PDA

View Full Version : Anyone see the vid of O killing a fly with his bare hand on msnbc/NBC today?



Okla-homey
6/17/2009, 08:28 PM
They led with it on the Today show this morning. srlsy. The talking heads were positively enraptured with his mad fly-slapping skillz.

A fly folks...while the PRK prepares to ignite the Korean peninsula, our currency is melting in value, the administration is committed to spending a trillion dollars to dismantle the finest health care system on the planet to give free healthcare to 16 million people who don't have insurance (about 5% of the US population, not counting the 18 million illegals here), the administration is shoveling billions to carmakers who haven't made a profit since 2005, the Taliban is less than 50 miles from Islamabad and control of Paki nukes, and Iwannajihad remains in power in Iran, killing protesters and remaining committed to incinerating Israel.

This country is being run by microcephalics.

KC//CRIMSON
6/17/2009, 08:30 PM
Congrats Homey, you've come full circle now and have turned Tuba-esque.

Okla-homey
6/17/2009, 08:43 PM
Congrats Homey, you've come full circle now and have turned Tuba-esque.

no sir. I'm just stating simple, indisputable facts.

yermom
6/17/2009, 09:14 PM
i was also curious why it was "BREAKING NEWS"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbUH_iVjYw

olevetonahill
6/17/2009, 09:14 PM
Grats Homey ya have come FULL circle to the Brite side ;)

Guess the O is just gonna swat those nukes outta the air with his GOD like hands :D

Crucifax Autumn
6/17/2009, 09:17 PM
I am not gonna argue the Obama stuff as I am fairly middle of the road on his job so far.

I WILL though, point out that if the media covered this they are retarded and should all be fired!

KC//CRIMSON
6/17/2009, 09:17 PM
i was also curious why it was "BREAKING NEWS"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbUH_iVjYw


The O also installed his iPhone 3.0 Update today, maybe you should start a thread about it?

soonerhubs
6/17/2009, 09:23 PM
You only need the "hard hitting" "skeptical" journalists when you are against the powers that be. Haven't you all seen All the President's Men?

It's pretty pathetic when the only reliable news source that actually scrutinizes both sides of the political spectrum is found on Comedy Central.

Between the Queen Obama Fashion show, and the "Live from the White House" broadcasts NBC and ABC have truly taken journalistic integrity and thrown it in the trash. Now I won't say get your facts from Rush, Hannity, or any of those other entertainers, but could the people who actually claim to report the news do People a little service by checking some powers and sticking to issues that matter.

You remember all the scrutiny the past administrations have gotten for making either unwise choices or taking us into unchartered territory?
That's not really happening here, and it's pathetic.

Crucifax Autumn
6/17/2009, 09:25 PM
Actually Bill Maher reamed Obama this last week.

soonerhubs
6/17/2009, 09:26 PM
Actually Bill Maher reamed Obama this last week.

NBC should hire him. :D

LosAngelesSooner
6/17/2009, 09:29 PM
no sir. I'm just stating simple, indisputable facts.


...the administration is committed to spending a trillion dollars to dismantle the finest health care system on the planet to give free healthcare to 16 million people who don't have insurance (about 5% of the US population, not counting the 18 million illegals here)...Should I START completely dismantling your entire "indisputable" argument here...or should I END completely dismantling your entire "indisputable" argument here?

Hmmm....decisions, decisions...

Crucifax Autumn
6/17/2009, 09:31 PM
Let's just all agree that the news coverage of fly swatting is pretty stupid.

soonerhubs
6/17/2009, 09:33 PM
Should I START completely dismantling your entire "indisputable" argument here...or should I END completely dismantling your entire "indisputable" argument here?

Hmmm....decisions, decisions...

Although the subjective statement about Health Care was made, can you agree that this unchartered territory for Health Care may need just a smidgen more scrutiny than the media is giving it?

LosAngelesSooner
6/17/2009, 09:37 PM
Let's just all agree that the news coverage of fly swatting is pretty stupid.YES.


Although the subjective statement about Health Care was made, can you agree that this unchartered territory for Health Care may need just a smidgen more scrutiny than the media is giving it?...and YES.

olevetonahill
6/17/2009, 09:38 PM
Should I START completely dismantling your entire "indisputable" argument here...or should I END completely dismantling your entire "indisputable" argument here?

Hmmm....decisions, decisions...

Once ya lose , you will just cry and go home
Oh wait that aint a bad thing :D :rolleyes:

olevetonahill
6/17/2009, 09:40 PM
Let's just all agree that the news coverage is pretty stupid.

agreed

Crucifax Autumn
6/17/2009, 09:42 PM
Hell, I just scratched my ***...get a camera crew! Stop the presses!

AggieTool
6/17/2009, 09:55 PM
It's like Shaft is president!

And Foxxy Brown is Michele O.

SSShhheeeeeeeiiiiitttttt...:D

Crucifax Autumn
6/17/2009, 10:02 PM
Shut your mouth!

olevetonahill
6/17/2009, 10:33 PM
Shut your HO mouth!

Fixed ;)

John Kochtoston
6/17/2009, 11:00 PM
While I don't share Homey's view on much, nor do I concede that the opinions he has are indisputible facts, he's dead-on balls accurate about the media covering stupid ****. CNN especially fell down on this end. The channel that cut its teeth on Iraq war coverage and images from Tianamen Square was too busy offering us debate about fatty foods and the faceoff between Letterman and Palin while all hell broke loose in Tehran.

tommieharris91
6/18/2009, 12:27 AM
While I don't share Homey's view on much, nor do I concede that the opinions he has are indisputible facts, he's dead-on balls accurate about the media covering stupid ****. CNN especially fell down on this end. The channel that cut its teeth on Iraq war coverage and images from Tianamen Square was too busy offering us debate about fatty foods and the faceoff between Letterman and Palin while all hell broke loose in Tehran.

CNN doesn't even know who's protesting who.

BTW Homey, the interview was on CNBC, and the fly swatting thing was caricaturized pretty well on that network today.

Crucifax Autumn
6/18/2009, 12:44 AM
I watched at least an hour of coverage of Tehran on CNN this evening and it was the top story this morning.

Just sayin'

Okla-homey
6/18/2009, 05:32 AM
The Fly Swatter story has legs! It's the morning of 6/18/09 and NPR opens its news with the fly story...and the fact that PETA condemns fly killing.:rolleyes:

soonerinabilene
6/18/2009, 05:37 AM
The O also installed his iPhone 3.0 Update today, maybe you should start a thread about it?

And the fact that he has a blackberry instead of an iphone makes this more of a story than swatting flies with his hand.;)

batonrougesooner
6/18/2009, 07:42 AM
Actually Bill Maher reamed Obama this last week.

That's just because it was his turn to be on top. They still love each other.

SoonerJack
6/18/2009, 07:49 AM
I really thought when the Anointed One got selected, that there was really no way that one person could screw up this country that badly.

I think I was wrong.

[cue the Bush bash in 3-2-1]

Mixer!
6/18/2009, 08:16 AM
Shut your mouth!

He's just talking about Shaft...

