Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Health care legislation update (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=451298)

  • Mar 23, 2010, 02:38 PM
    excon

    Hello Steve:

    Way back when your side was in charge, you people spent years funding the Iraq War without end and without conditions even in the face of extreme public opposition, which consistently remained in the 60-65% range. Indeed, the wholesale irrelevance of public opinion was a central tenet of GOP rule for eight years, as illustrated by this classic exchange between Cheney and ABC News' Martha Radditz in May, 2008, regarding the administration's escalation of the war at exactly the same time that public demands for withdrawal were at their height:

    RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it's not worth fighting.

    CHENEY: So?

    RADDATZ: So? You don't care what the American people think?

    CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

    excon
  • Mar 23, 2010, 02:45 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Every indicator showed the American people opposed this legislation.

    Hello again, Steve:

    Every indicator?? Nahhh. I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I think you interpret THIS poll like you did all the others. That would be exactly WRONG. A new CNN poll today finds that Americans oppose the current health care plan by a margin of 59-39%. However, a sizable portion of those opposed, 13%, oppose it because "it is not liberal enough".

    Thus, a majority of Americans either support the plan or believe it should be more liberal (52%), while only a minority (43%) oppose the plan on the ground that it is too liberal.

    Them's the numbers.

    excon
  • Mar 23, 2010, 02:46 PM
    speechlesstx

    Going in they were supportive, no? Going in how many Democrats were on board? That's not how it was with health care now was it?
  • Mar 23, 2010, 02:54 PM
    speechlesstx

    P.S. Inspired by the pro-abortion crowd I intend to start a campaign for Congress to "keep their laws off my body."
  • Mar 23, 2010, 04:48 PM
    Catsmine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    Every indicator??? Nahhh. I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I think you interpret THIS poll like you did all the others. That would be exactly WRONG. A new CNN poll today finds that Americans oppose the current health care plan by a margin of 59-39%. However, a sizable portion of those opposed, 13%, oppose it because "it is not liberal enough".

    Thus, a majority of Americans either support the plan or believe it should be more liberal (52%), while only a minority (43%) oppose the plan on the ground that it is too liberal.

    Them's the numbers.

    excon

    A prime example of the Will Rogers classic "lies, d*mn lies, and statistics."
  • Mar 24, 2010, 05:14 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Them's the numbers.

    I don't care why, Americans opposed passage and they did it anyway. ABC summed it up for you:

    Quote:

    An additional point is the very stable nature of these views. While individual measures differ in their results, each, generally, has been little changed over time. Opposition, as CNN measures it, was essentially the same in January as it is now (57 percent then vs. today's 59 percent). The even division, as Kaiser measures it, has been steady for months, as it has in our own polling.
  • Mar 24, 2010, 05:32 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I don't care why, Americans opposed passage and they did it anyway.

    Hello again, Steve:

    So?

    excon
  • Mar 24, 2010, 06:15 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    So?

    And that sums up exactly the attitude of this congress and this administration.
  • Mar 24, 2010, 06:21 AM
    tomder55

    I don't care about public opinion... it is a yo-yo . Perhaps the people who like what happened last week can look to Mass. For portents of things to come.

    Quote:

    The Bay State is also suffering from what the Massachusetts Medical Society calls a "critical shortage" of primary-care physicians. As one would expect, expanded insurance has caused an increase in demand for medical services. But there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the number of doctors. As a result, many patients are insured in name only: They have health coverage but can't find a doctor.

    Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts internal medicine physicians no longer are accepting new patients, according to a 2009 physician work-force study conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society. For new patients who do get an appointment with a primary-care doctor, the average waiting time is 44 days, the Medical Society found.

    As Dr. Sandra Schneider, the vice president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the Boston Globe last April, "Just because you have insurance doesn't mean there's a [primary care] physician who can see you."

