Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: franco b On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:14 pm

stockingfull wrote:Actually, I'm a pretty practical person. I'd like Medicare for all, but I'll take anything that really has a shot at solving the problems of skyrocketing costs, pre-existing conditions, rescission (insurers canceling for claims) and the burden of the uninsured.


By Golly that coarse correction is working.
franco b
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: V ermont Castings 2310, Franco Belge 262
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Modern Oak 114
Coal Size/Type: nut and pea

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: stockingfull On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:18 pm

That's no "coarse correction" at all. In fact, it's not even a course correction.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: franco b On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:35 pm

stockingfull wrote:That's no "coarse correction" at all. In fact, it's not even a course correction.


Perhaps not, but it sure sounds more like what most want instead of blind obedience to legislation regardless of its faults.
franco b
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: V ermont Castings 2310, Franco Belge 262
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Modern Oak 114
Coal Size/Type: nut and pea


Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: stockingfull On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:42 pm

I'll take a start, a platform, in almost any form. But it's simply wrong to think that virtually any Dem didn't wretch at the dealings with Lieberman and Nelson.

And, not coincidentally, that's reportedly precisely when Scott Brown's numbers took off.

So you want to end the back-room dealing? You'll get no argument from me. And, so long as "Downtown Brown" doesn't become a lap dog for the "party of no," it could provide an historic opportunity to break the log jam and actually do the people's work.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: topper On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:38 pm

voters can't be blamed - voters react - they react to lots of things - obama - bush - the whole damn lot of them

it will all now get better since the court has decided that campaign finance reform for corporations is unconstitutional

that decision will turn this country in the correct direction for sure
topper
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Hitzer
Stove/Furnace Model: 503

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: stockingfull On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:41 pm

topper wrote:it will all now get better since the court has decided that campaign finance reform for corporations is unconstitutional

that decision will turn this country in the correct direction for sure

Yep, toward a Constitutional Amendment, drafted by John S. McCain, making it clear that elections can't be bought.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: mr1precision On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:05 pm

stockingfull wrote: And, so long as "Downtown Brown" doesn't become a lap dog for the "party of no,"


FYI, I told him personally that I would work twice as hard to get him out of office if he forgot where he came from as did many others. Believe me he knows. ;)
mr1precision
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson AA-130

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: gerard On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:54 pm

stockingfull wrote:I'll take a start, a platform, in almost any form. But it's simply wrong to think that virtually any Dem didn't wretch at the dealings with Lieberman and Nelson.

And, not coincidentally, that's reportedly precisely when Scott Brown's numbers took off.

So you want to end the back-room dealing? You'll get no argument from me. And, so long as "Downtown Brown" doesn't become a lap dog for the "party of no," it could provide an historic opportunity to break the log jam and actually do the people's work.


The "party of no" ? Lose the cliches, it impacts negatively on your credibility. What exactly were they allowed to say no to when they were totally excluded from any of the negotiations? Yep - this administration has been REAL inclusive, has done things in the open and put it on CSPAN (oh, no they didn't). Have done things with total transparency (no, they haven't). Obama's problem is he STILL thinks he's the smartest person in the room, HE'S right, and EVERYONE else is wrong, and he STILL can't understand why everyone else doesn't understand this. Today, he once again showed his utter ignorance by proposing banking restrictions on what they can do with their own investment capital yet he makes no changes to fannie or freddie, the real culprits in the housing implosion. Stock market drops 200 points. Yep - he's a real einstein. I called him a black jimmy carter when he got in but now that just does a diservice to jimmy carter!
gerard
 
Stove/Furnace Make: yukon dual fuel
Stove/Furnace Model: husky

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: Black_And_Blue On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:42 pm

Sometimes you are just an innocent bystander and s**t happens to you but.......

The other 99% of the time your unfortunate situation is of your own doing.

Less hubris Mr President please,

Thank you.
Black_And_Blue
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska 140

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: tvb On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:53 pm

It's probably all moot on who got who into office since the SCOTUS essentially sold the our electoral and political system to the highest bidder today.
tvb
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Alaska
Stove/Furnace Model: Channing III

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: jpete On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:42 pm

stockingfull wrote:
topper wrote:it will all now get better since the court has decided that campaign finance reform for corporations is unconstitutional

that decision will turn this country in the correct direction for sure

Yep, toward a Constitutional Amendment, drafted by John S. McCain, making it clear that elections can't be bought.


How is Mr. "We came to change Washington and Washington changed us" going to fix anything?

He was bought a long time ago.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: jpete On: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:50 pm

stockingfull wrote:Personally, I'm glad to see the backroom mess created by the deals to get the Senate DINO's on board go down. The House bill was much better because no single vote was so crucial.

That's why I welcome a new GOP senator with experience drafting healthcare legislation.

So I say, lay out some basic req'ts, agree on them, and let the states have at it. But the key is that we have to get everybody insured in order to control costs, or we'll never be competitive.


