doing something".
The "doing something" doesn't fit the leftwing media narrative. That's why all we hear from Chris Matthews' types is the empty canard - "Republican obstructionism".
Meaningless rhetoric from the party loyalty contingent.
Or as I like to call it - Losing the argument.
Q: Does the end justify the means?
A: We all get off the bus at different stops.
Colorado house rep Betsy Markey(D) voted for Obamacare, now she is out of a job. One term, and her ass is gone.
More please.
You forced through a law entirely on partisan vote that is devastating the jobs and lives of your constituents, and badly crippling an already long-term weak economy. It's so bad that the people who passed it got waivers for themselves and all their influential friends, and you just stand by and let it happen.
The Dems have tied us to the tracks and now they and their donors stand safely aside as the train bears down on us. The punishment can't be swift, but it should be severe in 2016.
As this clusterfuck tears through the society over the next few years Dems will try every trick of rhetoric to blame the Repubs for it. Republican need to do whatever they can to stop it and make clear their opposition to it.
If it works out well for the country, then the Dems deserve the credit. They have that. Hahahahahah!
Well, this is the way Mr Roberts wanted it done, apparently.
Just for giggles, here is the text of the Continuing Resolution up for debate now.
Maybe I missed it, but see if you can find a line specifically prohibiting funding of any kind for the ACA? What I see is an *ommission* of an ACA allocation under the H&HS section, presumably acting as "defunding."
It makes no difference worded that way...any funding allocated to H&HS may be re-allocated as H&HS sees fit under the CR rules, not to mention funds from other allocations at the administration's discretion.
Think not? Okay, tell me who would stop them? It's never been "stopped" before, and Justice is rather unlikely...aw, you know.
If I have missed a section in my scanning of the text, please tell me and correct me.
edutcher .... Justice Roberts wanted only one thing, to not have his court ignored by the Executive Branch and/or Congress. He was very aware of the precedents, from Andrew Jackson's time up to the recent absolute defiance of the Federal Court's ruling on the NLRB.
His absurd semantic leap would have both S. I. Hayakawa and Wendall Johnson spinning in their graves.
The lame ass Republicans think they can win by just being nominally against Obamacare while still being party to it's implementation. Maybe the Republican party can, but these Repubs that go along to get along should be gone next chance we get.
These guys get crazy nutcase candidates running against them sometimes, and that guarantees their reelection, but I don't think any of those nuts were insane enough to cause the damage this law will.
A true conservative - even a crazy one - is still safer in office than a sane progressive. That's the nature of conservatism. First, do no harm.
We need a straight up and down vote on defunding Obama care to separate the sheep from the goats.
phx said...
How many times is this? Talk about the perfect representation of an ineffectual do-nothing congress.
Doesn't matter. It's all kabuki. Besides, you've never told us why you favored this law as opposed to other more sound solutions.
Besides, you've never told us why you favored this law as opposed to other more sound solutions.
I never said I favored this over other solutions - I did favor it over doing NOTHING which is what we had for one administration after another as congress failed to act. So we got a health care bill at last.
In my view it's time to fix what we can agree on needs fixing in ACA and stop the bullshit waste-of-time exercises trying to defund Obamacare.
Here's What Boehner said:
“The American people don’t want the government shut down, and they don’t want Obamacare,”
Here's what Pelosi said:
Democrats said the bill was an outrage that exposed Republicans’ true intention of trying to force a government shutdown.
“It is a wolf in wolf’s clothing,” [tired meaningless cliché] said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat. “Either you don’t know what you’re doing or this is one of the most intentional acts of brutality you’ve cooked up.”
Wow. Demagogue much, Nancy?
The House controls the purse strings. So if the House votes to defund doesn't that kill Obamacare no matter what the Senate vote is?
The House controls the purse strings. So if the House votes to defund doesn't that kill Obamacare no matter what the Senate vote is?
Yes. However, the Senate can refuse to pass any other bill unless ObamaCare IS funded. Thus the threat of a government shutdown looming over all.
Phx- I view repealing bad laws as doing something positive.
Phx- I view repealing bad laws as doing something positive.
If you're talking about ACA I don't see why you think it's being repealed. It hasn't been in the 40-some other times the House tried. Does anyone believe it's going to be repealed from this effort?
Or will it redound on Republicans as Dems continue to paint them as irresponsible stewards of our nation's legislature?
" I did favor it over doing NOTHING which is what we had for one administration after another as congress failed to act. So we got a health care bill at last.'
Better than nothing is a high standard. The ACA is far worse than nothing, that's why everyone who learned what's in it, is trying to get a waiver.
It's not fixable. The problem is that it's thousands of pages of choice-snuffing, competition and innovation killing micromanagement. Another 1000 pages of amendments won't improve it. Does that ever improve legislation?
One of the biggest failures of it is it's impenetrable complexity and breadth. It needs scrapped first before any real improvements can be made to the healthcare that most Americans already liked, and are now terrified of losing which they already have.
Any attempts to fix it will, as with the tax code, end up being carve outs for campaign donors at 500 pages each.
" Does anyone believe it's going to be repealed from this effort? "
Millions of Americans are hoping for that, and their jobs as well as their lives depend on it. It's worth the effort, success or not.
I do not want "Obamacare" replaced with anything; I want it repealed in toto.
And then I want Congress to go to work repealing all the other statutes they have passed screwing up the insurance business.
However, I am not going to get that. The "wise men" say you cannot govern from one house of Congress, and that "Obamacare" and the debt ceiling raise must be allowed to pass. If so, then maybe what the Republican Pary in Congress should do, is stand aside - vote "present" - and let the Democrats pass these statutes on a partyline vote.
Millions of Americans are hoping for that
I think Americans are ready to move on, but House Republicans will continue to demagogue this ("their jobs as well as their lives depend on it") even after they fail here.
Prospects for the GOP, even its moderate representatives, probably won't improve.
Move on to what? Compassionate enslavement.
The American people are fed up with the corruption from the Democrat party.
Democrats only win at this point, if they cheat.
This never gets old.
People are finding out what's in it and asking for a waiver.
And you only obtain a waiver if you're a donor, a crony, or a political insider.
phx may want to read up on the Biblical tale of the Tower of Babel as well as the failure of the English Republic 1650-60.
Three questions, for both sides:
1. Has anyone actually read the Joint House & Senate Continuing Resolution? I posted a link for it at 10:56 AM this morning.
2. Does anyone, either side, actually believe that the Joint Continuing Resolution, as worded, will actually "de-fund" anything?
3. Why do you, either side, think so?
I'll listen. Really. [Not that it matters.]
The progressive left's hatred and psychotic obsession with Ted Cruz is getting alarmingly dangerous.
"Yes. However, the Senate can refuse to pass any other bill unless ObamaCare IS funded. Thus the threat of a government shutdown looming over all."
Exactly, and in the "Alice-in-wonderland" MSM this means the House Republicans are shutting down the government!
Aridog - I have a hard time reading legalese. I'm not a lawyer -not even close.
After skimming the thing, it reads to me like they are continuing to spend way more money that they are taking in.
Exactly, and in the "Alice-in-wonderland" MSM this means the House Republicans are shutting down the government!