    The difficulties in getting primary care have led to an increasing number of patients who rely on emergency rooms for basic medical services. Emergency room visits jumped 7% between 2005 and 2007. Officials have determined that half of those added ER visits didn't actually require immediate treatment and could have been dealt with at a doctor's office—if patients could have found one.
    Grace-Marie Turner: The Failure of RomneyCare - WSJ.com
  • Mar 24, 2010, 06:32 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    And that sums up exactly the attitude of this congress and this administration.

    Hello again, Steve:

    See #161 above.

    excon
  • Mar 24, 2010, 08:20 AM
    speechlesstx
    That meshes with a recent survey of physicians that said "46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine." A lot of good insurance will do if you can't get to a doctor.

    On the legislation front, Tom Coburn (who made an awesome warning to Dems last week), has proposed an amendment that's pretty tough to vote against - although the Dems are vowing to do so - because they can't afford for the bill to be sent back to the House for another vote.

    Quote:

    On Tuesday, the GOP put its strategy into action, with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) introducing an amendment beyond agreeable. Titled "No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders" it would literally prohibit convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders from getting erectile dysfunction medication from their health care providers.

    While it will undoubtedly be difficult for Democrats to vote against the measure (one can conjure up the campaign ads already), the party plans to do just that.

    "Democrats in the Senate are very unified that this is not going back to the House," Sen. Wyden (D-Ore.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday, minutes before the Coburn amendment was introduced.
    LOL, I can't wait to see Dems defend that one this fall.
  • Mar 24, 2010, 08:43 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    LOL, I can't wait to see Dems defend that one this fall.

    Hello again, Steve:

    You don't have to wait. The bill is unconstitutional on its face. If a sex offender shouldn't be on the streets, there's laws that can be passed that KEEP him in jail. If someone is dangerous, THAT'S the PROPER avenue to take. But, to let someone out of prison, and then punish them for the rest of their lives is abhorrent to the American way. It punishes people for what they MIGHT do. That's against the Constitution. You can't retroactively enact a law, meaning all the offenders presently ON the registry's won't be affected. Besides, I thought you didn't like the government standing in between you and your doctor.

    Then, of course, there's the kids who are sexting each other today and being convicted of child porn. You don't want THEM to have a sex life. What about the guy who did nothing more than take a wizz in the alley? You don't want him to have a life either...

    Nope. It's draconian, over the top, and exactly what I expect out of the right wing today. Once a society accepts that it should TORTURE, this kind of stuff is a natural outgrowth of that kind of demented thought.

    excon
  • Mar 24, 2010, 08:55 AM
    speechlesstx
    I fail to see where this amendment would punish a sex offender, it does nothing to prevent him/her from enjoying sex.
  • Mar 24, 2010, 09:05 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I fail to see where this amendment would punish a sex offender, it does nothing to prevent him/her from enjoying sex.

    You don't require an erect penis for sex?
  • Mar 24, 2010, 09:06 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I fail to see where this amendment would punish a sex offender, it does nothing to prevent him/her from enjoying sex.

    Hello again, Steve:

    I didn't think you would. And, I'm not going to convince you. Trust me, I'm right.

    excon
  • Mar 24, 2010, 09:35 AM
    speechlesstx

    All it does is prevent insurance coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs to convicted sex offenders. It does nothing to prevent them from obtaining these or other treatments by other means. And since my tax dollars will be going to insure these sex offenders I darn sure don't want any part of paying for their erections. They can just buy it from one of those terrific Canadian pharmacies...
  • Mar 24, 2010, 09:53 AM
    tomder55

    That's funny... you would think that is a bill that would get bipartisan support.

    I'm thinking perhaps Barbara Boxer might co-sponsor the amendment .
    Boxer: Cover Viagra? Then cover abortion - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
  • Mar 24, 2010, 04:58 PM
    galveston

    I think this is what will happen.

    Everyone will pay for health insurance.