TUSooner
6/18/2009, 08:28 AM
The Fly Swatter story has legs! It's the morning of 6/18/09 and NPR opens its news with the fly story...and the fact that PETA condemns fly killing.:rolleyes:

Sorry I missed that. My drive to work is too short!


the PRK prepares to ignite the Korean peninsula, our currency is melting in value, the administration is committed to spending a trillion dollars to dismantle the finest health care system on the planet to give free healthcare to 16 million people who don't have insurance (about 5% of the US population, not counting the 18 million illegals here), the administration is shoveling billions to carmakers who haven't made a profit since 2005, the Taliban is less than 50 miles from Islamabad and control of Paki nukes, and Iwannajihad remains in power in Iran, killing protesters and remaining committed to incinerating Israel.

Man's foolishness and inhumanity? That's nothing really new. But a man killing a fly with his bare hands, well c'mon, can you do that?! ;) I bet it scares Ahblabablabajad.

I just have 2 observations.

1. The major news media in general plays to the lowest common denominator and its coverage is mostly sensationalist, inane and trivial (not in a good way). Is this a surprise? I think it may be better to be ignorant than to "know" stuff that don't signify nothin.

2. Unfortunately, it's probably the kind of coverage Americans deserve in light of the hysteria, gleefully stoked by the Rushians these days, over how Obama is looking up Mom's dress and sticking his fly-specked fingers in the Apple Pie. (It's just like the anti-Bush or anti-Clinton or even the anti-Tom Jefferson hysteria of yesteryear.) Obama and his policies are certainly not above criticism, and lots of legit criticism should be made and is being made. But most of the noise is really just childish BS, like kids shouting at each other in the front yard. "You hit me first!" "But you pushed me!" "Well you called me a poo-poo head!" "MOMMY!!"

That's all I've got.

My Opinion Matters
6/18/2009, 08:46 AM
They led with it on the Today show this morning. srlsy. The talking heads were positively enraptured with his mad fly-slapping skillz.

A fly folks...while the PRK prepares to ignite the Korean peninsula, our currency is melting in value, the administration is committed to spending a trillion dollars to dismantle the finest health care system on the planet to give free healthcare to 16 million people who don't have insurance (about 5% of the US population, not counting the 18 million illegals here), the administration is shoveling billions to carmakers who haven't made a profit since 2005, the Taliban is less than 50 miles from Islamabad and control of Paki nukes, and Iwannajihad remains in power in Iran, killing protesters and remaining committed to incinerating Israel.

This country is being run by microcephalics.

Homey, I have a lot of respect for you, but this signals you're not in touch with reality.

TheHumanAlphabet
6/18/2009, 09:16 AM
What really gets me is the Oblahma circle jerks that the MSM is doing. ABC puts on 4 hours of programming from the White house on health care - they think they are being "open and balanced" even after they refuse to sell advert time about a competing plan. Tom Brokaw gets named to a White House Commission after he "interviews" Oblahma. The no-talent and not funny any more David Letterman savages Sarah Palin with comments about her daughters that no one would think funny and he still continues to bash Bush 6 months after he is out of office - just to continue a lame a$$ "comedy" bit.

ABC, NBC, CNN, Obama News Network (CNBC) and CBS - I haven't watched your news isn a long time and I don't expect I will any time soon again... You all have no credibility.

TheHumanAlphabet
6/18/2009, 09:21 AM
Homey, I have a lot of respect for you, but this signals you're not in touch with reality.

No it doesn't...

A very nice analysis I saw last night on CNN broke down the healthcare numbers and by the time you subtract people who had heatlhcare and then dropped it for a little while and resumed their coverage, illegal aliens, young people who don't think they need health insurance, and so on, only about 10 million of the "so-called" 46 million without actually were without health insurance.

If we stopped the tort actions against drs - let them practice and make them defensive, and possible name regional locations for large expensive equipment so the "jones" hospitals don't have to keep up - I bet we would have a right fine health delivery system with reasonable costs. We DO NOT NEED government control of this industry - just ask Canada, the U.K and Europe where it takes a long time ot see primary care people and people do not get the service they would expect.

My Opinion Matters
6/18/2009, 09:27 AM
No it doesn't...

A very nice analysis I saw last night on CNN broke down the healthcare numbers and by the time you subtract people who had heatlhcare and then dropped it for a little while and resumed their coverage, illegal aliens, young people who don't think they need health insurance, and so on, only about 10 million of the "so-called" 46 million without actually were without health insurance.

If we stopped the tort actions against drs - let them practice and make them defensive, and possible name regional locations for large expensive equipment so the "jones" hospitals don't have to keep up - I bet we would have a right fine health delivery system with reasonable costs. We DO NOT NEED government control of this industry - just ask Canada, the U.K and Europe where it takes a long time ot see primary care people and people do not get the service they would expect.

I love the "I saw a report on this issue once so I'm an expert" mentality. You don't understand the issue. Thanks for playing.

OklahomaTuba
6/18/2009, 09:42 AM
Don't blame the fly, he was naturally attracted....

;)

Howzit
6/18/2009, 09:46 AM
The Fly Swatter story has legs! It's the morning of 6/18/09 and NPR opens its news with the fly story...and the fact that PETA condemns fly killing.:rolleyes:

Yes, but the bigger story here is that PETA has confirmed that Obama is, in fact, NOT the Buddha.

49r
6/18/2009, 09:47 AM
ABC, NBC, CNN, Obama News Network (CNBC) and CBS - I haven't watched your news isn a long time and I don't expect I will any time soon again... You all have no credibility.


A very nice analysis I saw last night on CNN...

:pop:

OklahomaTuba
6/18/2009, 09:49 AM
I love the "I saw a report on this issue once so I'm an expert" mentality. You don't understand the issue. Thanks for playing.

That's laughable, since you're doing the same damn thing by espousing a "I'm an expert" mentality on an internet message board.

My Opinion Matters
6/18/2009, 09:50 AM
:pop:

Whoa. ZombieSoonerFans.Com?

My Opinion Matters
6/18/2009, 09:52 AM
That's laughable, since you're doing the same damn thing by espousing a "I'm an expert" mentality on an internet message board.

Almost as laughable as being called out by OklahomaTuba.

OklahomaTuba
6/18/2009, 09:53 AM
Almost as laughable as being called out by OklahomaTuba.
Well, you are an "expert" at it. :)

My Opinion Matters
6/18/2009, 09:54 AM
And then things got weird.

John Kochtoston
6/18/2009, 10:09 AM
I watched at least an hour of coverage of Tehran on CNN this evening and it was the top story this morning.

Just sayin'

Almost a week after the fact. What's particularly disturbing is that most international media actually did a pretty decent run-up to the election, with most analyists (not all) saying the election was too close to call. When Ahmehnijad won almost 2-1, that should have sent reporters into the streets, and it should have dominated the news cycle. Instead, we got two minutes an hour of coverage, which utterly failed to reflect how widespread the protests were.

OklahomaTuba
6/18/2009, 10:16 AM
Why would the state-run-media report whats happening in Iran? That would take attention away from The One!

Thankfully the state-run-media is making this whole "news reporting" thing easier on themselves by producing the news right from the white house.

Must be easier on knees there.

TheHumanAlphabet
6/18/2009, 10:21 AM
I love the "I saw a report on this issue once so I'm an expert" mentality. You don't understand the issue. Thanks for playing.

I understand it better than you! And your opinion doesn't matter!

TheHumanAlphabet
6/18/2009, 10:21 AM
:pop:

Well - it was Lou Dobbs...

