Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Gotta hand it to Al Franken


Pope Flick
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok.. a little slower now genius. I was simply replying to your totally false claim about not seeing one single proposal. See below if you are a liberal with no memory. Then when your are exposed for the partisan puke that you are, you attack the proposal. You are an absolute joke. Thanks in advance for making a fool of yourself.

 

From BP WALLY...

 

Please post a link where what is proposed is simple providing free healthcare for 300 million people. 'cause the current bill doesnt do anything of the kind. There are definitely problems with the bill. I wish I could see any bipartisan progress at all. I have yet to see any proposals whatsoever from the other side of the aisle besides "your bill sucks, and we dont feel like helping".

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Let me clarify, because it appears you have comprehension problems.

 

What was the sentence written BEFORE your quote? Here is a hint . . . it uses the word "bipartisan". Here is a definition, 'cause I dont think you understand what that means.

 

"Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: a bipartisan resolution."

 

Now was that a "bipartisan" proposal that works on a solution that you are flaunting as "proof"? Or just a one-sided viewpoint? To make it easier for you, I will clarify (make more obvious to you, you seem to have difficulty with big words) what the two sentences mean TOGETHER.

 

It means that there has been no BIPARTISAN proposals from the right that work on the solution. Instead of working TOGETHER, the right has said, "you plan sucks, we like our better even though there is no way in hell ours will ever be seriously considered." The right has not worked in a "bipartisan" (those confusing words again!) manner. They have just sniped at the current bill, and instead of trying to work in a constructive manner, they have chosen to do the opposite.

 

I hope this clears things up for you in case you are still "fuzzy" . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. We're certainly on the same page on #3 for the most part. I like the analogy with auto insurance. I'd apply the same methodology to social security. Definitely sever the employer - insurance relationship and make insurance portable, again like auto insurance.

 

#1 isn't as significant as it is made out to be (though it is an issue that needs to be addressed) and #2 is a red herring entirely. #4 depends on your definition of "fair". I've seen hospital charges that are flat out insane.

 

I'd like to hear you back up #2 being a red herring entirely. Do you have any idea what an OB/GYN pays in malpractice insurance? How many additional tests do doctors run just to cover their ass? Cap medical malpractice to actual damages, forget punitive damages. If a doctor deserves punitive damages, they deserve to lose their license and to face criminal proceedings.

 

The reason you see hospital charges that are insane is Medicare and Medicaid only pay about 70% of the cost of the procedures that they fund. You also have to pay for the illegals that use the ER as as primary physician. They have to make that money up somehow so they over charge those of us that actually are responsible and pay our way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify, because it appears you have comprehension problems.

 

What was the sentence written BEFORE your quote? Here is a hint . . . it uses the word "bipartisan". Here is a definition, 'cause I dont think you understand what that means.

 

"Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: a bipartisan resolution."

 

Now was that a "bipartisan" proposal that works on a solution that you are flaunting as "proof"? Or just a one-sided viewpoint? To make it easier for you, I will clarify (make more obvious to you, you seem to have difficulty with big words) what the two sentences mean TOGETHER.

 

It means that there has been no BIPARTISAN proposals from the right that work on the solution. Instead of working TOGETHER, the right has said, "you plan sucks, we like our better even though there is no way in hell ours will ever be seriously considered." The right has not worked in a "bipartisan" (those confusing words again!) manner. They have just sniped at the current bill, and instead of trying to work in a constructive manner, they have chosen to do the opposite.

 

I hope this clears things up for you in case you are still "fuzzy" . . . .

 

So, the right is supposed to bend over and take it, while the left does whatever it damned well pleases? Why hasn't Obama met with any Republicans since April even though they have repeatedly asked for an audience. Someone is at least trying to be bipartisan instead of saying this is the way it is going to be. Heck the plan from the left is so far from the left, some Democrats are looking at joining the Republican on blocking it. I'd call that bipartisan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the right is supposed to bend over and take it, while the left does whatever it damned well pleases? Why hasn't Obama met with any Republicans since April even though they have repeatedly asked for an audience. Someone is at least trying to be bipartisan instead of saying this is the way it is going to be. Heck the plan from the left is so far from the left, some Democrats are looking at joining the Republican on blocking it. I'd call that bipartisan.

The Democrats are in a position on paper to railroad through whatever they like. Kinda like the Republicans were (filibuster excepted) from 2000 through 2006. Not a single sign of any of these great plans the Reps are claiming to have - status quo was just fine with them when they had all the power.