    When they actually need health care, they will have to go to a doctor that does not accept insurance and only accepts cash.
  • Mar 24, 2010, 11:05 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    You don't have to wait. The bill is unconstitutional on its face. If a sex offender shouldn't be on the streets, there's laws that can be passed that KEEP him in jail. If someone is dangerous, THAT'S the PROPER avenue to take. But, to let someone out of prison, and then punish them for the rest of their lives is abhorrent to the American way. It punishes people for what they MIGHT do. That's against the Constitution. You can't retroactively enact a law, meaning all the offenders presently ON the registry's won't be affected. Besides, I thought you didn't like the government standing in between you and your doctor.

    Then, of course, there's the kids who are sexting each other today and being convicted of child porn. You don't want THEM to have a sex life. What about the guy who did nothing more than take a wizz in the alley? You don't want him to have a life either....

    Nope. It's draconian, over the top, and exactly what I expect out of the right wing today. Once a society accepts that it should TORTURE, this kind of stuff is a natural outgrowth of that kind of demented thought.

    excon

    What they MIGHT do? They have already done it. Your sympathy lies with the offender and not those that were victimized or new victims?

    Where in the constitution is it a "right" for any man to be able to have an erection? And at taxpayer expense?


    G&P
  • Mar 24, 2010, 11:21 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I don't care about public opinion ....it is a yo-yo . Perhaps the people who like what happened last week can look to Mass. for portents of things to come.


    Grace-Marie Turner: The Failure of RomneyCare - WSJ.com

    Agree and :

    Medical News: Record Match Day Sees Increase in Primary Care Placements - in Public Health & Policy, Work Force from MedPage Today

    No amount of legislation or taxation can alter the reality of supply and demand.

    Add 30 million "insured," to baby boomers now hitting medicare age, to an inadequate supply of primary care doctors, equals... WAITING LINES. Throw in "cost containment" and you have... RATIONING.

    About half of primary care residency slots are not filled by US grads. The shortfall is made up of foreign medical grads [FMGs] . Why do foreign medical students come here? A better paying job. With "cost containment" limiting pay, or working harder for the same or less pay, the supply of FMGs to fill primary care slots will also go down. If you have not already noticed, seeing the doctor often means seeing their "extender" [ PA, NP ] and this trend will only increase.



    G&P
  • Mar 26, 2010, 01:21 PM
    speechlesstx

    In retrospect, Nancy Pelosi had a point. She said they'd have to pass Obamacare so we could know what was in it and she was right. The Dems didn't know it may not cover children until 2014, and now we're finding out sn alleged $5.4 billion revenue source for Obamacare will likely be negated by companies dropping prescription drug coverage for millions of retirees.

    And who is going to suffer the consequences? All those seniors who will be thrown into Medicare part D. Oh well, whatever it it takes to pass your agenda, right Claire McCaskill?

    Quote:

    McCaskill: Dems 'overpromising' on healthcare
    By Eric Zimmermann - 03/26/10 10:22 AM ET

    Democrats are "overpromising" about the benefits of healthcare, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said this morning.

    The Missouri Democrat said her party has probably oversold the legislation that just became law.

    "The side on which I'm on, that voted for the bill, probably is overpromising, [has] not been clear enough about the fact that this is going to be an incremental approach over time, [and] the benefits aren't going to be felt by most Americans immediately," McCaskill told MSNBC's Mornine Joe.
  • Mar 31, 2010, 07:16 AM
    speechlesstx

    Hurry and Get your free Barack Obama commemorative health care reform certificate today!

    Sheesh, how many Americans already have health insurance? How does that make health care "the privilege of a few" as this self-serving certificate says?
  • Apr 7, 2010, 06:34 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors' offices, human resources departments and business groups.

    "They're saying, 'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?' " said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.
    Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public | McClatchy
  • Apr 7, 2010, 06:41 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public

    Hello again, tom:

    With the Democrats inability to explain it, and the Republicans lying about it, who's surprised?

    excon
  • Apr 7, 2010, 07:05 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    With the Democrats inability to explain it,

    They can't explain something they haven't read.

    Quote:

    and the Republicans lying about it, who's surprised?
    As if the Dems have been open and honest?
  • Apr 7, 2010, 07:46 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    As if the Dems have been open and honest?

