[George_1950]

What a paradox: a government that refuses to protect its citizens from illegal immigration, now proposes to lock-up those same citizens who do not choose to purchase health insurance. Makes you appreciate why Barack wants that civilian police force, as well trained and funded as the US military; wonder why he needs that?

[excon]

What a paradox: Makes you appreciate why Barack wants that civilian police force, as well trained and funded as the US military; wonder why he needs that?

Hello again, George:

Sooo, you only appreciate a well trained police force as long as it's doing the social engineering YOU approve of, huh? Yes, I'm speaking about the DEA.

THAT'S the paradox, my friend.

excon

PS> At THIS point in time, we have a REAL bill that passed the House. Therefore, REAL words count this time. Although, you're going to have to show me the words in the bill where they LOCK people up who don't do their bidding, I don't see a whole lot of difference in locking people up because you don't like what they smoke, and locking 'em up because they don't buy what you want 'em to buy...

Frankly, the precedent for HUGE government intervention into the personal lives of Americans was started, and is STILL supported by the likes of you. Poor Righty's. You reap what you sew.

excon

[Catsmine]

Frankly, the precedent for HUGE government intervention into the personal lives of Americans was started, and is STILL supported by the likes of you.
excon

The Federalists?

[inthebox]

But you can't point us the actual text. :rolleyes:

No what you do is make up scare tactics instead of posting the actual parts of the bill.

It already happens. Insurance companies as well as the gov [ medicare and medicaid ] don't pay for things they deem not necessary. This is after the fact - the treatment rendered. So the doctors and the hospital eat the costs. You say big deal - well then doctors and hospitals start to limit services and it is the public that suffers - the poor, the uninsured, and the insured as costs are passed on as higher private insurance premiums, or higher taxes, or doctors just leaving the area.

Here is a current example

Today's Hospitalist :: UTIs: no longer another cost of doing business

Now on the face of it preventing urinary tract infections is a good goal, but the reality is that there are reasons that a foley catheter is needed; urinary retention, incontinence and immobility - to prevent infections like bed sores which are much harder to treat. This is stuff in the trenches, but gov lawmakers have to interfere.

It is also in the news about reducing readmissions; another good and ideal thing. The reality is that people get readmitted to the hospital for reasons beyond the doctor's or the hospital's control. Heart falure, emphysema, coronary artery disease are chronic conditions. They are not cured, thy can be managed. For example, a person who has asthma or emphysema that smokes - they are likely to be hospitalized more than a person with the same condition who does not smoke. What is an emergency room to do with the smoker who comes back in a week after just being hospitalized and needs to be admitted again. Currently we treat the person and their illness. Under gov mandates there is and will be mandates, penalties, financial pressure NOT TO TREAT this person.

Ask any veteran in the VA system how much choice, how convenient the VA system is.
Ask Ex why he does not get his care exclusively through the VA system .


G&P

[paraclete]

It already happens. Insurance companies as well as the gov [ medicare and medicaid ] don't pay for things they deem not necessary. This is after the fact - the treatment rendered. so the doctors and the hospital eat the costs. You say big deal - well then doctors and hospitals start to limit services and it is the public that suffers - the poor, the uninsured, and the insured as costs are passed on as higher private insurance premiums, or higher taxes, or doctors just leaving the area.

You certainly have some weird sort of beauracracy over there, so bent on cost reduction and micro-management. It must be a risk management approach to health care, a sort of everyone has one chance to get well, without managing the patient's condition. In such circumstances it is easier to have a co-payment system where the patient is rebated a set and known proportion of the cost.

[inthebox]

Rebates:

Os a good idea, that way people will know the real costs and therefore make their own choices as to whether running to the ER for a cold is really worth the cost. The initial upfront cost should come from pre-tax dollars or tax free HSAs [health saving acconts ].

Interqual criteria judges intensity of service and severity of illness to determine if a hospital admission/"medical loss" is justified.


G&P

[paraclete]

Rebates:

Os a good idea, that way people will know the real costs and therefore make their own choices as to whether running to the ER for a cold is really worth the cost. The initial upfront cost should come from pre-tax dollars or tax free HSAs [health saving acconts ].

Interqual criteria judges intensity of service and severity of illness to determine if a hospital admission/"medical loss" is justified.


G&P

Yeh, we do it here as part of a government paid scheme but the ER isn't included, that's free whatever, so people go the doctor and use the ER after hours

[George_1950]

Here's a funny cartoon...

[speechlesstx]

And here's the organizational chart for Pelosicare:

[paraclete]

Isn't great, you finally got more than half of you to agree on something. I saw the stack of paperwork, it certainly isn't simple. No doubt your lawyers will have field day making money out of this. But it looks like a camel, you know, a horse designed by a committee.

If you wanted a camel, why didn't you say so? We have a million going cheap and in full working order, you didn't have to design your own :)

[phlanx]

Looks like it's a picture designed to scare someone!

Any national company with thousands of offices have a similar complicated link chart!

I am just amazed that one republican voted for the bill - there is hope that the most powerful nation on the planet will start to look after his fellow human, and then just maybe, the reputation of the US will change

[tomder55]

I am just amazed that one republican voted for the bill

Here's the inside scoop on that. The Congressman just won in a solid Democrat district because the Dem who had the seat got caught taking bribe money and shoved it in his freezer.