Explain the incentive to reduce prices when the medical industry can use the government's ability to put a gun to the head of every person in the country and force them to purchase their product?
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:40 am

jpete wrote:
stockingfull wrote:... But the key is that we have to get everybody insured in order to control costs, or we'll never be competitive.


Explain the incentive to reduce prices when the medical industry can use the government's ability to put a gun to the head of every person in the country and force them to purchase their product?

To jpete:

Yeah, well, um, I wasn't exactly following Stockingfull's logic either. A forced customer to a single entity is usually called "monopoly". No "competitive" savings with a monopoly, just government price regulation.

To stockingfull:

The ONLY way to bring down costs is for the free market to operate. You said it yourself: competition is required to bring retail medical prices down. Other than that, there really is no health care problem. There is only a DESIRE for universal coverage by those who don't have coverage and cannot afford health care and, it is their DESIRE to have someone else pay for it. Currently the system accommodates those uninsured individuals through the backdoor at the expense of those paying for health care now.

The current proposals are merely a political game of pass the lunch check. I am glad, Jon, that you understand that now as evidenced by your statement that the backroom deals were political garbage and you are glad they are essentially gone.

The only solutions to the problem of universal coverage is to force coverage, force price controls, or force the rich to pay for the coverage of the poor.

Just so we understand clearly, FORCE is the only solution. FORCE, by definition, is the antithesis of LIBERTY.

Is everyone clear on these points?

Good. So, now the question is: How much liberty do you want to give up for charity?

Now, as I recall, "those who blamed Bush" for destroying liberty in the name of security were livid.

Those people should be at least as angry at someone who destroys liberty in the name of charity, should they not?
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: stockingfull On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:18 pm

Let's take this one step at a time.

1. There's no gun at anybody's head now, right? Yet costs are skyrocketing. Why? IMO, there are several major reasons. Big pharma and Hartford have a virtual monopoly, state-by-state. That monopoly is allowed to cherry pick the healthiest insureds, to deny coverage to anybody with a PEC, and to cancel people who have the temerity to get sick. Meanwhile, the problem is magnified as the population ages and requires/demands more and more expensive health care.

As it stands now, if you contract an illness which requires ongoing treatment, you simply cannot change jobs. You become indentured to your employer. (Why? Because healthcare as an employee benefit was thought to be a good thing once upon a time, and this tether happens to attach to that concept.) If you're lucky, your insurer won't find some "benefit cap" or "program limitation" or ancient unrelated undisclosed PEC, or other horsecrap on the basis of which to rescind your coverage.

Plus costs simply are out of control because it's all become a tech-heavy, on-demand system, where gigantic amounts are spent for end-of-life treatments, many of which do virtually nothing but burn money. Medical advances in the last generation have been so rapid that people in this country have come to believe that they never have to face death. And insurers have stopped fighting and become content to just pay, keep score, charge higher premiums and take their profit, which is what insurers do best. If your health insurance costs haven't risen much faster than your income, that says a lot for your income. But anybody who doesn't think that the cost of the end of life in this country has become a significant problem is already under some strong medication. Finding a way to deal gracefully with death is a challenge we must confront, without resorting to the irresponsible and inflammatory "death panel" lingo of the Betsy McCaugheys and Sarah Palins of the world.

2. Apart from the niceties outlined above for people who actually have insurance, the growing uninsured population is going without sometimes inexpensive early detection and treatment, which results in (1) them becoming acutely sick, and (2) getting treatment for their sickness in ER's, (3) at the highest possible cost for that treatment (even ignoring that it might have been completely avoided with cheap preventative care), (4) which stratospheric costs either bankrupt them or us, or BOTH them and us.

3. The above risk and cost structure isn't really much different in character from that which required Social Security, or Medicare, or even carrying insurance on your car when you drive. When a problem reaches a breadth and/or scale which significantly affects the taxpayer, then it's the function of government to intervene in some way. We're by far the most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we're 37th in outcomes. It's not just a matter of national embarrassment, it's sealing our economic fate in the world marketplace. If we don't reform, we'll never compete again; it's that simple.

4. So the question becomes how best to do it. It's clearly a national problem, so it's not something which can be "optional." That said, there still is a wide range of possible solutions, from minimum guidelines for state programs, to universal Medicare, and lots of possibilities in between. Scott Brown participated in doing it in MA; let's see what he thinks about how it should be started in DC. As I said yesterday, I think it can be started with a list of simple minimum standards, which few in either party would want to answer for voting against.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:04 pm

Clarifications of your words, by my summary, are in bold, one step at a time.

stockingfull wrote:Let's take this one step at a time.

1. There's no gun at anybody's head now, right? Yet costs are skyrocketing. Why? IMO, there are several major reasons. Big pharma and Hartford have a virtual monopoly, state-by-state. That monopoly is allowed to cherry pick the healthiest insureds, to deny coverage to anybody with a PEC, and to cancel people who have the temerity to get sick. Meanwhile, the problem is magnified as the population ages and requires/demands more and more expensive health care.


