Forty-One

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: 41 stops the ability to bulldoze anything through without a proper debate. Honestly I wouldn't want any majority like that, it defeats the process.

You're not really that much a Pollyanna, are you?

Jim DeMint is on record as saying , back in July, before the Senate had even crafted a health care bill, that if they could stop health care reform, it would be Obama's Waterloo.

Given that the Republicans were implacably opposed to health care reform before the legislation was even drafted, what exactly is it that this endless "proper debate" will contribute to "the process"?

Let's clarify, shall we? Any "health care reform" that includes a ridiculous public option or does not include any meaningful tort reform will, and sure seems to be, a coming Waterloo for the President.

Bollocks.

The public option is only "ridiculous" in the sense that we should have had national health care. Just like the civilized nations. You know, the ones with the happiest populations. The only rationale offered in opposition to the public option was that people would prefer it over private insurers to such a degree that private insurers would be driven from the market. That was the oh-so-scary "government takeover" of health care we were all told to fear.

And tort reform? That's the brain child and wet dream of the insurance industry. Keeping justice out of reach for average Americans whose lives have been shattered by malpractice will only reduce health care costs by 1/2 of 1%, which is but an unnoticed blip on the screen when it comes to reining in costs, but still adds up to more insurance industry profits, with the added benefit that it masquerades as real "reform."

If you want to clarify, nobody in America, other than insurance companies, and people who take their thinking orders from insurance companies, cares about "tort reform," and the majority of Americans favor single payer-- or at least, they did until the Republican lie machine started inventing imaginary "death panels" and "throwing grandma under the bus" scare tactics.

Well, that's it for posting for now, I'm off to vote. Higher taxes for the wealthy on the ballot and all.

EdelBrock wrote:

Mr disco wrote: All this hoopla over one seat. It's not like the Dems don't still have a majority in both houses and the white house for 3 more years.

Gotta celebrate your victories when you can, I suppose.

Well that might change with the upcoming elections.

41 stops the ability to bulldoze anything through without a proper debate. Honestly I wouldn't want any majority like that, it defeats the process.

Exactly... not to burst your bubble, but the upcoming election hasn't happened yet.

As for 41 being better than 40, sure it is, but 40 is more of a nice satisfying "magic number" that doesn't really mean anything, other than one vote less than 41.

Mr disco wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Mr disco wrote: All this hoopla over one seat. It's not like the Dems don't still have a majority in both houses and the white house for 3 more years.

Gotta celebrate your victories when you can, I suppose.

Well that might change with the upcoming elections.

41 stops the ability to bulldoze anything through without a proper debate. Honestly I wouldn't want any majority like that, it defeats the process.

Exactly... not to burst your bubble, but the upcoming election hasn't happened yet.

As for 41 being better than 40, sure it is, but 40 is more of a nice satisfying "magic number" that doesn't really mean anything, other than one vote less than 41.

You might want to check how the Senate works... that one seat means the world in politics.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: 41 stops the ability to bulldoze anything through without a proper debate. Honestly I wouldn't want any majority like that, it defeats the process.

You're not really that much a Pollyanna, are you?

Jim DeMint is on record as saying , back in July, before the Senate had even crafted a health care bill, that if they could stop health care reform, it would be Obama's Waterloo.

Given that the Republicans were implacably opposed to health care reform before the legislation was even drafted, what exactly is it that this endless "proper debate" will contribute to "the process"?

Let's clarify, shall we? Any "health care reform" that includes a ridiculous public option or does not include any meaningful tort reform will, and sure seems to be, a coming Waterloo for the President.

Bollocks.

The public option is only "ridiculous" in the sense that we should have had national health care. Just like the civilized nations. You know, the ones with the happiest populations. The only rationale offered in opposition to the public option was that people would prefer it over private insurers to such a degree that private insurers would be driven from the market. That was the oh-so-scary "government takeover" of health care we were all told to fear.