The Republicans waited until the vote was decided and then released the Congressman to vote in favor of the legislation to give him political cover next year. Had the decision still had been in doubt he would've voted with the Republicans.

Truth is that the only real bipartisanship in this was in oppposition to this hostile takeover of 20 % of the US economy.

[paraclete]

Truth is that the only real bipartisanship in this was in oppposition to this hostile takeover of 20 % of the US economy.

Well they may as well go for 100%, they already have Banking, Insurance, Auto, Military, why not get the last 20%

[speechlesstx]

Bill Clinton told Dems yesterday (besides digging at "tea-baggers), "The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want."

Yeah that's it, we elected these people to "just pass the bill." I mean who cares if it's a "rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill" that's a "nightmare," as Camille Paglia put it. We can always trust them to fix it later, right?

[tomder55]

Besides digging at "tea-baggers"

Bubba is walking on thin ice with those sentiments.


The definitive " cat out of the bag" confession of the true statists motives for this is found in an essay by The New Yorker's John Cassidy
Some Vaguely Heretical Thoughts on Health-Care Reform: Rational Irrationality : The New Yorker

So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government's spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.
That takes me back to where I began. Both in terms of the political calculus of the Democratic Party, and in terms of making the United States a more equitable society, expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy. Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted. But as an economics reporter and commentator, I feel obliged to put on my green eyeshade and count the dollars.

[speechlesstx]

Pelosi says Obamacare will be our "Christmas present."



Has anyone told these people it's not their damn money, that our tax dollars are not their personal Christmas fund? As Allahpundit put it, this is like “borrowing” a friend’s credit card, buying a car with it, then presenting them with the car on Christmas morning as their “gift.”

Where's the window to return this Congress and administration?

[excon]

Has anyone told these people it's not their damn money, that our tax dollars are not their personal Christmas fund?

Hello again, Steve:

Of course, you believe the right wing schtick about it COSTING money..

Whereas, the truth of the matter is, the program SAVES us money as opposed to the Republicans plan. But, more importantly, NOT doing anything to reform health care WILL bankrupt us, absolutely, positively and without a doubt. As folks who tend to be numbers oriented, I don't know why you don't look at that.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Of course, you believe the right wing schtick about it COSTING money..

Whereas, the truth of the matter is, the program SAVES us money as opposed to the Republicans plan. But, more importantly, NOT doing anything to reform health care WILL bankrupt us, absolutely, positively and without a doubt. As folks who tend to be numbers oriented, I don't know why you don't look at that.

I bet you're a sucker for sales ads, too. You know, the more you spend the more you save. Do tell, how is Obamacare going to save money? Death panels and such?

The health overhaul bill that narrowly passed the House on Saturday includes a provision to nudge more people to confront such choices: It would pay for end-of-life counseling for Medicare patients.

Supporters say counseling would give patients more control and free families from tortuous decisions. Critics have warned it could lead to government ''death panels.'' What few on either side note is that counseling could lead more people to choose less intensive care when they're dying, and ultimately trim government-funded health bills.

[tomder55]

By the way . I found out why AARP was so willing to throw seniors under the bus.

AARP claims to be all about representing the interests of seniors, but when it comes to health care reform, they are selling seniors down the river to line their own pockets.

The AARP has endorsed the gargantuan PelosiCare bill that just passed the House, despite the fact the bill proposes more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare, which is certain to lead to rationing, inferior care and "death panels" for vulnerable senior citizens.

Why? As they say, follow the money. PelosiCare will also cut Medicare Advantage by $170 billion. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to purchase private insurance with their Medicare payments, but these cuts will drive many of these seniors into inferior Medigap plans.

AARP has a vested interest in seniors being driven out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans because AARP makes a fortune in royalty fees from Medigap plans.

More than one-half of its $1.1 billion budget comes from such royalty fees, and Medigap plans make up the biggest share of this royalty revenue by far. The more seniors are forced out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans, the more money AARP makes. In other words, under PelosiCare, seniors lose but AARP wins - big time.

Even the Washington Post noted the conflict of interest on Oct. 27, when it said, "Democratic proposals to slash reimbursements for...Medicare Advantage are widely expected to drive up demand for private Medigap policies like the ones offered by AARP."
AARP's tacit endorsement of Medicare cuts line its pockets, but shortchanges seniors -- chicagotribune.com

[speechlesstx]

AARP sucks. I hope they crash and burn and take Pelosi with them. Pelosi now tells us it's "very fair" to jail people for not buying her "Christmas present." Man, Christmas just keeps getting better and better. Rep. Peter Roskam asks the right question in Saturday's floor discussion:

We’ve heard from the best and the brightest all afternoon, and not a one of them have answered why it is that you have to criminalize people to coax them into a plan that’s so fabulous. It makes no sense. … The other side, with all due respect, with all the adjectives and all the flourishing speech, have failed to answer that question.

Ed Morrisey provides the answer the Dems can't or won't give, "Statism always requires force, and it always strips people of liberty. It always comes with handcuffs. That’s how we know it’s coming."