Hahaha! I think the American public can see extortion for what it is - if not the "lame-stream media" will help. They'll be held accountable. But nice attempt to portray that accountability as an "Alice-in-Wonderland" moment. You added just the right tone of victimization to your post!
Aridog - I have a hard time reading legalese. I'm not a lawyer -not even close.
I didn't read it either. I couldn't actually access it from where I am.
AprilApple said...
The progressive left's hatred and psychotic obsession with Ted Cruz is getting alarmingly dangerous.
It's not dangerous, it's downright psychotic. Allan Brauer needs to be fired and shamed for what he said. Won't happen though cause he's a democrat. Shocker. Scumbag.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center was expected to cut several hundred more jobs this week as part of a plan to eliminate more than 1,000 positions by the end of the year.
The Tennessean reports the latest round of layoffs is part of the medical center's plan to cut $250 million from its $3.3 billion operating budget over the next two fiscal years.
About 300 people were laid off earlier this summer, but that round of cuts did not count toward the final tally of cut jobs, which Vanderbilt has reported will be 1,033.
The latest eliminations were expected to start as early as Tuesday.
June 11, 2013
University of Maryland Medical Center to begin layoffs
"The University of Maryland Medical Center will send layoff notices to employees at the end of the month as it looks to cut costs in the wake of federal budget cuts and what it and other state hospitals have called inadequate rate increases.
Jeffrey Rivest, president and CEO of the Baltimore hospital, sent an email to managers Tuesday that said individual letters regarding layoffs would be given out June 25, 26 and 27.
...It said last month that its Maryland General hospital in Baltimore would close its obstetrics unit June 30. About 50 employees, including 10 to 15 doctors and midwives are expected to lose their jobs, although they can apply for others within the UMMS system."
___________________________________
June 21, 2013
"Approximately 65 employees at the University of Maryland Medical Center will be getting laid off.
The medical facility says that a cut in Medicare pay brought about by the federal sequester and the low rate increases from the Health Services Cost Review Commission are two of the reasons behind the job cuts.
Hospital officials say that next week’s layoffs, coupled with another round of layoffs at the end of this summer, should help them save about $20 million."
September 18, 2013
New vision leads to layoffs at Texas Medical Center
"Departure of 96 workers is first step as institution adopts new role
The corporation that manages Houston's mammoth complex of medical institutions has laid off 40 percent of its workforce as part of a re-imagining of its identity from managing parking to facilitating research collaboration.
Dr. Robert Robbins, president of the Texas Medical Center, announced Tuesday that 96 of the corporation's 237 employees were dismissed earlier in the day, the first step in his plan to make the corporation's new emphasis the creation of centers that unite the work of its 54 member institutions."
June 20, 2013
"Haemonetics (manufacturer of blood processing technology) is closing the doors on its operations in Massachusetts and Italy as it transfers manufacturing to plants in Malaysia & Mexico and hires Sanmina Corp. to take over its Bay State site's production."
"Republicans will continue to demagogue this ("their jobs as well as their lives depend on it")"
Yes, I'm sure smart people think that overhauling 1/6th of the economy and every aspect of their healthcare from Washington will not affect either jobs or health. It's just demagoguery or something. It's the reality-based community and all.
September 19, 2013
Layoffs ahead for Covidien
"Mansfield, Mass.-based Covidien says it plans to consolidate its manufacturing and distribution operations as part of a global restructuring aimed at saving up to $300 million a year by fiscal 2018, with manufacturing and distribution operations slated to be closed. Covidien did not reveal how many layoffs would be involved.
Covidien said the plan is expected to run up $350 million to $450 million in pre-tax charges by the end of fiscal 2018, generating savings of between $250 million to $300 million beginning next year and accelerating in fiscal 2015. About $100 million worth of the pre-tax cost will come from facility closures, Covidien said, with the balance coming from severance and termination costs."
Massachusetts medical device maker Covidien (NYSE:COV)
September 18, 2013
WAYNESBURG, Pa. (AP) — "The Southwest Regional Medical Center is cutting 29 jobs and reducing some services.
The Washington Observer-Reporter (http://bit.ly/19f6Nr40 ) reports that the 29 employees in different areas were notified Monday. But 14 chose retirement, leaving 15 non-voluntary layoffs. The hospital is located about 50 miles south of Pittsburgh."
It's like there's a trend or something.
Aug. 13, 2013
PORTLAND, Maine
"Maine Medical Center on Tuesday afternoon announced a slate of personnel and payroll cuts, including the elimination of 175 positions, layoffs of 50 employees and 12.5 percent reductions in compensation for top hospital administrators.
According to a hospital announcement, the institution faced a late fiscal year 2013 budget gap triggered by reductions in payments from the government and commercial payers, as well as an increase in care for patients who cannot afford to pay, among other factors.
That financial shortfall reached approximately $15 million for the fiscal year that runs from Oct. 1, 2012, to Sept. 30 of this year...
In addition to the layoffs, compensation cuts for administrators and elimination of vacant positions, the hospital announced Tuesday that more than 120 employees took advantage of an early retirement package that was offered last month. Those 120 came from a group of 374 who were eligible...
In May, Maine Medical Center announced a hiring and travel freeze in an attempt to control the emerging budget crisis."
How many times is this? Talk about the perfect representation of an ineffectual do-nothing congress.
Indeed, Obama keeps bringing his budget to the Senate, which rejects it with unanimous consent year after year. Good point, phx!
President Obama July, 22, 2009:
“So part of what we want to do is to free doctors, patients, hospitals to make decisions based on what's best for patient care -- and that's the whole idea behind Mayo, that's the whole idea behind the Cleveland Clinic. I'm going to be visiting your hometown tomorrow to go to the Cleveland Clinic to show -- to show why their system works so well. And part of the reason it works well is because they've set up a system where patient care is the number-one concern, not bureaucracy, what forms have to be filled out, what do we get reimbursed for. Those are changes that I think the American people want to see.”
Sept. 19, 2013
CLEVELAND– Cleveland Clinic, Northeast Ohio’s largest employer, announced that it plans to make big budget cuts.
The Clinic employs 43,000 people worldwide, about 39,000 here in Northeast Ohio.
Cleveland Clinic plans to trim $330 million from its budget in 2014. CEO and President, Dr. Toby Cosgrove, addressed employees during a meeting, Wednesday morning.
“It absolutely concerns me. Everybody wants to keep their job and we want to do the best that we can do, but it’s a new era and we don’t know what to expect. But I believe the administration is just trying to prepare for whatever could happen and make sure that we’re strong,” said Cleveland Clinic employee Joanne Lyons.
A Cleveland Clinic spokeswoman told FOX 8 that the move is in response to healthcare reform laws.
read more
As I once said, this is less popular than Prohibition. Right now, it only has 30% support.
And, once it goes into effect, that figure will be cut in half.
PS Ari, I was speaking facetiously earlier.
Indeed, Obama keeps bringing his budget to the Senate, which rejects it with unanimous consent year after year. Good point, phx!
Every year, let's see, Leland, what is that? Six years?
And how many times have the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to defund Obamacare? Let's see, five, six, seven...
Oh, forty-freakin-seven times.
Good point, Leland!