And tort reform? That's the brain child and wet dream of the insurance industry. Keeping justice out of reach for average Americans whose lives have been shattered by malpractice will only reduce health care costs by 1/2 of 1%, which is but an unnoticed blip on the screen when it comes to reining in costs, but still adds up to more insurance industry profits, with the added benefit that it masquerades as real "reform."

If you want to clarify, nobody in America, other than insurance companies, and people who take their thinking orders from insurance companies, cares about "tort reform," and the majority of Americans favor single payer-- or at least, they did until the Republican lie machine started inventing imaginary "death panels" and "throwing grandma under the bus" scare tactics.

The independent voters of Mass. disagree with you....

EdelBrock wrote: The independent voters of Mass. disagree with you....

More bollocks.

Tort reform wasn't an issue in the election. Nor was the "public option" or ""single payer." The national health care bill was an issue in the election, but then again, the independent voters of Massachusetts already have universal healthcare, and polls show it's quite popular in Massachusetts.

EdelBrock wrote:

You might want to check how the Senate works... that one seat means the world in politics.

I stand corrected. I was not aware of the 60 vote requirement to block a filibuster as it's not part of the Constitution.

But then, maybe if the Republicans didn't threaten to filibuster everything, there wouldn't be a 60 vote requirement to get anything done. According to the Constitution, a majority is supposed to be good enough.

Mr disco wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

You might want to check how the Senate works... that one seat means the world in politics.

I stand corrected. I was not aware of the 60 vote requirement to block a filibuster as it's not part of the Constitution.

But then, maybe if the Republicans didn't threaten to filibuster everything, there wouldn't be a 60 vote requirement to get anything done. According to the Constitution, a majority is supposed to be good enough.

The Constitution only lays out ground work, there is a lot on how our government runs is not in the Constitution.

And you are definitely wrong that a majority "is supposed to be good enough". What about protection for the minority? That is hit in the Constitution itself.

Filibusters might be controversial, but they have been around quite along time, specifically to protect minority rights... and they are more used as threats, as they are actually not used that often.

As for partisan politics, I don't like it either, but that is happening on both sides of the table... hell, the Democrats can't even be "bi-partisan" with themselves to pass a bill when in the majority.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: 41 stops the ability to bulldoze anything through without a proper debate. Honestly I wouldn't want any majority like that, it defeats the process.

You're not really that much a Pollyanna, are you?

Jim DeMint is on record as saying , back in July, before the Senate had even crafted a health care bill, that if they could stop health care reform, it would be Obama's Waterloo.

Given that the Republicans were implacably opposed to health care reform before the legislation was even drafted, what exactly is it that this endless "proper debate" will contribute to "the process"?

Let's clarify, shall we? Any "health care reform" that includes a ridiculous public option or does not include any meaningful tort reform will, and sure seems to be, a coming Waterloo for the President.

Bollocks.

The public option is only "ridiculous" in the sense that we should have had national health care. Just like the civilized nations. You know, the ones with the happiest populations. The only rationale offered in opposition to the public option was that people would prefer it over private insurers to such a degree that private insurers would be driven from the market. That was the oh-so-scary "government takeover" of health care we were all told to fear.

And tort reform? That's the brain child and wet dream of the insurance industry. Keeping justice out of reach for average Americans whose lives have been shattered by malpractice will only reduce health care costs by 1/2 of 1%, which is but an unnoticed blip on the screen when it comes to reining in costs, but still adds up to more insurance industry profits, with the added benefit that it masquerades as real "reform."

If you want to clarify, nobody in America, other than insurance companies, and people who take their thinking orders from insurance companies, cares about "tort reform," and the majority of Americans favor single payer-- or at least, they did until the Republican lie machine started inventing imaginary "death panels" and "throwing grandma under the bus" scare tactics.

Question: Let's say you're riding your bike one day. You swerve to miss a cute kitty cat, fall and injure your knee. How long would you surmise it would take to have an MRI scheduled in GB or Canada to see if it was just a sprain or if you had torn your ACL right in half?

Tex wrote: Question: Let's say you're riding your bike one day. You swerve to miss a cute kitty cat, fall and injure your knee. How long would you surmise it would take to have an MRI scheduled in GB or Canada to see if it was just a sprain or if you had torn your ACL right in half?