Okla-homey
6/18/2009, 10:22 AM
Well - it was Lou Dobbs...

Lou Dobbs hates messican people.

TheHumanAlphabet
6/18/2009, 10:25 AM
Lou Dobbs hates messican people.

To be exact - hates Illegal Aliens (they could be messicans however.)

KC//CRIMSON
6/18/2009, 10:25 AM
Lou Dobbs hates messican people.


Does he frequent this board?

OklahomaRed
6/18/2009, 10:33 AM
Actually Bill Maher reamed Obama this last week.

Yeah. He said Obama was not far enough to the left? I have no idea how this idiot stays on T.V. He does not even support the views of moderate to left of moderate (Obama) in this country. He's so far left he falls off the table, yet HBO runs his program nightly? Tells you a little bit of how far left HBO is.

I'm with everyone else. Our "news media" needs to report the news and leave their opinions out of it.

A Sooner in Texas
6/18/2009, 10:49 AM
I watched at least an hour of coverage of Tehran on CNN this evening and it was the top story this morning.

Just sayin'

CNN does have a correspondent in Tehran who's been filing reports there, analysts, etc. ... plus there is the heavy reliance on Twitter, which speaks more to the state of things in Iran than to media coverage. CNN did show what Iran state TV was showing last night...something on using computer software. I don't watch the Big 3 network news, but with the crackdown on media I would assume they're under the same restrictions. It's hard to get a real focused picture there now.
The fly thing may be silly but it's a moment of levity that's sorely needed. I'd much rather see that than more on the idiots we call celebrities.

soonerscuba
6/18/2009, 10:52 AM
Yeah. He said Obama was not far enough to the left? I have no idea how this idiot stays on T.V. He does not even support the views of moderate to left of moderate (Obama) in this country. He's so far left he falls off the table, yet HBO runs his program nightly? Tells you a little bit of how far left HBO is.

I'm with everyone else. Our "news media" needs to report the news and leave their opinions out of it.
If by "nightly" you mean once a week for 5 months a year, then yes, nightly. The news media by it's very formation falls under the Copenhagen interpretation, so the concept of escaping political news is impossible.

A Sooner in Texas
6/18/2009, 10:53 AM
No it doesn't...

A very nice analysis I saw last night on CNN broke down the healthcare numbers and by the time you subtract people who had heatlhcare and then dropped it for a little while and resumed their coverage, illegal aliens, young people who don't think they need health insurance, and so on, only about 10 million of the "so-called" 46 million without actually were without health insurance.

If we stopped the tort actions against drs - let them practice and make them defensive, and possible name regional locations for large expensive equipment so the "jones" hospitals don't have to keep up - I bet we would have a right fine health delivery system with reasonable costs. We DO NOT NEED government control of this industry - just ask Canada, the U.K and Europe where it takes a long time ot see primary care people and people do not get the service they would expect.

I thought in your post directly above this one you said you didn't watch CNN?

StoopTroup
6/18/2009, 11:00 AM
This country is being run by microcephalics.

Well...FWIW...it's been going on for awhile now...

http://earthhopenetwork.net/bush%20art/alfred_w_bush.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UURsFGI0ahk/SXsziW5gIwI/AAAAAAAAM_A/Eh_QPBq1XCE/s400/2008-08-01-cover.jpg

Maybe it's the power that makes the head swell?

tommieharris91
6/18/2009, 11:12 AM
ABC, NBC, CNN, Obama News Network (CNBC) and CBS - I haven't watched your news isn a long time and I don't expect I will any time soon again... You all have no credibility.

:mad:

CNBC = Business news. Most of the guys who come on CNBC ream Obama for what he's doing right now.
MSNBC = Obama's personal Xinhua-style news agency. They don't ever bother bringing anyone right of Hillary Clinton on their network.

TheHumanAlphabet
6/18/2009, 11:16 AM
:mad:

CNBC = Business news. Most of the guys who come on CNBC ream Obama for what he's doing right now.
MSNBC = Obama's personal Xinhua-style news agency. They don't ever bother bringing anyone right of Hillary Clinton on their network.

Yeah your right - there are so many of them, I forget. I meant MSNBC.

And yeah - I don't watch CNN except for Lou Dobbs occasionally. When traveling internaltionally its hard not to watch CNN as often, it or the BBC may be the only English speaking channel I get. CNN-I is practically the Larry King channel. Why the hell would we want to export that guy? Even Sky News in a few places can be better - but that gets boring quickly.

Howzit
6/18/2009, 11:17 AM
:les: DID EVERONE BUT ME ALREADY KNOW HE WEREN'T THE BUDDHA?!?!?!

tommieharris91
6/18/2009, 11:18 AM
:les: DID EVERONE BUT ME ALREADY KNOW HE WEREN'T THE BUDDHA?!?!?!

I always thought he was the second coming of Mohammed.

OklahomaTuba
6/18/2009, 11:21 AM
MSNBC is great.

the fact they put a little boy named Rachel on TV is even better. He must get his arse kicked at school a lot!

Howzit
6/18/2009, 11:28 AM
I always thought he was the second coming of Mohammed.


Well, we now know he's not the Buddha, so I suppose that would not be precluded.

StoopTroup
6/18/2009, 11:34 AM
I thought he was the 2nd coming of Gandhi?

http://politicpress.com/wp-content/plugins/blog/images/v_02619253491_57e373decb.jpg

OklahomaTuba
6/18/2009, 12:41 PM
The editor of newsweek thinks he is God, so who knows, maybe!

TheHumanAlphabet
6/18/2009, 01:09 PM
Why is it everything seems so much more personality driven than substance??

Everybody seems to want to be in on personalities, Hollywood, Washington D.C., New York, London, etc. Lots of stories about "famous" people. I could care less if you twitter or read about your twitter, read about what place you dined, who you are seeing, etc. The news has now morphed into a personality cult tabloid.

Scott D
6/18/2009, 04:07 PM
Why is it everything seems so much more personality driven than substance??

Everybody seems to want to be in on personalities, Hollywood, Washington D.C., New York, London, etc. Lots of stories about "famous" people. I could care less if you twitter or read about your twitter, read about what place you dined, who you are seeing, etc. The news has now morphed into a personality cult tabloid.

It's what sells and what gets ratings which brings in advertising dollars which brings in more income.

Anyone who hasn't realized that National News went down that road a long time ago probably thinks it's time to listen to The Phantom on the radio at 7pm.

NYC Poke
6/18/2009, 04:39 PM
Anyone who relies on television for news isn't getting very much news.

1890MilesToNorman
6/18/2009, 04:41 PM
He swatted that thing just like it was a tax payer! Pretty impressive.

My Opinion Matters
6/18/2009, 04:43 PM
Anyone who relies on television for news isn't getting very much news.

That's why I only rely on television for the important things in life. Like boobies.

Scott D
6/18/2009, 04:44 PM
ya know, the most amusing bit of information I gleaned from this thread is that Homey is silly enough to listen to NPR and take it seriously.

NYC Poke
6/18/2009, 04:49 PM
ya know, the most amusing bit of information I gleaned from this thread is that Homey is silly enough to listen to NPR and take it seriously.

Car Talk is good.

OklahomaTuba
6/18/2009, 05:02 PM
He swatted that thing just like it was a tax payer! Pretty impressive.
I hear the next fly is gonna get the scare force one treatment.