Sept. 18, 2013
SALISBURY, MD. — Peninsula Regional Medical Center announced today it is laying off 58 employees and offering voluntary buyout packages to 130 more as the health-care provider struggles with plummeting inpatient volumes and reimbursement shortfalls.
“This is health care’s new reality.”
read more
And how many times have the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to defund Obamacare? Let's see, five, six, seven...
Oh, forty-freakin-seven times.
And yet the do-nothing Senate doesn't vote on it. Again, you are making excellent points today, phx.
You're darn right I made a good point about this extremist Republican congressional House that is being led by the nose by Tea Party extremists.
It's the extremists, who live in protected districts where ultra-conservative voters will send them back again and again to the House, who are wagging the dog here. But IMO it will be the moderate Republicans, led by John Boehner, who will pay the real price.
I don't see this helping the GOP in any way.
I should also say how proud I am of you, phx, for not just resulting to ad hominem attacks and comments like "fuck you", today. I'm glad your able to occassionally keep your cussing in check.
If it's any consolation I do think your "how proud I am of you" comment is the most childish remark I've read all day.
AprilApple ... you are correct, it presumes expenditures at 95%+ of those for 2013, whihc was a massive deficient, as we know.
Phx ...if and when you are able to read the pdf file from the government documents website I linked, see if you find any reference to the Affordable Care Act, up or down? It is ommitted,l not referred to, thus unaddressed...
And THIS *void* is what Democrats are calling Republican intransigence, with great animosity and vigor. And Republicans are likewise claiming the Democrats want to shut down the government with equal vigor. Actually both are claiming both want to shut everything down.
It is total bullshit and both sides know it. The ACA is NOT fucking addressed in the Joint Continuing Resolution. CR's allow 95% of prior period expenditure, without additional appropriation, whether or not it is cited in the CR.
What IS addressed is the idea that this CR should just go ahead and cover the entirety of 2014 ...e.g., they no longer have any intention of forming a budget to vote up or down, now or later. Just fuck it...pass this weenie piece of pigeon flatulence and be done with it.
Congress folk, both Democrat and Republican, have surrendered their primary function to the executive autocracy. Both sides should be very discomforted by that situation.
Or will it redound on Republicans as Dems continue to paint them as irresponsible stewards of our nation's legislature?
You mean like the Democrats, who started this whole no-budget non-sense when they controlled both houses?
bagoh20 said...
The lame ass Republicans think they can win by just being nominally against Obamacare while still being party to it's implementation.
It has nothing to do with their willingness. Republicans can't repeal Obamacare because there aren't enough of them in the Senate and White House.
Ari, I'm apparently not on either side, but I'll answer your questions:
1. Has anyone actually read the Joint House & Senate Continuing Resolution?
I have not, and do not intend to. I expect it to be the usual drivel from Congress and would thus prefer to pass.
2. Does anyone, either side, actually believe that the Joint Continuing Resolution, as worded, will actually "de-fund" anything?
No, I believe this is all for show. It's a chance for various people to be able to say they were against it before they were for it before they were against it before they were for it again.
3. Why do you, either side, think so?
I have no faith in the Democrats to do anything other than add to the government in the most onerous fashion possible for the people, and I think there are maybe four Republicans that give a damn about more than their own re-election.
If this thing were really going to get de-funded, the Republicans could start by re-instituting some good government, doing their job and passing a budget, a process which the Democrats under Reid, Pelosi and Obama abandoned several years ago in an effort to keep the government in permanent crisis mode. Since the Republicans aren't even trying to push the budget issue, I don't believe anything else they're trying to do amounts to anything other than pure grandstanding.
The progressive left's hatred and psychotic obsession with Ted Cruz is getting alarmingly dangerous.
None of this is new. It's been standard operating procedure for Democrats and leftists since, oh, the time of Lenin, anyway.
I have two employees- our health insurance premiums went up by 24% this month.
The local county just announced their employee health insurance costs will increase by 9% and that does not include the portion of the increase being assessed to the employees.
Yeah these are anecdotes but I say the Obama and Dem claim that current premium increases are lower than the historical average is a pack of lies.
phx talks about accountability, and how the Republicans should be held accountable for this situation. Note that he will not hold Reid, Pelosi and Obama accountable for completely shredding their responsibility to actually create a budget every year. That was done during absolute Democratic control of Congress and the White House.
But accountability is only for people that aren't part of the Democratic Party.
Every year, let's see, Leland, what is that? Six years?
And how many times have the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to defund Obamacare? Let's see, five, six, seven...
Oh, forty-freakin-seven times.
Good point, Leland!
It's a great point. Republicans can at least get votes for their proposals. Obama usually can't even get one DEMOCRAT to vote for his budgets. And then the Democrats, all in a snit, refuse to pass any budget. The stuff of good governance!
"I don't see this helping the GOP in any way."
I bet that's about as important to you as it to me. You're a very compassionate sweetheart.
Icepick said...
phx talks about accountability, and how the Republicans should be held accountable for this situation.
phx's only purpose here is propaganda. That's why he never advances anything other than negative talking points about Republicans/conservatives. He never addresses the weaknesses of the left's policies. His only purpose is attacking the right.
He should just be ignored.
There are two of those videos...
"Yeah these are anecdotes"
Data = anecdotes X n, and n is growing like an epidemic.
The majority of voters chose Obama. I didn't like the outcome, but it is what it is. ObamaCare has been forced onto the population, who didn't have a clue what was in the bill, but it was passed, and it is what it is. Me thinks that the people of this country should be made to eat this shit sandwich. Perhaps if enough people loose their jobs or lose working hours so that their employers can continue to exist, it is what it is. Someday, hopefully soon, people will finally realize that they need to pay more attention to who they vote for. Until then, eat your shit sandwich. Me? I'm just along for the ride.
Pogo, here in Orlando at least one of the major hospital groups laid workers off earlier this year. I'm too lazy to go find the links, but it DOES look a bit like a trend.
Pogo knows the most on this topic. We should listen.
They need to move beyond defunding ObamaCare and also start detaxing ObamaCare. All of those "taxes" that are imposed for failing to comply with the individual mandate and employer mandates need to be repealed. That is even more key. If people are free to simply ignore the ObamaCare law with impunity, if there is zero teeth in it, then that will bring it down that much faster.
Bender said...
If people are free to simply ignore the ObamaCare law with impunity, if there is zero teeth in it, then that will bring it down that much faster.
The key is to (a) win the Presidency, then (b) announce anyone requesting an Obamacare waiver will be granted one.
Problem solved.
Anyone listen to Rush today? Mark Steyn was on instead. (such a relief as he's so much better)
He mentioned the psycho democrat in Sacramento ALLEN BRAUER who wished death upon anyone who dare speak out against Obamacare.
and specifically wished death upon Ted Cruz's children.
That's how the left debate health care. Shut up. oh and if you dare disagree w/ big government run health care, you and your kids should die.
That's the debate on the left.
Kind of Nazi, these modern democrat politicians in power.
Bender said...
They need to move beyond defunding ObamaCare and also start detaxing ObamaCare. All of those "taxes" that are imposed for failing to comply with the individual mandate and employer mandates need to be repealed. That is even more key. If people are free to simply ignore the ObamaCare law with impunity, if there is zero teeth in it, then that will bring it down that much faster.