    Hello again, Steve:

    Do you remember how lurch couldn't answer a simple question? It wasn't because he wasn't open and honest. It was because he couldn't speak plainly. The Republicans, even if what they spoke was a lie, spoke it plainly. Death panels is only two words - but it conveys sooooo much.

    excon
  • Apr 7, 2010, 08:12 AM
    tomder55

    Guess they had trouble explaining their stimulus plan also

    YouTube - Obama Money - Where Did it Come From?
  • Apr 7, 2010, 08:23 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Do you remember how lurch couldn't answer a simple question? It wasn't because he wasn't open and honest. It was because he couldn't speak plainly.

    I realize Democrats have trouble speaking plainly at times, Obama just uttered one sentence that was a mind-numbing 304 words long - but Pelosi was very plain when she said they'd have to pass the bill so we could know what was in it.
  • Apr 7, 2010, 08:27 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    YouTube - Obama Money - Where Did it Come From?

    Hello again, tom:

    You and Steve's penchant for finding boobs on the internet doesn't forward your arguments much. In fact, it diminishes from them if you need to use idiots to make your points.

    excon
  • Apr 7, 2010, 09:12 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    You and Steve's penchant for finding boobs on the internet doesn't forward your arguments much. In fact, it diminishes from them if you need to use idiots to make your points.

    A few boobs? Insurance companies are reporting on the boobs, people calling and asking "'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?'"
  • Apr 7, 2010, 11:30 AM
    speechlesstx
    Gee ex, you're having a bad run lately with timely info coming out to refute your arguments. Although it doesn't say "death panels," a NY Times article today gets to the point we've been making, How can we learn to say no?

    We came to the same conclusions long before Obamacare passed while the enablers like the Times denied any such thing. Now that it has passed they're admitting the inevitable, what they've known all along but wouldn't say BEFORE the legislation passed... all those things you mocked us for as liars.

    Aside from "learning how to say no," we're also hearing how taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for this in spite of all of O's promises not to, and that this would not only magically pay for itself, but save money and reduce the deficit. The WH is already hinting at a VAT. Welcome to the United States of Europe.
  • Apr 7, 2010, 11:39 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Although it doesn't say "death panels," a NY Times article today gets to the point we've been making, How can we learn to say no?

    Actually if you read the article it says nothing of the sort. The article is written to showcase that insurance companies would order often unnecassary treatments to elevate their profits and americans have come to view this as normal. This will likely come to an end. Here's an excerpt:
    Quote:

    We want the best possible care, no matter what. Yet we often do not get it because the current system tends to deliver more care even when it means worse care.

    It’s not just CT scans. Caesarean births have become more common, with little benefit to babies and significant burden to mothers. Men who would never have died from prostate cancer have been treated for it and left incontinent or impotent. Cardiac stenting and bypasses, with all their side effects, have become popular partly because people believe they reduce heart attacks. For many patients, the evidence suggests, that’s not true.
  • Apr 7, 2010, 01:42 PM
    tomder55

    The same Slimes that writes that paragraph does little to address tort reform ;which is the real reason excessive testing and procedures are conducted .


    It is not the insurance companies ordering them.. that doesn't even make sense. The last thing they want to do is cover unnecessary treatment . I thought the big belly -ache with the insurance companies was the denial of services... and not ordering more they would have to cover.
  • Apr 7, 2010, 02:28 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Actually if you read the article it says nothing of the sort. The article is written to showcase that insurance companies would order often unnecassary treatments to elevate their profits and americans have come to view this as normal. This will likely come to an end. Here's an excerpt:

    You might want to rethink that. If an insurance company pays for more tests and treatments it certainly doesn't elevate their profits.

    No matter how the Times spins this, the fact is the government will now be more and more involved in treatment decisions, and necessarily because of the cost, more denials.
  • Apr 7, 2010, 11:10 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Actually if you read the article it says nothing of the sort. The article is written to showcase that insurance companies would order often unnecassary treatments to elevate their profits and americans have come to view this as normal. This will likely come to an end. Here's an excerpt:

    It is the doctors that order tests, and often times they have to get "approval" from the insurance company before certain tests or procedures are ordered. The writer is clearly not in the medical field.