Scott D
6/18/2009, 05:09 PM
Car Talk is good.

I was in a pharmacy one time where they were playing NPR. I found it as god awful to listen to as Rush Limbaugh's wheezing.

NYC Poke
6/18/2009, 05:17 PM
I was in a pharmacy one time where they were playing NPR. I found it as god awful to listen to as Rush Limbaugh's wheezing.


The tone on their news programs is annoying, but Car Talk is funny.

Okla-homey
6/18/2009, 05:33 PM
ya know, the most amusing bit of information I gleaned from this thread is that Homey is silly enough to listen to NPR and take it seriously.

If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.

- Sun Tzu

If our side spent more time "knowing the enemy," we might do better. That's why I listen to NPR.

OklahomaTuba
6/18/2009, 05:35 PM
If you can stay awake long enough to find out anything that is.

NYC Poke
6/18/2009, 05:41 PM
If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.

- Sun Tzu

If our side spent more time "knowing the enemy," we might do better. That's why I listen to NPR.


Viewing them as the enemy probalby isn't helpful.


Allegations of conservative bias
In a December 2005 column run by NPR ombudsman and former Vice President Jeffrey Dvorkin denied allegations that NPR relies heavily on conservative think-tanks.[20] In his column, Dvorkin listed the number of times NPR had cited experts from conservative and liberal think tanks in the previous year. However, according to MediaMatters, a progressive media group, the numbers he reported indicate an overwhelmingly conservative bias. His own tally showed that 63% of NPR experts from think tanks came from right-leaning organizations while only 37% came from left-leaning organizations.[21]

In 2003, some critics accused NPR of being supportive of the invasion of Iraq.[22][23]


[edit] Allegations of liberal bias
While members of NPR's audience are more likely to be college educated than those who listen to other radio outlets,[24] Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media watchdog group,[25] disputes the claim of a liberal bias.[26] A study conducted by researchers at UCLA and the University of Missouri found that while NPR is "often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet", "[b]y our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet. Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's."[27] It found NPR to be more liberal than the average U.S. voter of the time of the study and more conservative than the average U.S. Democrat of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio

When you're getting it from both sides, that probalby means you're doing something right.

Okla-homey
6/18/2009, 05:44 PM
Homey, I have a lot of respect for you, but this signals you're not in touch with reality.

Would you actually want to be anywhere but the United States if there was something seriously wrong with you? We have the finest tertiary care centers on the planet and any aspiring specialist worth his salt, no matter where he's from, wants to come to the US to do his residency and/or fellowship.

I'm reminded of an Eagles lyric..."every form of refuge has its price."

The point is, if these microcephalics go off half-cocked and begin jiggering with our health care system with an eye towards providing coverage for the roughly 5% of the population that doesn't already have health insurance or health benefits, prepare to pay a price. The shady part is, we won't know the total price in terms of its effect on health care delivery quality, increased taxes and availibility of health care until its a done deal. Methinks that's precisely how they'll get it passed.

Scott D
6/18/2009, 06:00 PM
If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.

- Sun Tzu

If our side spent more time "knowing the enemy," we might do better. That's why I listen to NPR.

Certainly viewing people with a differing political polarity as the enemy speaks to what is wrong with politics and mental instability.

Okla-homey
6/18/2009, 06:45 PM
Certainly viewing people with a differing political polarity as the enemy speaks to what is wrong with politics and mental instability.

Tell that to President's former pastor to whom he dedicated his best-selling "The Audacity of Hope," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.;)

Scott D
6/18/2009, 08:02 PM
Tell that to President's former pastor to whom he dedicated his best-selling "The Audacity of Hope," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.;)

He's as much of an idiot as you, Rush Limbaugh, Joy Behar, NPR, Move-on.org, Dick Cheney, the Ku Klux Klan, and Child Molesters are.

Mixer!
6/18/2009, 10:44 PM
He's as much of an idiot as you, Rush Limbaugh, Joy Behar, NPR, Move-on.org, Dick Cheney, the Ku Klux Klan, and Child Molesters are.


One of these things is not like the others.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
Can you tell me which thing is not like the others,
before :dean: breaks out his banhammer?

def_lazer_fc
6/19/2009, 02:44 AM
If you can stay awake long enough to find out anything that is.

id rather get my thoughts from old fat blowhard pill poppers. its easier to follow for the more simple minded if someone just tells you what to think huh.

although i could do without the jazz and world music though

Vaevictis
6/19/2009, 03:19 AM
Would you actually want to be anywhere but the United States if there was something seriously wrong with you? We have the finest tertiary care centers on the planet and any aspiring specialist worth his salt, no matter where he's from, wants to come to the US to do his residency and/or fellowship.

It depends on what, exactly, we're talking about. If it's a problem that requires world-renowned specialists? Mostly you end up here. If you can afford them. How many people need world-renowned specialists for what ails them? How many people can afford them? And does the fact that we have them justify the disfunction in the system that affects, IMO, so many other cases?


The point is, if these microcephalics go off half-cocked and begin jiggering with our health care system with an eye towards providing coverage for the roughly 5% of the population that doesn't already have health insurance or health benefits, prepare to pay a price.

You keep bandying that 5% number around. Where'd you get it? That number is considerably lower than the ones I typically see used.

Scott D
6/19/2009, 05:09 AM
I'd wager that 5% has increased dramatically since you know...people began losing their jobs in droves.

MrJimBeam
6/19/2009, 05:34 AM
I'd wager that 5% has increased dramatically since you know...people began losing their jobs in droves.

So when Obama turns the economy around with "green jobs" and such, and everyones employed again, we won't need gubmint health care. Right?

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 05:43 AM
It depends on what, exactly, we're talking about. If it's a problem that requires world-renowned specialists? Mostly you end up here. If you can afford them. How many people need world-renowned specialists for what ails them? How many people can afford them? And does the fact that we have them justify the disfunction in the system that affects, IMO, so many other cases?.
disfunction? What disfunction? The thing that scares me, is, if our healthcare industry is flipped from being a consumer driven market to a producer driven market, well, let's just say that never works out well for the consumer. I would also state that no matter how you slice it, rationing of services is bound to result eventually. It's inevitable in the context of finite resources being stretched to cover virtually infinite demand.




You keep bandying that 5% number around. Where'd you get it? That number is considerably lower than the ones I typically see used.
The bi-partisan Congressional budget office. Instead of spending, by the President's own number, a smidge over a TRILLION dollars over the next ten years without even covering everyone. I say just widen the Medicaid criteria enough to cover that uninsured 5% and be done with it.

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 05:45 AM
I'd wager that 5% has increased dramatically since you know...people began losing their jobs in droves.

Have you not heard of a thing called COBRA?

yermom
6/19/2009, 08:52 AM
even if people have insurance it doesn't mean they are covered well. insurance costs have been creeping up with levels of service going down for the last few years

NYC Poke
6/19/2009, 09:16 AM
Have you not heard of a thing called COBRA?


Have you ever priced COBRA?

picasso
6/19/2009, 09:18 AM
So when Obama turns the economy around with "green jobs" and such, and everyones employed again, we won't need gubmint health care. Right?

every new green job is going to put a few folks with regular jobs out to pasture.

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 09:22 AM
Have you ever priced COBRA?