Back in January, Orrin Hatch and Lamar Alexander introduced the American Liberty Restoration Act: "A bill to restore Americans' individual liberty by striking the Federal mandate to purchase insurance." It’s been sitting in committee ever since. And Cruz isn’t listed as one of the bill’s sponsors.
People also aren't aware how many questions the Govt. will require to be asked in the doctor's office before getting any service.
That is, whatever symptoms or disease or problem you are concerned about is a distant second to gathering data data data about you, and transmitting it to the Govt.
You have a problem you want addressed?
Well, STFU. We got Health Care to deliver, and yer gonna get it, good and hard.
If we got time left over (heh), maybe we'll talk about your goddamned knees, but don't hold your breath.
Oh, you got diarrhea?
Too bad. I need to lecture you about HPV and safe sex and whatever fad of the month the Govt. has this month.
See, the transaction is between the Govt. and the "Providers".
You?
Well, what are you, but an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese?
The only way to reduce medical costs is to cut salaries or cut staff in medical centers. Anyone who has run a business knows this. I would like to see both things happen. Hard for me to feel bad about lay-offs at medical centers. We currently pay twice as much as other countries do for, at best, comparable care.
I think this time there is actually a fairly good chance that The People might actually support a defund (unlike the other times). Now, regular folks are seeing the monetary consequences of Obamacare and are finally realizing that there's no way back.
15,000 kicked off of UPS's health plan
160,000 with Walgreen's are being moved to private exchanges
Our own family (along with millions of others) is waiting for our open enrollment to begin next month. We had a $125/ month increase last year.
A leftist fb friend's employer just dropped coverage. He can't afford the exchange prices.
I think people might be starting to get it. This law needs to go away.
So who is it exactly that is going to see all these "newly insured" patients then, ARM?
Laid-off MDs and NPs?
Who's gonna check their meds, laid-off RNs?
Are laid-off techs going to draw their blood? Will patients draw it themselves?
There are currently severe shortages of MDs across the nation. How does firing staff get people seen, pray tell?
What a moronic comment.
"The only way to reduce medical costs is to cut salaries or cut staff in medical centers."
Of course, if you fired everyone in medicine, there'd be no costs at all.
Dumbass.
ARM, I think we can agree that there is probably a lot of administration bloat tying up the health care system.
But trust me, we've got it good here. I just had a fb friend who was born in Australia complain about the US health care system in regards to having a baby and compared it to her mother's experience in Australia. Her Australian fb friends set her straight pretty quickly. The ones that went with the "free" option had four other roommates during their convalescence and couldn't wait to get out. The other ones paid for a Private hospital that sounded pretty comparable to my experience here. A couple of grand was worth the price for them.
"The only way to reduce medical costs is to cut salaries or cut staff in medical centers."
Seriously, I don't know if I've ever read anything this stupid in the past 12 months. And that counts things John Kerry and Demi Moore have said.
Pogo said...
So who is it exactly that is going to see all these "newly insured" patients then, ARM?
First of all, much medical care is wasteful. More rational treatment decisions would address your concerns.
The big picture is that run away medical costs are killing the economic life of our county. We pay too much as a country for medical care and it makes us uncompetitive in the global economy. Most workers in the health care field earn too much relative to comparable workers in other countries.
Cut salaries or workers, or reduce the number of unnecessary procedures, it is a simple equation.
The administrative bloat is 99% government-mandated.
And the bloat just went up 100% from that. You would not believe the amount of data being required. All for "free."
Some doctors I know are switching to taking care of patients from other countries and the wealthy, and no one else.
The only way to mandate that health care providers cover you no matter what is to force price controls. this will kill off a lot of competition, and the health care provider market will shrink until it's been absorbed by the federal government. This is by design.
Meanwhile, we will all pay more through the taxes and higher premiums and the standard of care will diminish. The grand bargain will be when we all have to ask permission from the government to have a life saving treatment.
"...reduce the number of unnecessary procedures"
Spoken like an idiot.
Tell me what is "unnecessary."
I mean completely useless and unnecessary, and the proof that that is so.
Show me your cards, smart guy.
It'll be easy.
Name me ten procedures that are unnecessary and why.
Tell me who is doing them.
It must be easy for you, as clearly you already know they are pointless procedures.
Data. Now.
Birches said...
ARM, I think we can agree that there is probably a lot of administration bloat tying up the health care system.
But trust me, we've got it good here. I just had a fb friend who was born in Australia complain about the US health care system in regards to having a baby and compared it to her mother's experience in Australia. Her Australian fb friends set her straight pretty quickly. The ones that went with the "free" option had four other roommates during their convalescence and couldn't wait to get out. The other ones paid for a Private hospital that sounded pretty comparable to my experience here.
It is funny you bring up Australia because I lived there for some time and can directly compare the two systems. The Australian system is much better in my view. Much simpler to navigate and you are not going to go bankrupt or be denied care because of prior conditions.
Anecdotal experience is just that, anecdotal experience. The bottom line is that the medical system in the US is eating up our productivity gains as well as making us less competitive globally. Something has to change.
They are firing nurses and other health care providers in order to hire the people who will sit and write the government run health care software.
Pivot!
Most workers in the health care field earn too much relative to comparable workers in other countries.
I can't believe he just said that.
"The big picture is that run away medical costs are killing the economic life"
Oh, bullshit.
Runaway government is killing business.
Now you've gone and said two extraordinarily stupid things in one thread.
Go for the trifecta.
So your anecdotal experience trumps the five ladies on fb?
Got it.
Health care insurance should be like any other insurance. You buy it to protect yourself from the big stuff. The rest is out of pocket.
Now people want free sniffles care and free Kleenex care and free I have an ouchy care.
"The bottom line is that the medical system in the US is eating up our productivity gains..."
Bullshit.
Obama is destroying productivity with his economic fuck you letter to the USA, dated 2008.
Pogo I assume that you work in the medical field. Are you claiming that not one of your colleagues is not regularly performing unnecessary or unnecessarily expensive procedures?
You clearly know that there are unnecessary procedures, ARM, as you stated.
Name five.
Hell, name three.
Every other business has to cut salaries or workers, or increase efficiency to deal with cost overruns. Why is the medical field exempt? Run away medical care costs are killing this county economically. It is very simple.
Fuck, name one.
Tell me the name of one completely unnecessary procedure.
Oh, did you mean that some legitimate procedures are done for no good reason at all?
OK, name it. What is the procedure, and why was it unnecessary. Name me ten cases, and why they were bogus.
You must have this information somewhere, as you made the claim right off.
So where is it?
Data. Now.
You didn't answer my question Pogo. We both know what the answer is however.
You've got the data or you're lying, is all I can conclude.
The democrat party has been systematically dismantling the private health care market for decades. An HMO here... a PPO there - tinkering and manipulating what should be run within the confines of a free and open market with honest competition. (Which weeds out the bad players!)
Now people want free shit and handouts and uncle richy rich is going to pay for it. Meanwhile medium and small businesses are being harmed BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT -into extinction.
People know what is best, not the fucking democrat party.
You still didn't answer my question.
"15,000 kicked off of UPS's health plan
160,000 with Walgreen's are being moved to private exchanges"
All those people are anecdotes, it's a new class soon to be a voting block: The Anecdotal Party.