Depends on whether you've got a lot of money or not... :p

Tex wrote: Question: Let's say you're riding your bike one day. You swerve to miss a cute kitty cat, fall and injure your knee. How long would you surmise it would take to have an MRI scheduled in GB or Canada to see if it was just a sprain or if you had torn your ACL right in half?

Hmmmm. I don't really know, not being a citizen of those nations.

But I can tell you what would happen to me here.

I'm one of the 47 million uninsured. I'm self-employed. For a while, I was uninsured because i couldn't afford to buy insurance. Then, as I started to make more money, I decided to buy insurance.

And I was declined. Pre-existing condition. In fact, a "pre-existing condition" that I don't even have anymore (it was a MRSA infection that (a) I contracted, with no idea as to how it was contracted, and (b) was cleared up with a round of proper antibiotics). But no matter, the insurance companies won't insure me.

So in your scenario, if I take a hit for some cute kitty cat, I would just suffer through the pain and skip the MRI, because (a) i likely wouldn't be able to afford the medical bills, and (b) wouldn't want to risk receiving a diagnosis that would indicate another "pre-existing condition" by which I could be excluded in future.

In short, MRIs are for people who have insurance, whether private or public. They are not for people who have no insurance.

Now, given the realities of this world we live in, if you ask me which system I prefer for myself, I prefer that system which does not deny me access to medical care. On that basis, the systems in Canada and the UK look quite appealing, and the system in the United States looks quite appalling.

Now Comrade, niether Tex nor I are defending the current way health care and insurance is handled... do there need to be changes, yes... but not a free for all.

EdelBrock wrote: Now Comrade, niether Tex nor I are defending the current way health care and insurance is handled... do there need to be changes, yes... but not a free for all.

He asked a question, I answered it.

People who currently have health insurance and are opposed to the health care reform proposals from the Democrats make a lot of false assumptions. For example, the teabaggers spent all summer screaming that those of us who don't have health care are just too lazy to work. Another example-- you just said you don't want a free-for-all. Nobody is asking for a free-for-all (whatever that means). But there are a lot of people without coverage who want to be covered, but are excluded. There are a lot of people who get sick and are dropped from their coverage because they got sick. There are a lot of people who are priced out of the market based on their health status. There are a lot of people who have lost, or will lose their jobs during this recession, and with that job loss, also lose their health insurance. I dare say that if Tex loses his source of income, he too will be among the 47 million uninsured. You won't, because you're a vet (I'm assuming that Tex is not a vet). So most likely, Tex is not all that far away from being uninsured himself. A lot of people are going, or will go bankrupt because they got sick. This is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.

Again, nobody wants a free-for-all (whatever that means). But we do want fair play-- and the American system of health insurance is most definitely not giving us fair play. So, given a choice between a system that allows me access to medical care when I need it, and one that denies me access to medical care, I think it's pretty easy to figure out which one I want.

And bringing it back home, what the Congressional Republicans are offering me is more of the same denial to health care, while they attempt to distract me with a "plan" that does not address the basic problem millions of Americans are facing.

Even more telling is the question that Tex did not ask-- would the Canadians or the Brits trade what they have now for what we have now?

Health insurance reform

Litigation reform

Getting clinics for the noninsured rather than the ER

Government comprehensive health care

As for the Brits and Canadians, they might be able to afford such coverage because they don't need to pay for a large military... and its not because they are more "advanced" as nations, rather because we take care of all the military policing in the World. If we stopped, then they would need to ramp up their own security measures and then their health care would go the way of the dodo.

Now if the UN could actually do what they are suppose to do, then we could start spending less on our military... but as it is the UN is a paper tiger that does shit all and we always get left holding the bag*.

*note-the Brits, Japan and a few others actually help us quite a bit, I don't want to take away their contributions.

As long as you're going to bring up our military spending, you might as well explain why it was more essential to invade Iraq than it is to make sure that America's citizens have access to a doctor when they need one.