    If you read and analyze any good clinical trial - the conclusions are nuanced and subpopulation data are analyzed. To say that cardiac bypass or stenting does not save lives or prevent heart attacks or a worse heart attack is clearly a gross misrepresentation of the procedure.

    The link to the "Courage " trial clearly state that in STABLE coronary artery disease... someone who is having symptoms of an ACUTE heart attack or UNSTABLE heart disease is going to BENEFIT from intervention. But the NYT article does not mention this.

    This is why the professionals [ doctors ] : not the politicians, not the accountants, not the insurance companies, not the lawyers, not the journalists, not the drug companies, and certainly not thousands of pages of legalese should, in partnership with the patient, determine what is best.




    G&P
  • Apr 8, 2010, 01:51 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox View Post
    This is why the professionals [ doctors ] : not the politicians, not the accountants, not the insurance companies, not the lawyers, not the journalists, not the drug companies, and certainly not thousands of pages of legalese should, in partnership with the patient, determine what is best.

    This is how we have it in Canada. No legalese, just us and our doctor.
    Remember, it's Speech who submitted that newspaper article as representative of what they were saying so take up it's validity with him not me.
  • Apr 8, 2010, 05:49 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    A day before the McClatchy story ran, the Financial Times reported that the "demand for free medicines in the U.S. has increased sharply following the 2008 economic crisis."

    Rich Sagall, creator of NeedyMeds.org, a clearinghouse that helps patients find free medication, told the Times that he is "receiving 14,000 inquiries a day, up from 10,000 in late 2008."

    This is happening at a time when "pharmaceutical companies say they have expanded donations through 'patient assistance programs' by typically 15% to 25%."

    The United States was once a nation of proudly independent people. But now Americans in large numbers think they deserve free access to the Web, no-cost college educations, and jobs they don't deserve and can't be fired from. They believe others should be responsible for their mortgages and feel they have a right to early, cushy retirements at someone else's expense.

    This unsustainable condition is perpetuated by a federal tax code that is forcing a shrinking number of taxpayers to fund the government while removing a growing number of Americans from the income tax rolls.

    According to the Tax Foundation, 60% of U.S. households were taking in more in benefits and services from government six years ago than they paid out in taxes. That will rise to 70% or more under President Obama's spending hikes.

    At some point, there won't be enough independent and productive citizens to keep the freeloaders living in the luxury to which they've become accustomed. That won't be the end of America, but we'll be able to see it from there.
    'I Want My Free M.D.' - IBD - Investors.com
  • Apr 8, 2010, 05:54 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    But now Americans in large numbers think they deserve free access to the Web, no-cost college educations, and jobs they don't deserve and can't be fired from. They believe others should be responsible for their mortgages and feel they have a right to early, cushy retirements at someone else's expense.
    Where does he get his data to come up with that conclusion?
  • Apr 8, 2010, 06:11 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    But now Americans in large numbers think they deserve free access to the Web, no-cost college educations, and jobs they don't deserve and can't be fired from. They believe others should be responsible for their mortgages and feel they have a right to early, cushy retirements at someone else's expense.

    Hello again, tom:

    I'm just guessing here, but when Americans see corporate America getting subsidy's they don't deserve, bailouts they don't get, government guaranteeing their investments, and a genuine distaste by lawmakers to hold them accountable for the billions they ripped us off for, Americans just want their share. I don't blame 'em.

    They DID, did they not, just witness a HUGE giveaway of their money to the health insurance industry and big pharma??

    excon
  • Apr 8, 2010, 06:26 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    This is how we have it in Canada. No legalese, just us and our doctor.
    Remember, it's Speech who submitted that newspaper article as representative of what they were saying so take up it's validity with him not me.

    Yep, the doc may think knee replacement surgery is the answer and you agree... and 293 days later you can have one at the Kingston General Hospital.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 AM.