Pogo,
You might be too old for that knee replacement. Just take a pain pill.
The highest drivers of medical costs are lawyers and people wanting miracles. One I'm willing to pay for, and the other I'm not.
bagoh20, I agree that lawyers are a parasitic element of the current system that should be largely eliminated. The sad reality is that neither group contributes much to our overall economic performance, which has been steadily fading for at least 30 years.
Pogo, as you know doubt well know, there is an entire cottage industry devoted to identifying either systematic examples of unnecessary procedures or particularly egregious examples of rorting the system through unnecessary procedures.
Here are examples of both:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-checkup/post/doctors-groups-call-for-end-to-unnecessary-procedures/2012/04/03/gIQAvrDptS_blog.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2013/02/17/400-patients-sue-kentucky-hospital-and-11-cardiologists-over-unnecessary-procedures/
The money supposed saved by laying off all those healthcare workers will be spent and then over-spent on government bureaucrats for their cushy pay and benefits for never touching, seeing or treating a single patient.
There will be no savings. Costs will rise and care will be sacrificed the exact same way educating students has been sold out to the benefit of teachers, administrators and education bureaucrats, with teachers getting the least of it. That's the way it will work with the ACA too. The closer you are to the patient the less benefit you will see from the system. Those rising up through the new bureaucracies far away will pad their offices and staff real nice through with junkets, seminars, and island resort training. Maybe well see a Star Trek skit with Doctor McCoy.
You really have to be an idiot to still buy this "government is gonna save money crap" at this late date in history.
bagoh20 said...
You really have to be an idiot to still buy this "government is gonna save money crap" at this late date in history.
But, systems in other countries that are run entirely by the government, like Australia, are in fact cheaper and more efficient systems that the US system.
I've used a lot of health care, and I don't see much waste with people, except that required by regulation and protection from legal parasites.
The facilities I've used, both high and low end, always seem understaffed. They are the opposite of something like the DMV where I need to make an appointment weeks in advance so I can go stand in line at the appointed time for hours watching state employees do their nails, check their phones, and stand in groups with one person working out of 4. I never see that kind of thing at medical facilities. The people are generally sharp and efficient, and clearly not hired to fill a quota.
The idea that the government is going to streamline a private industry is ridiculous.
This link is a reasonable discussion of the role of salaries in health care costs.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/02/american_doctors_are_overpaid_medicare_is_cheaper_than_private_insurance.html
"But, systems in other countries that are run entirely by the government, like Australia, are in fact cheaper and more efficient systems that the US system."
They are not. They result in much higher unemployment, and slower growth in those economies and that is never factored in. On the benefit side, their dependency on American and other free market drivers of innovation is never factored in either.
You are falling for well crafted bullshit designed to justify government power by studies mostly funded by the governments themselves.
bagoh20 said...
The idea that the government is going to streamline a private industry is ridiculous.
I think you are confusing the medical care system with other industries. In other industries there is usually intense price competition, which keeps them reasonably efficient, in general. This is simply not the case in the medical care industry, which leads to bloat.
American doctors are paid well because they are the best. If you are the best, you go where they reward that. They won't be coming or staying here anymore.
bagoh20 said...
They are not. They result in much higher unemployment, and slower growth in those economies and that is never factored in. On the benefit side, their dependency on American and other free market drivers of innovation is never factored in either.
Australia has lower unemployment and higher growth than the US and is at the forefront of medical research. In vivo fertilization was developed there and there have been multiple Australian Nobel prize winners in the medical research field.
Doctor's salaries are not the governments business.
If we had a system with real competition, prices and costs wouldn't be out of whack. It's due to government meddling in the first place that things are out of phase. That said, I'll still take the US system over just about any euro-socialist failure. Sure, "free" tax payer funded health care is fantastic if you are and remain young and healthy. But if you talk to anyone in Britain or Germany or Australia who has had to deal with the government run system- it's dreadful.
bagoh20 said...
American doctors are paid well because they are the best. If you are the best, you go where they reward that. They won't be coming or staying here anymore.
There is not much solid evidence to support this premise. Many US doctors are very good. I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. But many Australian and Italian doctors are also very good, no one really questions this.
AprilApple said...
Sure, "free" tax payer funded health care is fantastic if you are and remain young and healthy. But if you talk to anyone in Britain or Germany or Australia who has had to deal with the government run system- it's dreadful.
My parents are fucking old, and they currently live in Australia. They are happy with their medical care.
I have experienced medical care either directly or indirectly in the US, Australia and Italy. Like everything else, it comes down to the skill and the ability of the individual practitioner. Unless you want to argue that Australians and Italians are systematically stupider and less skilled than US citizens this is in fact the common sense result.
There is lots of competition in the medical business. Just look at the alphabet soup in the stock market.
The primary reason there isn;lt alot more competition is the high entry cost due to regulations. That and flat rules against competing across state lines, etc.
With the ACA the level of competition will nearly disappear and winners will be chosen for being being politically connected, not for excellence. More importantly there will be no choice. That is the main effect of government intrusion - loss of choices. Some people want quality and will pay, and some want a discount. We will get neither.
But, systems in other countries that are run entirely by the government, like Australia, are in fact cheaper and more efficient systems that the US system.
Australia actually has a mix of state and private health care coverage.
bagoh20, I think you misunderstand how single payer schemes work. The wealthy always have the option to to buy the most gold-plated medical care they might desire. They can hire their own private doctor if they so choose.
The wealthy always have options, in any of these systems.
Lydia said...
Australia actually has a mix of state and private health care coverage.
This is what I was just saying to Bagoh20, Australia has a basic single payer system with the wealthiest having the option to buy private insurance on top of this.
These are quotes from the article Lydia linked to:
"Australia has avoided the worst aspects of all-out private care, as exemplified by the US (high cost, lack of cover for the poor and chronic sick, which is only now being adjusted).
"It does well on the universally acknowledged standard of infant mortality, at 4.1 deaths per 1,000 live births (World Bank 2010). Life expectancy at birth for Australians in 2009 was 81.5 years"
"Health care expenditure in Australia as a proportion of GDP was 8.7 per cent in 2009, compared to an average of 9.6 in advanced (OECD) countries.
"Australia has lower unemployment and higher growth than the US and is at the forefront of medical research. In vivo fertilization was developed there and there have been multiple Australian Nobel prize winners in the medical research field.
Now that actually is anecdotal.
Since Australia instituted it's public healthcare system in 1984 the nation has produced 4 Nobel prizes in Medicine. During the same period the U.S. has produced 40.
But this isn't even a good measure, since what really matters is the production medical devices, procedures and drugs which predominantly come from private industry and in the U.S.. Even when produced elsewhere they are usually done so with the American market as the driving incentive and market funding as the mechanism.
That incentive to find miracles will be dampened. Altruism just isn't very productive comparatively.
That article on Australia also says that the state program, called Medicare, covers 100% of in-patient care but only three-quarters of primary care charges. And that has pushed half the population into buying private insurance to cover that gap and that has led to the government paying partial rebates for the private insurance policies.
Sounds complicated, and increasingly expensive.
"The wealthy always have options, in any of these systems."