 

While we're on the subject of massive government bureaucracy, wasn't it your crew that put together the Dept of Homeland Security, the biggest bureaucracy in the history of the world? Big government cool sometimes......but not others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats are in a position on paper to railroad through whatever they like. Kinda like the Republicans were (filibuster excepted) from 2000 through 2006. Not a single sign of any of these great plans the Reps are claiming to have - status quo was just fine with them when they had all the power.

 

While we're on the subject of massive government bureaucracy, wasn't it your crew that put together the Dept of Homeland Security, the biggest bureaucracy in the history of the world? Big government cool sometimes......but not others.

 

 

railroad???

At least 44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in opposition to the current health care bill in the House, a Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will vote against a health care bill without a strong public option.

 

Unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats are in a position on paper to railroad through whatever they like. Kinda like the Republicans were (filibuster excepted) from 2000 through 2006. Not a single sign of any of these great plans the Reps are claiming to have - status quo was just fine with them when they had all the power.

 

While we're on the subject of massive government bureaucracy, wasn't it your crew that put together the Dept of Homeland Security, the biggest bureaucracy in the history of the world? Big government cool sometimes......but not others.

 

:wacko:

 

Your rebuttal Perch?

 

:D:D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and make a wellness test mandatory every year. if you take care of yourself, you get a higher score thus better rates. if you want to eat like crap and not exercise, than u pay a higher rate. like every other insurance out there, rate the person and charge accordingly.

 

Don't forget to put cameras in their cars to make sure they buckle up and drive the speed limit. Tracking devices on their head so they don't step in front of buses. Now if there was only a way to make sure they are having safe sex...:thinkiing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget to put cameras in their cars to make sure they buckle up and drive the speed limit. Tracking devices on their head so they don't step in front of buses. Now if there was only a way to make sure they are having safe sex...:thinkiing:

 

 

u thinks its wrong to be rated on your performance and charged accordingly?

 

every other insurance does it.....how many claims youve had, your driving record, your health(for life), flood plains, etc.

 

go eat a cheeseburger every single day, i dont care. just dont bump my rates up cause of your choices that you are free to make.

Edited by dmarc117
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. We need to have significant tort reform as it is estimated that 10% of health care cost is made up of malpractice insurance and defensive medicine.

 

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...92050&st=75

1,452 medical malpractice lawsuits. They found that more than 90 percent of the claims showed evidence of medical injury, which means they weren't frivolous. In 60 percent of these cases, the injury resulted from physician wrongdoing. In a quarter of the claims, the patient died.

 

When baseless medical malpractice suits were brought, the study further found, the courts efficiently threw them out. Only six of the cases in which the researchers couldn't detect injury received even token compensation. Of those in which an injury resulted from treatment, but evidence of error was uncertain, 145 out of 515 received compensation. Indeed, a bigger problem was that 236 cases were thrown out of court despite evidence of injury and error to patients by physicians

 

Maybe we could just make it illegal for patients to sue doctors that injure them, that would solve the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats are in a position on paper to railroad through whatever they like. Kinda like the Republicans were (filibuster excepted) from 2000 through 2006. Not a single sign of any of these great plans the Reps are claiming to have - status quo was just fine with them when they had all the power.

 

While we're on the subject of massive government bureaucracy, wasn't it your crew that put together the Dept of Homeland Security, the biggest bureaucracy in the history of the world? Big government cool sometimes......but not others.

 

I believe Bush and the republicans were more concerned with jump starting the economy after the tech bubble and 9/11 to think about health care. Something I'd like to see Obama doing. They were also deeply involved in mobilizing for a war. The people had spoken loudly less than a decade before that they didn't want more government involvement (much like now if you believe the polls, though they do want reform now). Plus like you said the Dems could and would filibuster. The stuff Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are putting out there is so partisan that even members of their own party are defecting because they know it goes against the will of the people.

 

With regard to Homeland Security, I think a bunch of it is a crock and disagree with portions of it, but at least securing our home land is an enumerated power and responsibility under the constitution, which is a lot more than can be said for health care. It can be argued that they over extended that mandate and I might agree, but we were in a time of war, and it wasn't like we had concentration camps of an entire race of American citizens or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...92050&st=75

 

 

Maybe we could just make it illegal for patients to sue doctors that injure them, that would solve the problem.

 

Chavez, I'm not advocating not paying those that are injured. I'm advocating doing away with punitive damages and yanking licenses and putting people in jail. I'm also saying make the penalty on the lawyers that bring the 10% of cases that weren't founded twice the cost of court cost and associated documentation costs, to pay back those that were brought up on false charges, of course that premium shouldn't go to the doctors, lawyers or insurance companies, but to an indigent fund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...92050&st=75

 

 

Maybe we could just make it illegal for patients to sue doctors that injure them, that would solve the problem.