For extra credit, explain how litigation reform lowers the cost of health care or otherwise benefits American citizens.

EdelBrock wrote: Getting clinics for the noninsured rather than the ER

Who pays for those?

And where does the patient go when an MRI is needed? Or an oncologist? Or a surgeon?

How many clinics do we build (and where do we put them) to meet the medical needs of 47 million (and growing) Americans?

You haven't thought any of this out, have you?

What the "Brits" generally think about the healthcare system in the U.S. - and much of this thread is truly depressing evidence in favour of this opinion - is that it is truly fucked-up: ideologically, ethically, morally, socially etc.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Give me a break. It seems that for a lot of US citizens, being a "true American" means consensually agreeing that the social gang-rape of the poor is entirely just and democratic.

Here's a glib anecdote: some years ago I was at a wedding in Los Angeles and got talking to one of the other guests who was a doctor. He clocked my accent and almost straight away starting talking about the NHS and how he wished the US has such an altruistic - if flawed - system. I asked him about what happens if someone without insurance gets taken into hospital after (say) a serious car accident. "Oh, we're obliged to patch them up," he tells me, "but as soon as they're a few inches the right side of death's door we have to kick them out. As long as they don't die on the doorstep of the hospital, then legally we've done our job properly". My jaw dropped.

There's a lot of glib kneejerk anti-Americanism on this forum, but on this issue I think folk on this side of the Atlantic are all agreed: you're a bunch of fucking idiots.

Amen, Marty. Having lived in the US and the UK I can say that, without a doubt, Britain's health care system is far superior to America's.

As for Tex's comment that it takes ages to get an MRI in the UK or Canada, I have to wait six months before I can get an appointment with the musculoskeletal specialist. So much for our speedy system.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Getting clinics for the noninsured rather than the ER

Who pays for those?

And where does the patient go when an MRI is needed? Or an oncologist? Or a surgeon?

How many clinics do we build (and where do we put them) to meet the medical needs of 47 million (and growing) Americans?

You haven't thought any of this out, have you?

1. People that are willing to pay for health insurance should not be denied and dropped like they are today (which I find is horrible), and with reasonable payments.

2. Litigation in the US is driving all the prices up (I guarantee that the Canadians and Brits aren't suing their system every chance they get to make a few extra bucks). There needs to be litigation caps and more guidelines instead of this free for all we have now.

3. If a person chooses not to have health insurance after both of the above have been instituted, then really its their problem. I simply want clinics to move the wait out of the ER so that people with real emergencies can get the treatment they need... instead of people with the flu clogging up the waiting area of the ER.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Getting clinics for the noninsured rather than the ER

Who pays for those?

And where does the patient go when an MRI is needed? Or an oncologist? Or a surgeon?

How many clinics do we build (and where do we put them) to meet the medical needs of 47 million (and growing) Americans?

You haven't thought any of this out, have you?

1. People that are willing to pay for health insurance should not be denied and dropped like they are today (which I find is horrible), and with reasonable payments.

Agreed.

But...

How can an insurer afford to cover people who are sick and/or have pre-existing conditions, unless (a) all healthy people are required to buy private insurance, in order to offset the losses incurred by those who access medical care, (b) tax dollars subsidize insurance companies to offest the losses incurred by regulations requiring them to insure those who are sick and/or have pre-existing conditions, (c) government-financed health care covers those who are uninsurable, or (d) government-financed health care covers all citizens.

It's apparent that you still haven't thought through any of your positions. While you are morally correct that people should not be denied access to medical care, there has to be some means of financing that medical care, and you've given no thought whatsoever as to how to accomplish that.

2. Litigation in the US is driving all the prices up

It sure is-- 1/2 of 1% of our total health care costs, to be precise.

There needs to be litigation caps and more guidelines instead of this free for all we have now.

What's a "guideline"?

3. If a person chooses not to have health insurance after both of the above have been instituted, then really its their problem. I simply want clinics to move the wait out of the ER so that people with real emergencies can get the treatment they need... instead of people with the flu clogging up the waiting area of the ER.