I don't think anyone is really worried about that, except apparently rich congressmen who don't want to be in the ACA. Do they know they can just buy themselves better care without us buying it for them.
Lydia said...
Sounds complicated, and increasingly expensive.
In comparison to what? Certainly not the US system.
Something else that should figure into any discussion about health care systems is surely size. Australia's population, for instance, is 23 million; Calfornia alone is home to 38 million.
The American system is not complicated from my experience. I had $500,000 organ transplant that required a single page authorization that came immediately and without any argument or additional paperwork. I never had any contact with my insurer beyond that. I had my premium deducted from my check automatically for years, and once a year I signed a paper saying I wanted the coverage continued. Not real complicated.
bagoh20 said...
Since Australia instituted it's public healthcare system in 1984 the nation has produced 4 Nobel prizes in Medicine. During the same period the U.S. has produced 40.
US population: 313.9 million
Australian population: 22.68 million
Using your own numbers Australia is outperforming the US on this particular measure of innovation.
For what it's worth I don't disagree that in the past the US pharmaceutical industry was the unquestioned world leader with Britain and Switzerland worthy competitors. A very large captive market is a good thing for many companies. In recent years however the performance of the pharmaceutical industry has been mediocre or awful. In part this is due to increased competition from startups but a lot of their problems are self generated. Big, cumbersome, inefficient bureaucracies flourish in industry just as they do in government.
bagoh20 said...
The American system is not complicated from my experience.
You no doubt have gold-plated insurance, which you could have in any country. Insurance companies are always willing to provide premium services.
I don't know how many people hereabouts are directly affected by Obamacare. I am. I'm an adjunct, my wife stays home with our daughter, as her working would just about pay for daycare and another car. I have more than a full load of teaching, but no health insurance.
It has been an absolute mess the last two years. My wife and I pay for brokered health care, not very good but will get us in the door. Our daughter has been bounced around to three different programs. Each with different doctors, as California keeps shifting its responses.
So, from settled good care to everything in upheaval for worse care.
People who aren't getting health care from their employers know Obamacare has made things more expensive and more confusing. So much hassle now as the industry catches up. Meanwhile, for an adjunct like me, I know that full time jobs are scarce because schools don't want to add more full time faculty even if they are growing.
So, more hassle, more costs, less jobs available. That's what Obamacare has wrought for my family.
Pogo said...
Fucking stupid shits. What they mean is "I know what's good for you."
But this is why you hire any expert service provider, to tell you what is good for you. What you hope is that they actually are telling you what is good for you and not what is good for them financially. Human nature being what it is, this is not always the case. As any one who has had dealings with financial advisors knows, expert opinion must be weighed judicially by the recipient.
I've had to pay for and manage the health insurance for hundreds of people in my company for years. It has been pretty easy and problem free. Over decades of this, there hasn't been more than a handful of issues to resolve that took more than an hour two of work. I'd say the entire work load of it amounts to less than 1 hour per employee per year. The annual premium cost just recently passed $3,000/ employee most of which is paid by the company with automatic deductions the employee never has to hassle with. No arguments or battles with insurers, and very few complaints from employees. It's been a surprisingly clean, easy and affordable system.
From a study at the University of Melbourne in Australia: "Private health insurance rebate 'expensive and fiscally unsustainable'."
The study’s author wants to take that money and beef up the public system instead. Problem is, though, that folks want the choice of private care, but need some help in meeting the premiums.
This sounds like yet another fruitful exercise.
Whatever Republicans do, they should never question the presumed righteousness of their cause. Never questioning their righteousness means never having to figure out whether they're right or wrong, and that's a great quality to have in someone exercising power.
"You no doubt have gold-plated insurance, which you could have in any country. Insurance companies are always willing to provide premium services."
I have great insurance, and my employees have the exact same coverage and costs, and it's been cheap. The ACA has already made it jump by 25% in 2 years, and they estimate much higher costs going forward, which will require we cut back on coverage. Less coverage for more money.
But this is why you hire any expert service provider, to tell you what is good for you.
Careful, ARM. You never know which conservative physicians might grow to resent you for having to defend the competence presumed of them in this statement.
It's been a surprisingly clean, easy and affordable system.
For you.
But why trouble yourself with questioning whether or not your experience is the same as everyone else's experience?
It's rather remarkable that you seem to assume the status quo ante was a great system and acceptable to a broad majority.
Paddy O said...
I'm an adjunct
I don't doubt this sucks. Universities are cutting costs by hiring adjuncts who are generally getting shafted financially. As an adjunct you will almost certainly have to change jobs, repeatedly. If by horrible chance one of your family develops a serious illness you would get stuck and unable to move due to concerns about getting new insurance with a pre-existing condition. In principle Obamacare deals with this problem.
The legislation to deal with pre-existing conditions is vital to maintain job mobility and economic competitiveness.
So who is it exactly that is going to see all these "newly insured" patients then, ARM?
Laid-off MDs and NPs?
Hospitals and their administrators aren't stoopit. Stop being a poseur. They'll hire them back once all the uninsured that you've fought tooth and nail to keep locked out of the current market become available to the hospitals and provide the increased volume that will make up for those cuts.
Think about it. Your reluctance to do anything is essentially a defense of widespread underinsurance. It's not a responsible or credible position for someone who wants to engage the healthcare debate. At all.
I thought Obamacare was going to miraculously cut health care costs? Now, A Reasonable Man says we need to reduce the number of and cut the salaries of providers at the same time more and more have to buy insurance! I am now very confused.
I just had a party at work today to celebrate a great year so far. I always start it off with an informal kind of state of the company address to everyone where I thank everyone and tell how we are doing and what's ahead. It's often a little embarrassing as I struggle to hold back watery eyes and emotion when I tell them how proud and amazed I am at the job they are doing, which has just been incredible for some time now. It really gets me. I love my people, and I think they like me back, because I'm always open and honest with them.
The subject of the ACA came up, and there was not much good I could say about it, but I tried to not be negative. I told them what I knew. That it was increasing our costs substantially, which will reduce bonuses accordingly, and that coverage will probably be cut back some. I also told them it increases our cost per employee a nice chunk, and that's why we have stopped hiring, and why we will need each of them to do even better, and get more work done per person.
Obamacare was the only negative thing I had to say to these hard working ass-kicking taxpayers. It kind of stunk up the joint for a moment, then we fired up the music and barbeque. Woohoo - Friday!
Now, A Reasonable Man says we need to reduce the number of and cut the salaries of providers at the same time more and more have to buy insurance! I am now very confused.
That's not surprising. You're usually confused.
Hospitals will hire these back as their patient volumes increase, but that won't occur until the ACA is entirely phased in.
At that point, there will also be a huge demand for more primary care providers, but as the physicians continue to snub primary care, a huge influx of mid-level practitioners will be hired to accommodate the improved access.
At least, that's the theory. I don't intend to be naive about potential disconnects between theory and reality, either. But at least I stay up on what the actual arguments are.
Lydia said...
Problem is, though, that folks want the choice of private care, but need some help in meeting the premiums.
Not sure how this is relevant.