 

Anyone who's been to a doctor knows that they can do some stupid stuff. I personally think that it's largely because of the system in place right now that pays them more to spend as little time as possible on each patient instead of providing quality care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chavez, I'm not advocating not paying those that are injured. I'm advocating doing away with punitive damages and yanking licenses and putting people in jail. I'm also saying make the penalty on the lawyers that bring the 10% of cases that weren't founded twice the cost of court cost and associated documentation costs, to pay back those that were brought up on false charges, of course that premium shouldn't go to the doctors, lawyers or insurance companies, but to an indigent fund.

 

1,452 medical malpractice lawsuits. They found that more than 90 percent of the claims showed evidence of medical injury, which means they weren't frivolous. In 60 percent of these cases, the injury resulted from physician wrongdoing.

 

1,452 medical malpractice lawsuits..... 236 cases were thrown out of court despite evidence of injury and error to patients by physicians

Yes, let's make those injured by physicians AFRAID to sue. That will also solve the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who's been to a doctor knows that they can do some stupid stuff. I personally think that it's largely because of the system in place right now that pays them more to spend as little time as possible on each patient instead of providing quality care.

Funny story from the homeland - an HMO took over the local primary care clinic, and told one long-time doctor he was spending too much time with his patients.

 

Said doctor is a great guy (boy scout leader, etc) and essentially said "get stuffed - fire me if you don't like it."

 

I guess he's still working there. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

loser pays works everywhere else.

Thank you for missing the point.

 

Everyone cries about defensive medicine, tort reform, malpractice insurance, etc....

 

In that study, NINETY PERCENT of the claims had merit. SIXTEEN PERCENT were tossed despite evidence of medical injury.

 

Heck, by those numbers, the system ISN'T working - 16% of people due damages aren't getting them. Even if ALL 10% that are frivolous DID result in damages paid (doubtful) the medical system is still coming out 6% ahead.

 

 

But that's OK, I guess, since we apparently need to make it more difficult for those who are injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't there 4 plans floating out there?

 

HR 3200 appears to suck; I'm sure the other 3 do as well.

 

I guess we'll just go ahead and continue on with our A-OK superswell current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1,452 medical malpractice lawsuits. They found that more than 90 percent of the claims showed evidence of medical injury, which means they weren't frivolous. In 60 percent of these cases, the injury resulted from physician wrongdoing.

 

1,452 medical malpractice lawsuits..... 236 cases were thrown out of court despite evidence of injury and error to patients by physicians

 

Wow and here I was believing what was spoon fed to me by Rush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means that there has been no BIPARTISAN proposals from the right that work on the solution. Instead of working TOGETHER, the right has said, "you plan sucks, we like our better even though there is no way in hell ours will ever be seriously considered." The right has not worked in a "bipartisan" (those confusing words again!) manner. They have just sniped at the current bill, and instead of trying to work in a constructive manner, they have chosen to do the opposite.

 

well, if it comes from one side or the other, by definition it can't really be "bipartisan". but it goes without saying, there hasn't been a bipartisan proposal from the obamapelosi crew either, just a stubborn insistence on a public option and foolish ways to pay for expanded coverage -- dumb ideas that get no bipartisan traction whatsoever.

 

but there HAVE been truly bipartisan proposals. proposals that the CBO says actually pay for themselves and don't increase the deficit. proposals that aren't designed to lead toward single payer. proposals that promote cost-cutting measures that economists say will actually work and that don't ultimately require government price-fixing and rationing.

 

specifically, I'm talking about the wyden-bennett bill (wyden's a democrat from oregon, bennett's a republican from utah). read about it here, here, and here. note that two of those links were written by the moderate republican-ish obama supporter NY times columnist, david brooks.

 

please ask yourself why such sensible-yet-ambitious plans are pushed aside in favor of public option, just-tax-the-rich fairy tales.

 

edit to add: I meant to link this wsj article specifically about wyden-bennett rather than the one above. but the one above is good too, so I'll leave it in there.

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

specifically, I'm talking about the wyden-bennett bill (wyden's a democrat from oregon, bennett's a republican from utah). read about it here, here, and here. note that two of those links were written by the moderate republican-ish obama supporter NY times columnist, david brooks.

 

please ask yourself why such sensible-yet-ambitious plans are pushed aside in favor of public option, just-tax-the-rich fairy tales.

 

edit to add: I meant to link this wsj article specifically about wyden-bennett rather than the one above. but the one above is good too, so I'll leave it in there.

Because Wyden/Bennett aren't smart enough to call their common-sense option "The Health Care Bill Obama Thought Up All by Hisself" :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information