You still haven't thought any of it out, even after I pointed out some of the obvious problems with your idea.

The main problem I have with the Dems approach, as the same with your approach, is to get everyone insurance first and then tackle the financial aspect of medical costs.

The most important item on the table is to reduce medical costs.

1. Litigation has increased medical costs, more than 1%. First the costs themselves are higher, then extra tests and overnight hospital stays are done when not needed just to cover their asses, and those can multiply fast when including all the people you pay to get many of these tests done. Not to mention the stress it puts doctors under.
   http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/78/1/9

2. Next would be to realign medical insurance companies as not-for-profit organizations. USAA is already an insurance company (granted not health) that operates this way and is one of the strongest in the country. This releases the burden on trying to make stock holders happy about increases in the companies holdings.

3. ER care is some of the most expensive care possible. Having the uninsured visit an ER for a flu is very costly, not to mention the lines it produces. I don't think the clinics I propose are there to ensure in equal care or comfortability of the individual, but rather a care that releases the burden off of society. If they choose not to have insurance, then that would be their call to have substandard care.

4. Changing insurance company procedures on dropping clients at will for preexisting conditions. However, this comes with a stipulation that releases the insurance company from certain procedures, when chances of survival do not equal the cost to the fellow insurance holders. For instance, someone has terminal cancer, the insurance can stop expensive treatment for the cancer, but still gives sufficient care for other instances that might occur that are unrelated to the disease (i.e. they break a leg).

This would be the broad idea, and I am by no means going to list every detail on how each should be accomplished, this is a NOOL forum, not the Senate floor. But costs need to be controlled or any government system will only become one great money pit... and once the money is being spent, no one will want to change it for the better.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote: Question: Let's say you're riding your bike one day. You swerve to miss a cute kitty cat, fall and injure your knee. How long would you surmise it would take to have an MRI scheduled in GB or Canada to see if it was just a sprain or if you had torn your ACL right in half?

Hmmmm. I don't really know, not being a citizen of those nations.

But I can tell you what would happen to me here.

I'm one of the 47 million uninsured. I'm self-employed. For a while, I was uninsured because i couldn't afford to buy insurance. Then, as I started to make more money, I decided to buy insurance.

And I was declined. Pre-existing condition. In fact, a "pre-existing condition" that I don't even have anymore (it was a MRSA infection that (a) I contracted, with no idea as to how it was contracted, and (b) was cleared up with a round of proper antibiotics). But no matter, the insurance companies won't insure me.

So in your scenario, if I take a hit for some cute kitty cat, I would just suffer through the pain and skip the MRI, because (a) i likely wouldn't be able to afford the medical bills, and (b) wouldn't want to risk receiving a diagnosis that would indicate another "pre-existing condition" by which I could be excluded in future.

In short, MRIs are for people who have insurance, whether private or public. They are not for people who have no insurance.

Now, given the realities of this world we live in, if you ask me which system I prefer for myself, I prefer that system which does not deny me access to medical care. On that basis, the systems in Canada and the UK look quite appealing, and the system in the United States looks quite appalling.

Your points ignore the fact that if you need free medical care in this country, it is certainly available. When I say "free", it also means you might get a bill for the services rendered - a la the county hospital system. But, let's just say that by the annual deficits that these institutions continually run that collections is not a top priority. And, by the thousands of "anchor babies" born in their nurseries every year to illegal aliens, documentation isn't either. Parkland Hospital in Dallas is a prime example of this.

Is going to "the county" the most convenient option? In most cases, no. But you willbe seen.

Tex wrote:

Your points ignore the fact that if you need free medical care in this country, it is certainly available. When I say "free", it also means you might get a bill for the services rendered - a la the county hospital system. But, let's just say that by the annual deficits that these institutions continually run that collections is not a top priority. And, by the thousands of "anchor babies" born in their nurseries every year to illegal aliens, documentation isn't either. Parkland Hospital in Dallas is a prime example of this.

Is going to "the county" the most convenient option? In most cases, no. But you willbe seen.

So your solution for people who can't afford to participate in the current system is to commit fraud?