Yes. Don't get me started. Responsible and reasonable people generally can find the money. Others spend it on cigs, nail salons, cell phones, premium cable, eating out, more car(s) and home than they can afford -- and other such luxuries.

NYC Poke
6/19/2009, 09:27 AM
Yes. Don't get me started. Responsible and reasonable people generally can find the money. Others spend it on cigs, nail salons, cell phones, premium cable, eating out, more car(s) and home than they can afford -- and other such luxuries.


You know the cause of about 50% of all bankruptcies, surely.

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 09:28 AM
even if people have insurance it doesn't mean they are covered well. insurance costs have been creeping up with levels of service going down for the last few years

I don't think we need or even want a system with no co-pays or deductibles. It's unfortunate, but those very things help keep certain folks from being healthcare hogs. Face it, if you could pop in to a doc's office anytime you wanted for free, how more often might you do that?

My Opinion Matters
6/19/2009, 09:29 AM
I for one would like to personally thank Homey for educating us on what selfish, gluttonous *******s we all are.

My Opinion Matters
6/19/2009, 09:30 AM
By the way, I happen to agree with you Homey. You just happen to come across as a smidge self-righteous.

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 09:31 AM
I for one would like to personally thank Homey for educating us on what selfish, gluttonous *******s we all are.

sorry. I call 'em like I see 'em.

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 09:38 AM
You know the cause of about 50% of all bankruptcies, surely.

Hmmm? I'll take "Effects of Folks Living Beyond Their Means" Alex.;)

NYC Poke
6/19/2009, 09:43 AM
Hmmm? I'll take "Effects of Folks Living Beyond Their Means" Alex.;)


Hmmm. A friend of my mom's husband got cancer. It was debilitating and soon he couldn't work. Then she was laid off. While she continued to pay for insurance, it only went so far. She was forced into bankruptcy shortly before her husband died. I don't think she was visiting many nail salons, nor do I think her situation was particularly unique.

Look, I'm not an advocate of universal health care. But it is apparent to me that our system is broken. There are enough moving parts that I'm not going to pretend to know the solution. While it is true that the best health care is available in the US, we also have the worst health care record overall of all modern, industrialized countries. Something's wrong and we need to address it.

JohnnyMack
6/19/2009, 09:47 AM
I don't believe that the Constitution affords you the right to gubmint paid for health care.

NYC Poke
6/19/2009, 09:54 AM
I don't believe that the Constitution affords you the right to gubmint paid for health care.


Who said anything about a Constitutional right? Our government does lots ofstuff that isn't expressly provided for in the Constitution.

JohnnyMack
6/19/2009, 10:00 AM
Doesn't mean they should.

NYC Poke
6/19/2009, 10:04 AM
Doesn't mean they should.

I'll grant you that. For now, though, only people at the fringe are framing the health care isse in terms of Constitutional rights, so let's keep that in perspective.

JohnnyMack
6/19/2009, 10:23 AM
It goes back to the sense of entitlement that the masses have erroneously confused themselves into thinking they're deserving of.

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 10:27 AM
Hmmm. A friend of my mom's husband got cancer. It was debilitating and soon he couldn't work. Then she was laid off. While she continued to pay for insurance, it only went so far. She was forced into bankruptcy shortly before her husband died. I don't think she was visiting many nail salons, nor do I think her situation was particularly unique.

Look, I'm not an advocate of universal health care. But it is apparent to me that our system is broken. There are enough moving parts that I'm not going to pretend to know the solution. While it is true that the best health care is available in the US, we also have the worst health care record overall of all modern, industrialized countries. Something's wrong and we need to address it.

While I agree its generally possible to find anecdotal exceptions to the general rule that if people would live and act responsibly we wouldn't need a great deal of this governmental meddling into things like health care, the fact remains, people make choices every day that affect their ability to deal with catastophic illnesses. I feel strongly that affordable coverage is available to most if they would simply get up off their wallets and buy it. As to those who are truly indigent and unable to afford same, that's what Medicaid is for.

Finally, who says we in the US have the worst health care record in the industrialized world? It seems to me our infant mortality rate and life expectancy is right up there with the EU states.

TUSooner
6/19/2009, 10:28 AM
To say that our "system" is perfectly fine, is wrong, unless you, like me, can say "I got mine!" (via gubment service btw). Although essentially everybiody gets treatead, its no efficient, and even MDs have gripes with insurance companies. And , of course, premiums and deductibles keep rising even for the well off folks like me and Homey... well maybe not Homey. [Then, of course, if you don't have good coverage, it's your own fault for not being a carerr military officer or a gubmernt lawyer or a Conressman or something. ;) ]
BUT,
to say that we need the gubment to run the whole show is flat-out scary and dangerous. There are degrees of change and reform. "everything free for everybody" is lunatic as well as impossible. Everything in between that and the status quo is kinda complicated. :O

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 10:34 AM
To say that our "system" is perfectly fine, is wrong, unless you, like me, can say "I got mine!" (via gubment service btw). Although essentially everybiody gets treatead, its no efficient, and even MDs have gripes with insurance companies. And , of course, premiums and deductibles keep rising even for the well off folks like me and Homey... well maybe not Homey. [Then, of course, if you don't have good coverage, it's your own fault for not being a carerr military officer or a gubmernt lawyer or a Conressman or something. ;) ]
BUT,
to say that we need the gubment to run the whole show is flat-out scary and dangerous. There are degrees of change and reform. "everything free for everybody" is lunatic as well as impossible. Everything in between that and the status quo is kinda complicated. :O

The system is not perfect, but it ain't broken either.

For the record, my wife and I are covered by an HMO called "Tricare" that has co-pays, deductibles, myriad restrictions, conditions and coverage areas just like any other HMO. That, notwithstanding the fact the gubmint promised free health care for life for me and my spouse if I served for 20 years when I signed-up --but I digress. When my daughter aged out, I bought her a policy to cover the gap between aging-out and going onto her employer-provided policy. Just sayin'

JohnnyMack
6/19/2009, 10:36 AM
To say that our "system" is perfectly fine, is wrong, unless you, like me, can say "I got mine!" (via gubment service btw). Although essentially everybiody gets treatead, its no efficient, and even MDs have gripes with insurance companies. And , of course, premiums and deductibles keep rising even for the well off folks like me and Homey... well maybe not Homey. [Then, of course, if you don't have good coverage, it's your own fault for not being a carerr military officer or a gubmernt lawyer or a Conressman or something. ;) ]
BUT,
to say that we need the gubment to run the whole show is flat-out scary and dangerous. There are degrees of change and reform. "everything free for everybody" is lunatic as well as impossible. Everything in between that and the status quo is kinda complicated. :O

Bloody Mary's for breakfast again, eh?

StoopTroup
6/19/2009, 11:04 AM
The system is not perfect, but it ain't broken either.

For the record, my wife and I are covered by an HMO called "Tricare" that has co-pays, deductibles, myriad restrictions, conditions and coverage areas just like any other HMO. That, notwithstanding the fact the gubmint promised free health care for life for me and my spouse if I served for 20 years when I signed-up --but I digress. When my daughter aged out, I bought her a policy to cover the gap between aging-out and going onto her employer-provided policy. Just sayin'

What would your Daughter have done if you weren't able to provide for her?