I would like to buy a Maserati Quattroporte. I can = afford one but my family, unwisely in my view, deems this as an unnecessary expense that substantially eats into our ability to do other things. I would like a government program to subsidize the purchase of Quattroporte's. I suspect, most everyone else is not going to be all that enthusiastic.
"But why trouble yourself with questioning whether or not your experience is the same as everyone else's experience?"
You know it would have been nice if that worked both ways. But we had to hear anecdotes about one person who didn't get coverage, or was dropped, and changed 1/6 of the entire nation's economy to fix it.
The health care system was very good and accessible for at least six out of every seven citizens.
Stupidly, Obama and the Dems came up with a plan that now intrudes on everyone's life.
That it was increasing our costs substantially, which will reduce bonuses accordingly, and that coverage will probably be cut back some. I also told them it increases our cost per employee a nice chunk, and that's why we have stopped hiring, and why we will need each of them to do even better, and get more work done per person.
How much of your own bonus did it reduce?
You know it would have been nice if that worked both ways. But we had to hear anecdotes about one person who didn't get coverage, or was dropped, and changed 1/6 of the entire nation's economy to fix it.
You speak as if there weren't numbers to back up those anecdotes.
One number you might want to start with is the massive number of uninsured, and how you must somehow be feeling really awful that they will now have access to a market they were locked out of.
AJ Lynch said...
Stupidly, Obama and the Dems came up with a plan that now intrudes on everyone's life.
This is not my experience. It has had no effect on me, probably because I already pay an exorbitant amount for medical insurance.
The health care system was very good and accessible for at least six out of every seven citizens.
Surely you have numbers to back up this assertion. Otherwise, a guy like Bag would call it an "anecdote".
Which it is.
So, does this mean they'll try rolling back every provision, including no lifetime maxes, no pre-existing exclusions, and the ability to pool insurance providers in a broader market vis a vis the exchanges?
Let's consider the consequences of that.
"How much of your own bonus did it reduce?"
I just told them that shit, so when I cut the toilet paper ration to one square a day they wouldn't blame me. Next year I'm gonna use the ACA to justify cutting everyone down to minimum wage, and I'll get to keep ONE BILLION DOLLARS! Woooooohaaaaaaaaaa! Woooohaaaaaaa!
6 out of 7 is about 246 million out of 287 million citizens you innumerate jackass meaning 41 million citizens without insurance .
The other 10-20 million [to get to total population of 300-308 million] are illegals or are here legally but not citizens. Got it now dopey?
...and changed 1/6 of the entire nation's economy to fix it.
Interesting that you find 1/6th to be a big number while A.J. Lynch thinks that the 1/7th of the nation lacking any insurance at all (and that doesn't count the massively UNDERINSURED) was really no big deal.
Lol.
bagoh20 said...
changed 1/6 of the entire nation's economy
This is the problem in a nutshell. It is not a good thing that the medical industry is a 1/6 of our economy. It is a service industry that is strangling competitive industries that are vital for our long term economic competitiveness.
I have no beef with doctors, nurses or literally anyone in the industry. I may or may not (depending upon statistically uncertain outcomes) have had my life saved by modern medicine. Many of the positions, not radiology, are quite emotionally demanding and qualify as tough jobs. My concerns are entirely with respect to global economic competitiveness. You can't run a sixth of you economy in a substantially less efficient way than your competitors for long without taking a direct hit on your competitiveness.
Allen S, well said. But I would like some Republicans to note this is a very bad idea and they are opposed to it.
There will be no over turning this mess until people realize how friggin bad it really is. And that will be through it making healthcare in this country worse than it already is.
...meaning 41 million citizens without insurance .
Sounds like you must be glad they weren't standing outside your property with pitchforks or anything. Such a small number.
"One number you might want to start with is the massive number of uninsured." There still will be millions even with the ACA.
As I said, I've dealt for years with hundreds of people's health insurance needs personally. Some insured and some not, but I never knew a single person including some homeless friends who didn't get the health care they needed under the old system. I know that's just a few hundred anecdotes, but they are real. I didn't just read about them.
There still will be millions even with the ACA.
41 million, or just (fill in the blank) million?
As I said, I've dealt for years with hundreds of people's health insurance needs personally.
Oh, so have I, my friend.
Some insured and some not, but I never knew a single person including some homeless friends who didn't get the health care they needed under the old system.
Absolute bullshit. I see care going unprovided every single day. Google "continuity of care" sometime. You'll see what we have to deal with once they're discharged and don't have the means for effective follow-up, and then wind up right back where they started.
I know that's just a few hundred anecdotes, but they are real. I didn't just read about them.
I am a health care provider. You don't see the treated or provide for their care, unless they work for you or your friend told you about them in some bar.
This thread was over 150 before Montana even got here. This is gonna be a barn burner now. I'll probably miss it, since I got the entire cheerleader squad for the Los Angeles NFL team coming over for a party soon. Wait, that's them now. Gotta go. Later.
bagoh20 said...
I never knew a single person including some homeless friends who didn't get the health care they needed under the old system.
Because people like you and me are already subsidizing the indigent through increased costs for our own medical care. Hospital administrators are business men not charity providers.
Ultimately, something has to be done to deal with the uninsured in a more systematic way than we currently do OR we deny them medical care and bankrupt the shit out of those that sneak care out of the system without the ability to pay.
When I hear a Republican politician advocate the second option I will know I am dealing with an honest politician.
Ritmo is still a resentful, hateful puke and still makes crap up [no way is he a license health care provider].
This thread was over 150 before Montana even got here. This is gonna be a barn burner now. I'll probably miss it, since I got the entire cheerleader squad for the Los Angeles NFL team coming over for a party soon. Wait, that's them now. Gotta go. Later.
Sounds like the words of a man who truly cares, America...
They're called the Los Angeles Potpourri. No, not the cheerleaders. That's the name of the new NFL team here. I shit you not. We are tough, but we smell nice too.
AJ, if you smell puke on me, that's because your ignorance makes me nauseous.
Defend a single point of yours that I demolished or admit that you're wrong.
You just can't do it and want to be right so badly that you take offense to being shown how wrong you are.
That is not the stuff of leadership, and those are the sorts of ignorant opinions that no responsible leader should pretend to take seriously in all their demagoguing.
"Sounds like the words of a man who truly cares, America..."
Hey, the head cheerleader saw that, and she wants to know: "Is that dude gay? He really wouldn't prefer to play with these?"
Oh man, Now I really got to go.
bagoh20 said..
I'll probably miss it, since I got the entire cheerleader squad for the Los Angeles NFL team coming over for a party soon.
For the record there is no Los Angeles NFL team but if there was I bet their cheerleaders would not have health insurance.
IS this still going on?
Post a picture Bag or it didn't happen.
Don't worry, even if it goes up through Facebook, you're already your own employer and she's aspiring to a career in the dance-sporting industry. So there's no need to worry about any of the ordinary consequences of full disclosure here.
The Media's "Republicans have no Obamacare replacement" MYTH.
Geez, Icepick. I was going to ask the same thing about the defunding effort.
Yeah, it's still going on.
That's not the current bill, April. Keep up.
It's also not what they bothered to advance in the original debate, when it actually mattered.
And for what it's worth, the papered-over uselessness of tort reform is total demagoguery with responsibility for a miniscule (if that) amount of costs. Nevertheless, Obama offered tort protection for adhering to evidence-based guidelines, and the Republicans balked, which is just another demonstration of how unserious they are.