Clarification: So we need to reform the rules under which insurance companies operate in order to increase competition, cover pre-existing conditions, eliminate cancellations, and to limit health care to "those who don't need it."

As it stands now, if you contract an illness which requires ongoing treatment, you simply cannot change jobs. You become indentured to your employer. (Why? Because healthcare as an employee benefit was thought to be a good thing once upon a time, and this tether happens to attach to that concept.) If you're lucky, your insurer won't find some "benefit cap" or "program limitation" or ancient unrelated undisclosed PEC, or other horsecrap on the basis of which to rescind your coverage.


Clarification:So we need to reform the rules under which insurance companies operate in order to increase the portability of coverage.

Plus costs simply are out of control because it's all become a tech-heavy, on-demand system, where gigantic amounts are spent for end-of-life treatments, many of which do virtually nothing but burn money. Medical advances in the last generation have been so rapid that people in this country have come to believe that they never have to face death. And insurers have stopped fighting and become content to just pay, keep score, charge higher premiums and take their profit, which is what insurers do best. If your health insurance costs haven't risen much faster than your income, that says a lot for your income. But anybody who doesn't think that the cost of the end of life in this country has become a significant problem is already under some strong medication. Finding a way to deal gracefully with death is a challenge we must confront, without resorting to the irresponsible and inflammatory "death panel" lingo of the Betsy McCaugheys and Sarah Palins of the world.


Clarification:So we need to educate the people to understand that their life will end at some point and at that point they become a financial burden to the health care system because all of the tech heavy life prolonging techniques are very costly without much benefit if you are going to die anyway. Thus, an agreement must be made between the care givers and the patient as to when your life will end.

2. Apart from the niceties outlined above for people who actually have insurance, the growing uninsured population is going without sometimes inexpensive early detection and treatment, which results in (1) them becoming acutely sick, and (2) getting treatment for their sickness in ER's, (3) at the highest possible cost for that treatment (even ignoring that it might have been completely avoided with cheap preventative care), (4) which stratospheric costs either bankrupt them or us, or BOTH them and us.


Clarification: Those without means have health problems that grow large because they delay treatment and become more costly to treat thus they need preventative care to reduce overall system costs.

3. The above risk and cost structure isn't really much different in character from that which required Social Security, or Medicare, or even carrying insurance on your car when you drive. When a problem reaches a breadth and/or scale which significantly affects the taxpayer, then it's the function of government to intervene in some way. We're by far the most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we're 37th in outcomes. It's not just a matter of national embarrassment, it's sealing our economic fate in the world marketplace. If we don't reform, we'll never compete again; it's that simple.


Clarification:The inefficiency of capitalism has left holes in the health care system that need filling by government because the magnitude of the problem has reached a critical mass. The injection of government regulation will foster competition.

4. So the question becomes how best to do it. It's clearly a national problem, so it's not something which can be "optional." That said, there still is a wide range of possible solutions, from minimum guidelines for state programs, to universal Medicare, and lots of possibilities in between. Scott Brown participated in doing it in MA; let's see what he thinks about how it should be started in DC. As I said yesterday, I think it can be started with a list of simple minimum standards, which few in either party would want to answer for voting against.


Clarification: Health care reform is an imperative national security and welfare issue. Politicians cannot ignore it because of the implied moral imperative. There are many ways to reform the system but all require the force of government in some form.

Jon:

1. There is no moral imperative to reform health care. The economics of your proposal is as much of a moral dilemma as the current system. It will provide only basic health care to the elderly because the high-tech costs aren't "worth it" for someone with a short life expectancy. That life expectancy must be determined by someone besides the patient. You are swapping one moral dilemma for another.

2. Insurance regulations can be changed to do what you want with regard to coverage holes but there is no guarantee that companies will survive to provide the service. Regulation rarely spurs competition. Government involvement usually stops all competition and creates a regulated monopoly. Don't fool yourself, or the people, with regard to competition.

3. All of your proposals limit LIBERTY, for the sake of charity, at the expense of the taxpayer. The taxpayer may be willing to provide some charity but that amount should be determined by the people. That is what Brown's election was about. The people have a responsibility to provide for themselves and the government must leave incentives in place. Food, clothing, shelter (a.k.a basic sustenance, which includes health care) should always be the responsibility of the individual except in extreme cases. Any health care reform that focuses on universal coverage MUST require a flat tax on the earnings of everyone for the purpose of equity. The poor must have "skin in the game" to understand that health care isn't free.

4. The system of torts must be addressed to limit awards in the case of medical malpractice. Defensive medicine costs as much as preventative medicine will save.

This article outlines some places to start the reform before abandoning our system to socialism:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/ ... achusetts/

The article is by CL Gray, president of Physicians for Reform.
Last edited by Richard S. on Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed quotes, please don't place you're own words in quotes.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M