NYC Poke
6/19/2009, 11:38 AM
While I agree its generally possible to find anecdotal exceptions to the general rule that if people would live and act responsibly we wouldn't need a great deal of this governmental meddling into things like health care, the fact remains, people make choices every day that affect their ability to deal with catastophic illnesses. I feel strongly that affordable coverage is available to most if they would simply get up off their wallets and buy it. As to those who are truly indigent and unable to afford same, that's what Medicaid is for.

Finally, who says we in the US have the worst health care record in the industrialized world? It seems to me our infant mortality rate and life expectancy is right up there with the EU states.


There are measurable results where we lag, from life expectancy on down. We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, about double of what most other countries do, and that number is expected to hit 20% real soon. We're spending a lot of money and not getting good results. You don't see this as a problem?

At the very least, we need to be exploring options other than the employer-based model, a quaint anachronism left over from the post-WWII days when employers provided it to get around wage restriction laws.

TUSooner
6/19/2009, 12:15 PM
Bloody Mary's for breakfast again, eh?

JUsh cuz I ca;t shpel you th8imk I;m drunk/?

TUSooner
6/19/2009, 12:35 PM
Pure anecdotal evidence.

1. Cousin's wife living in England had phlebitis (blood clot in leg). National Health said she'd have to wait some silly amount of time to see an MD and get treated. She found a private doc ASAP. Sorry I don't have real details on this, but the gist was that the National Health "Service" was far far below what that fine American woman was accustomed to.

2. Visited some folks in Denmark in 2008. Danish Mom, school teacher, 58-ish, had recently broken her ankle. That brought up the subject of national health care. Did she have to wait a long time, etc. etc. like my cousin? She said, "Oh no. I go to the doctor I want, whenever I need to go. I don't wait and I pay very little (or nothing, except for the huge medical tax bite, of course)." She said the same deal went for her son who was visiting from the USA with us and who had a nasty chest cold. She was very happy with the Danish system. Of course, Danish folk in general don't seem the type to free-ride; they are socially conscious and generally expect everybody to carry his or her load, like they do.

So I guess "it all just depends." Hope that ends the debate once and for all. YWIA!

homerSimpsonsBrain
6/19/2009, 12:36 PM
Certainly viewing people with a differing political polarity as the enemy speaks to what is wrong with politics and mental instability.

So you're saying there's something right with mental instability??

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 01:06 PM
Pure anecdotal evidence.

1. Cousin's wife living in England had phlebitis (blood clot in leg). National Health said she'd have to wait some silly amount of time to see an MD and get treated. She found a private doc ASAP. Sorry I don't have real details on this, but the gist was that the National Health "Service" was far far below what that fine American woman was accustomed to.

2. Visited some folks in Denmark in 2008. Danish Mom, school teacher, 58-ish, had recently broken her ankle. That brought up the subject of national health care. Did she have to wait a long time, etc. etc. like my cousin? She said, "Oh no. I go to the doctor I want, whenever I need to go. I don't wait and I pay very little (or nothing, except for the huge medical tax bite, of course)." She said the same deal went for her son who was visiting from the USA with us and who had a nasty chest cold. She was very happy with the Danish system. Of course, Danish folk in general don't seem the type to free-ride; they are socially conscious and generally expect everybody to carry his or her load, like they do.

So I guess "it all just depends." Hope that ends the debate once and for all. YWIA!

Question. How many Danes are there? Five million? All in an area about the size of Massachusetts? Their unemployment rate is 2%. Non-ethnically diverse, well-educated population.

Think about it bro, how hard could it be to provide satisfactory "free" healthcare to folks under those circumstances. Especially if they don't mind being taxed to Bolivia to pay for it and the full panapoly of social welfare programs under which they live. Now, think about the US.

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 01:12 PM
At the very least, we need to be exploring options other than the employer-based model, a quaint anachronism left over from the post-WWII days when employers provided it to get around wage restriction laws.

Don't worry. The Administration is busily conniving to begin taxing employer provided health insurance as income. That'll put the kibosh on that "quaint anachronism."

NYC Poke
6/19/2009, 01:28 PM
Don't worry. The Administration is busily conniving to begin taxing employer provided health insurance as income. That'll put the kibosh on that "quaint anachronism."


So you're fine with government subsidized health care?

Vaevictis
6/19/2009, 01:29 PM
The bi-partisan Congressional budget office. Instead of spending, by the President's own number, a smidge over a TRILLION dollars over the next ten years without even covering everyone. I say just widen the Medicaid criteria enough to cover that uninsured 5% and be done with it.

Either I'm totally misunderstanding the use of your figure, or you need to double check.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf


CBO estimates that the average number of nonelderly people who are uninsured will rise from at least 45 million in 2009 to about 54 million in 2019.

Total population in the US: About 305 million.

45 million / 305 million = .147

TUSooner
6/19/2009, 01:45 PM
Question. How many Danes are there? Five million? All in an area about the size of Massachusetts? Their unemployment rate is 2%. Non-ethnically diverse, well-educated population.

Think about it bro, how hard could it be to provide satisfactory "free" healthcare to folks under those circumstances. Especially if they don't mind being taxed to Bolivia to pay for it and the full panapoly of social welfare programs under which they live. Now, think about the US.

That was kinda my point, though I see in hindsight that I failed to make it. We talked about that whole exact demographic thing while we were over there, and we Americans concluded that Denmark was a whole 'nother world (albeit a nice one) and that the Danish plan would probably not be good for the USA with all its <clears throat> "diversity" and various cheaters, free-riders, welfare addicts, entitlement whores, lazy ne'er-do-wells and such, not to mention people who think all taxes are evil and should be spent only on weapons anyway.

My last sentence or 2 did sorta hint atthe point, and that's why I said "it all just depends."

Denmark was really clean, though. And the folks seemed mighty calm and happy. ;)

Okla-homey
6/19/2009, 01:54 PM
Either I'm totally misunderstanding the use of your figure, or you need to double check.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf



Total population in the US: About 305 million.

45 million / 305 million = .147

You're forgetting the 18-30 million folks who are here illegally and whose birthrate is explosive.;) Okay, so I rounded up to 5% of the pop. without insurance. If the number is closer to 2% of the US pop w/out insurance, that's even more reason not to "f" with it.

Sooner_Bob
6/19/2009, 02:03 PM
ya know, the most amusing bit of information I gleaned from this thread is that Homey is silly enough to listen to NPR and take it seriously.

All things considered. :gary:

Vaevictis
6/19/2009, 02:25 PM
You're forgetting the 18-30 million folks who are here illegally and whose birthrate is explosive.;) Okay, so I rounded up to 5% of the pop. without insurance. If the number is closer to 2% of the US pop w/out insurance, that's even more reason not to "f" with it.

Quoting from the same document:


In particular, studies indicate that of the roughly 12 million unauthorized immigrants in this country, about half have health insurance and half are uninsured—so those 6 million uninsured people would account for more than 10 percent of the uninsured population.

So:

(45-6)/(305-12)=.133

Homey, I think maybe you're just extrapolating from one number you know, and some numbers you're just making up.

Besides, legal or not, they still put a strain on the system.

Condescending Sooner
6/19/2009, 02:33 PM
All the people who sneered when Homey said we had the best health care in the world, what other country would you want to be treated in if you had a serious health issue?

Vaevictis
6/19/2009, 02:36 PM
disfunction? What disfunction?