Everything they're doing is posturing, from day one. From their acceptance of the election results to their acceptance of the SCOTUS decision to their acceptance of winning only 1/2 of one branch of the government in the face of heavy gerrymandering in their favor and while losing the popular vote there by nearly a million votes.
Not having the power you feel you should be used to advertising and projecting must really suck hard.
You did not refute the numbers I used nor say where I was wrong- you just wrongly assumed I get some sort of pleasure that that 41 million were uninsured.
So since "Ben Domenech" is now the legislative spokesperson of the Republicans, did anyone bother to inform John Boehner of that fact?
You did not refute the numbers I used nor say where I was wrong- you just wrongly assumed I get some sort of pleasure that that 41 million were uninsured.
What was there to refute? 41 million is a lot of uninsured people, and it doesn't count the massively underinsured, at that. So there was no disagreement there, but you still refuse to tell me what bone you have to pick with me, (other than how mean I am, or is it resentful? Whatever). What other mysterious point do you have yet to reveal about this number, or any of your other comments here tonight, that I have somehow not addressed with the seriousness you think I owe them?
I get that most people here hate the government but that is not a reason in and of itself to not attempt to rationalize health care.
There were two big problems with the old system, the uninsured and tying health insurance to employers. The first is a moral economic problem that we might differ on the ideal resolution of but let's have that debate. The second is just bad economic policy. It limits the movement of workers and has a disproportionate effect on their decisions on where and how to work. It reduces risk taking and entrepreneurship.
Ritmo thinks you're sooo greedy, Bagoh. Stop it. How dare you earn a living and provide jobs.
In Ritmo's World- he'd prefer you stop creating jobs, quit the private sector and become a good little democrat dependent with food stamps.
Balls, you moron - the "current bill" as you put it, is a continuing resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2014.
My link was a separate issue about alternative health care ideas that have been ignored by the media.
Wait, April. Bag's creating jobs? I thought he said he was cutting back bonuses. That doesn't sound like job creation...
Stop demagoguing and stick to the issue. Even the opinion piece you link to is unfocused. What does "speeding up drug approval" have to do with providing healthcare? I'll tell you... Nothing. It's just another Republican effort to slash the approvals process so that we can have massive recalls of all the dangerous drugs prematurely approved during the Bush reign of the FDA, when the manpower was lacking to take the approvals process seriously and go through it deliberatively. But at least they got to defund the government in some way, which was nice.
Untie healthcare from employers - fine. but that alternative, to democrats, is a full tax payer funded government take over.
Not acceptable.
My link was a separate issue...
Exactly my point. Why do you call me a "moron" for making the same point you made? (Unless you think you're a moron, too).
Your article doesn't address the current issue and I spoke to its imminent shortcomings in every other respect. It doesn't advance the discussion and if you want to discuss its unseriousness in other, more generic ways, I'm happy to oblige. What they say about FDA and torts are just two of those ways.
Thank you!
There is a lot of defensive medicine in this country. Tests done merely because of the threat of lawsuits. However, tort reform was not part of this plan because plaintiff attorneys are the biggest contributor to Dems.
Balls, really - cutting back on bonuses = firing people? Are you dense or just playing stupid?
In any case, I'm gone.
However, tort reform was not part of this plan because plaintiff attorneys are the biggest contributor to Dems.
It also contributes nada to the expense.
Nevertheless, there are fair ways to address the anti-liability urges of campaigning conservative demagogues. One way was Obama's suggesting to offer tort protection for adhering to evidence-based guidelines. Do you have any idea of what the Republican response to that was?
It's dense or stupid to pretend to know whether he's hiring or not. Did he say on this thread that he's hiring?
Well, if you'd stuck around to take responsibility for your own attack on me I guess that's one of the things you'd have to research. But making assumptions and then running when called on them must be easier, no?
OK, that one passed out, so where are we?
Firing people? Hey I never thought of that. That is what everyone else seems to be doing because of this, but I like my people a lot, and I need them.
And Ritmo, I'm not cutting bonuses. The money is just gonna be taken before we ever get it, so don't blame me - I didn't vote for Putin's plaything.
The tort reform issue, which I largely support, is not that big a factor. As I understand things, Jonathon Cohen's take is basically accurate:
"Conservatives ... would also prefer setting strict limits on malpractice damage awards. But even if their approach were preferable, it wouldn’t help that much: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that such limits would reduce health spending by half a percent and save the federal government about $49 billion over ten years. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not a game-changer, particularly when reforms already underway thanks to Obamacare are likely to capture at least some (and maybe most) of those savings."
The idea that lawyers cause doctors to do unnecessary procedures is a convenient one for both doctors and hospital administrators and should be viewed with some skepticism.
"It also contributes nada to the expense."
That uninformed statement is irrefutable proof you don't work in health care.
Bag, I never insinuated that you were firing. I just didn't get any good impression here or elsewhere that you were hiring.
And I realize that, in your sphinx-like way, you always have to mix in one good joke with a serious point, but "Putin's plaything?"
Surely you could have come up with something better than that. I give it about a 6.3.
That uninformed statement is irrefutable proof you don't work in health care.
Your own statement above is irrefutable proof that you can't quantify costs.
Physicians complain all the time that one specialty's premiums drive them out of this market or that, but what does that prove and how does that drive up overall costs? The costs we quantify are for the consumer. You are fighting the wrong battle here if you thought it was about making things financially better for a specialist who can't find a way to unburden the risks of his practice.
I hope you don't soon unveil your "Help for Starving Physician Specialists" bill anytime soon, A.J.
" you always have to mix in one good joke with a serious point, but "Putin's plaything?""
I don't follow you. Where is the joke? Just because Putin is laughing doesn't mean it's funny.
OK, Assad was rolling on the floor, so maybe it is a little humorous. Yea, I agree 6.3.
It's a couple percentage points, at most, ARM. But A.J. (and whomever else) is looking after the best interests of the party most affected by this: Un-wealthy physicians. Who's looking out for them? How is it that we started talking about 41,000,000 uninsured patients when a specialist complains about their practice being too risky to insure in as profitable a way?
A.J., there is always going to be a requirement for large medical professional liability insurance policies. MDs are human and don't always bring their 'A' game, and some are just flat out incompetent.
Tom Brady is an outstanding quarterback but he appears to require liability insurance every time he plays the Giants. Even the greats are human.
Ever hear the old joke that when there was only one lawyer in town he was starving. Then a second lawyer moved into the town and they both got rich.
More lawsuits = higher claims paid = higher healthcare costs. Got it?
Now it appears you both agree with me about lawsuits but the incremental costs aren't worth quibbling over. So never mind?
And now I am also looking out for wealthy physicians? You must not have a pot to piss in Ritmo the way you are so interested in what doctors have and what company owners like Bago make. You show your envy and resentment in most every word you write.
AJ Lynch said..
More lawsuits = higher claims paid = higher healthcare costs.
No one is denying that there is an element of truth to this but its effect can be quantified and it is not large relative to overall costs.
I'm not really here. Came back to correct "dependent". Should be --dependant.
Bye and God bless.
Post a Comment