To name a few things:

(1) Insurance company negotiations which require service providers to give them a set rate discount below the standard rate, which consequently results in distorted rates for self-insured folks.
(2) Hodge-podge handling of the costs of people who can't pay, which essentially gets dumped on the people who can pay -- and which gets inflated due to the administrative and financial overhead of dealing with the people who can't pay.
(3) The assumption that market forces work properly for medical care, where simple thoughtful consideration of the matter tells you that there are large parts of medicine for which market forces simply cannot work.

Vaevictis
6/19/2009, 02:46 PM
All the people who sneered when Homey said we had the best health care in the world, what other country would you want to be treated in if you had a serious health issue?

As I mentioned, it depends on what you need.

For "regular" medical problems, or ones requiring immediate care -- you solve those where-ever you are, and pretty much anywhere in the first world is fine.

For the hairy, nasty medical problems where you have time to search for a provider, you're usually going to end up in the US if you can afford to pay.

----------------

And that's the key, really. That last class of medical care is the kind where market forces really work and result in top-notch care. You have time to find the best, the need to find the best, and the time to get there and get treated.

If you're having a heart attack in Woodward, OK, you're not going to say, "Oh, take me to Johns Hopkins!" You're going to haul *** to the nearest hospital, because you might not make it anywhere else.

Medical conditions that require immediate attention just don't work in a market based framework. You can't shop around. You can't decline. You have to pay whatever the nearest provider charges.

Okla-homey
6/20/2009, 05:34 AM
What would your Daughter have done if you weren't able to provide for her?

I expect she would have had to pay the approximately $160.00 a month premium herself.

Okla-homey
6/20/2009, 05:43 AM
see below.


To name a few things:

(1) Insurance company negotiations which require service providers to give them a set rate discount below the standard rate, which consequently results in distorted rates for self-insured folks.

with all due respect, BS. Providers routinely give out-of-pocket payors discounts. At least 20%. Often more, depending on what they can afford to pay. I deal with this all the time in the context of settling personal injury lawsuits.

(2) Hodge-podge handling of the costs of people who can't pay, which essentially gets dumped on the people who can pay -- and which gets inflated due to the administrative and financial overhead of dealing with the people who can't pay.

Providers write-off a great deal of bad medical debt. They simply must in a lot of instances. Do they charge people who can pay more to compensate? Yes, but they'll give discounts and set-off's too if appropriate. see above.

(3) The assumption that market forces work properly for medical care, where simple thoughtful consideration of the matter tells you that there are large parts of medicine for which market forces simply cannot work.

My friend, I've lived in both worlds. Producer driven systems (military/VA system) and consumer driven (non-governmental providers). There is simply no comparison in terms of convenience, quality and personal choice.

olevetonahill
6/20/2009, 05:48 AM
Back to PETA and the Fly

PETA can suck my PEETA :P

Vaevictis
6/20/2009, 12:48 PM
with all due respect, BS. Providers routinely give out-of-pocket payors discounts. At least 20%. Often more, depending on what they can afford to pay. I deal with this all the time in the context of settling personal injury lawsuits.

They will if you negotiate. They still present you with the absurd bill right up front. That's still a problem, in my book. The process adds costs to both sides that really don't need to exist.


Providers write-off a great deal of bad medical debt. They simply must in a lot of instances. Do they charge people who can pay more to compensate? Yes, but they'll give discounts and set-off's too if appropriate. see above.

They write it off, but they still have to (1) charge more people to compensate and (2) pay the overhead associated with dealing with that.

Dealing with collections, negotiations, and financing of the expenses has a price. And that cost gets passed on to the people who can pay.


My friend, I've lived in both worlds. Producer driven systems (military/VA system) and consumer driven (non-governmental providers). There is simply no comparison in terms of convenience, quality and personal choice.

Yeah, and I can give you a list of people who have lived in both worlds who like the government-driven system. Your word's worth about as much as theirs, which is to say -- some things work better for some people in some situations, and in other cases, other things work better.

The fact that you prefer one or the other does not in any way change the fact that the assumptions underlying the magical, mythical free market plainly don't exist for many medical situations.

Vaevictis
6/20/2009, 01:00 PM
Example of the costs of the distorted prices: My father-in-law was hospitalized in the states several years ago.

He received a bill for about $80,000. His son spent about 6 weeks in negotiations with the hospital, spending probably 30-40 hours on it total. The hospital probably spent something in that range also.

Yes, the hospital did, in fact, reduce the bill to about $25k in the end. But, not after wasting 40 man hours on each side of the equation. If they're willing to settle for $25k, there's no damn need to waste the man hours. It's a massive transaction cost.

Incidentally, my father-in-law is a British national who moved back to Scotland after this. Care to guess why? It's because he prefers the British system of health care. It works better for him.

And here's the thing: He's not the first person I know to have moved back to Britain specifically for the health care.

Vaevictis
6/20/2009, 01:35 PM
The other thing is, everyone keeps claiming that we have the best medical system in the world. Of course, the only evidence anyone ever offers in this regard is "If you had an ugly condition, where would you rather be?"

Okay, so, I'll grant you our top institutions are some of the best in the world.

Here's the problem: The top 20 hospitals in the United States may represent 15 of the top 20 in the world. But 20 hospitals in the USA does not make a national health care system make. They're the outliers. How many thousands and thousands of other health care providers are there in the country?

That argument is bunk when talking about a health care system. You're taking a look at what a very small slice of what the overall system has to offer. Congratulations, anyone can make anything look good if you go in selecting biased data.

So, let's talk data.

Do we have the best infant mortality rate in the world?
Do we have the best life expectancy in the world?
Do we have the best successful outcome rates in medicine in the world?

etc, etc. Feel free to come up with other metrics that might indicate that we have the best system in the world.

I can tell you the answers to (1) and (2) off the top of my head: No, we don't have the best infant mortality rate in the world, and no, we don't have the best life expectancy in the world.

KABOOKIE
6/20/2009, 04:17 PM
I can tell you the answers to (1) and (2) off the top of my head: No, we don't have the best infant mortality rate in the world, and no, we don't have the best life expectancy in the world.


BS. I think Cuba ranked higher in that ranking of falsified data collecting. If you believe that ****, you probably also think the average hospital in Lesotho or whatever country is better than Woodward Regional.

Curly Bill
6/20/2009, 04:51 PM
Our life expectancy ranking is largely a result of lifestyle, not the quality of our healthcare.

soonerhubs
6/20/2009, 04:54 PM
Our life expectancy ranking is largely a result of lifestyle, not the quality of our healthcare.

That. *









* I will not say "This". :D

Vaevictis
6/20/2009, 05:31 PM
... all of which is why I said to feel free to submit your own metrics.

I keep hearing we've got the best medical system in the world. Surely there's some data to back that up, right?

Vaevictis
6/20/2009, 05:40 PM
BS. I think Cuba ranked higher in that ranking of falsified data collecting. If you believe that ****, you probably also think the average hospital in Lesotho or whatever country is better than Woodward Regional.

I'm just going off of the CIA Factbook here (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html).

I'm not even trying to prove we don't have the best medical system in the world -- I just keep hearing people say that, and never once have I heard any real data backing up the assertion. Just conviction, anecdote and belief.

I'm personally not interested in any particular system. I don't care if it's self-insured, group-insured, government-insured, privately run, government run, whatever. It just plain doesn't matter to me.

What matters to me is that we spend huge gobs of our GDP on medical care, and I want the most efficient use of that possible.

People keep saying, "Oh, the market is more efficient than anything else." Well, guys, if you spend a little time studying the principles behind markets, you'll realize that a lot of the things that are necessary for an efficient market simply cannot exist in many areas of medical care.

So, if you're going to claim we have the best system out there, I want to see actual evidence that what we've got is better than any other system out there. If you don't like the metrics I provided above, bring your own.

StoopTroup
6/20/2009, 05:59 PM
If you think an insurance company has your health as their #1 priority....you seriously need a dose of reality.

They have way to much power over us all.

Okla-homey
6/20/2009, 06:59 PM
Our life expectancy ranking is largely a result of lifestyle, not the quality of our healthcare.

absoluyely agree. We are a nation of lardasses and that hurts.

picasso
6/20/2009, 07:19 PM
I can tell you the answers to (1) and (2) off the top of my head: No, we don't have the best infant mortality rate in the world, and no, we don't have the best life expectancy in the world.
Well there's a little thing called lifestyle and diet. doesn't always mean the health care is to blame.

If I'm sick with anything, and I've had cancer in the past, I'll take U. S. health care.


Thanks.

picasso
6/20/2009, 07:20 PM
... all of which is why I said to feel free to submit your own metrics.

I keep hearing we've got the best medical system in the world. Surely there's some data to back that up, right?

yep, there is. If you get sick you can choose what you need to be done.

JohnnyMack
6/20/2009, 07:52 PM
If you get a job. Work hard. Live a normal lifestyle. Eat a responsible diet. Exercise now and again, then I'd tend to believe that the system we have works just fine.

I'm sure some jerkoff can and will come up with some rare exception. But I'd say by and large our system is hard to beat.

Vaevictis
6/20/2009, 08:38 PM
yep, there is. If you get sick you can choose what you need to be done.

Okay, that's a fact, but it doesn't show that our system has better medical outcomes.

You can say, "I prefer our system because, within the constraints of what I can afford, I have full control over everything."

That indicates preference, but it doesn't go anywhere in showing that our system is the best as is claimed. Example: You can choose what you need to have done in Somalia, too. Does that make it the best health care system in the world?

picasso
6/20/2009, 09:12 PM
Okay, that's a fact, but it doesn't show that our system has better medical outcomes.

You can say, "I prefer our system because, within the constraints of what I can afford, I have full control over everything."

That indicates preference, but it doesn't go anywhere in showing that our system is the best as is claimed. Example: You can choose what you need to have done in Somalia, too. Does that make it the best health care system in the world?

terrible argument. Maybe you should go see a Doc and get better drugs.

picasso
6/20/2009, 09:17 PM
and I'm not trying to get personal, I agree the system needs tweaking as far as costs go.

Vaevictis
6/20/2009, 09:55 PM
"I like having control" is a statement of preference. It's not data that supports that our system is actually better in any measurable sense.

There are all kinds of places that let you choose whatever you want. Mexico lets you have even more choice. Is Mexico's system better than ours?

Show me some data that shows that our system is more efficient. Show me some data that shows that our system has better outcomes. Show me some data that actually shows our system is better.

Don't confuse what you prefer with what is "better."

tommieharris91
6/20/2009, 10:04 PM
terrible argument. Maybe you should go see a Doc and get better drugs.

How was his argument terrible? Just wondering...

Okla-homey
6/21/2009, 08:28 AM
As I mentioned, it depends on what you need.

Medical conditions that require immediate attention just don't work in a market based framework. You can't shop around. You can't decline. You have to pay whatever the nearest provider charges.

I say again, you do NOT have to pay "whatever the nearest provider charges" for acute care. You will indeed be charged X, but you need only pay Y, and X>Y. sheesh. Often 50 cents on the dollar. Perhaps less, depending on your means.

King Crimson
6/21/2009, 08:58 AM
if you just repeat "Ron Reagan, small government, let the market decide" enough like a ritual incantation....all our problems will disappear and we'll all live in a tract home cul-de-sac utopia in a faith-based community enjoying the maximum of our flag waving pick and choose among the proper "civil liberties"....where "the truth" is "what i agree with".

at some point, i'd like to see the local "conservatives" (newly painted even as Libertarians) acknowledge the inherent contradiction between an absolute free market realized as "globalization" and right wing nationalism.

the two are incompatible and as long as the GOP tries to ply both trades, there's no coherent message.

OklaPony
6/21/2009, 10:13 AM
Okay, that's a fact, but it doesn't show that our system has better medical outcomes.

You can say, "I prefer our system because, within the constraints of what I can afford, I have full control over everything."

That indicates preference, but it doesn't go anywhere in showing that our system is the best as is claimed. Example: You can choose what you need to have done in Somalia, too. Does that make it the best health care system in the world?


How was his argument terrible? Just wondering...
You don't see a major logic flaw in comparing health care choices of Somalia with health care choices of the U.S.?

Example: If you need to have emergency brain surgery and the best option available in Somalia is trepanning of the skull then that's not really much of a choice, now is it?

StoopTroup
6/21/2009, 10:27 AM
Saw this morning that the Apple dude got himself a new liver. Nice to have money huh?

I know that many folks might think that if everyone was able to get a liver or any other life saving organ that it might put more of a strain on the availability of donated organs. If even the poor had just as much ability to get a transplant...the rich might die waiting. Then there would be the outcry if say a sitting President or important figure was to get moved to the front of the line.

For those of you who don't check the Organ Donor box on your driver's license...you should.

I know there is the conspiracy of the Movie Coma where they intentionally where slipping people into a Coma to harvest their organs and sell them....but hopefully we could avoid something like that in this Country. Other Countries....well...human life isn't valued the same in other Countries. We could maybe continue to try and show the rest of the World our ability to treat everyone who lives here with dignity.

Just a thought.

StoopTroup
6/21/2009, 10:45 AM
I had a friend that at 26 years of age....she received a new liver. She had gone to a specialist in Nebraska and had gotten put on the Donor's List in Nebraska. It was hard on her Family as everytime they had to see her Doctors they had to travel to Nebraska and stay there for a week or two while their Daughter went through the battery of tests etc. Someone always had to travel with her.

I asked why she couldn't just see the Doctor's here and got the response that she would have to start all over with the Doctors here and then she would be taken off the Donor List in Nebraska and put on the bottom of the list in Oklahoma. I watched as she went through this process and tried to continue to work and have her Boss call her in and ask about her absence at work from time to time. This Gal was going to die. She wasn't a little sick. She didn't drink her liver up. She simply was born with a bad liver. I learned a lot about the transplant process in watching this young Ladies struggle.

Bottom line....Our system sucks. We can and should do better in regards to life saving procedures.

Vaevictis
6/21/2009, 01:47 PM
I say again, you do NOT have to pay "whatever the nearest provider charges" for acute care. You will indeed be charged X, but you need only pay Y, and X>Y. sheesh. Often 50 cents on the dollar. Perhaps less, depending on your means.

If you're dying right now you don't have time to search for the best price. There is no real competition because you have to get to the nearest provider right now. You can't reasonably decline, because you have the proverbial gun to your head.

There are certain assumptions underlying the hypothesis that free markets are efficient, and in the case of emergent care, they're routinely violated. The fact that the hospital will often negotiate down does not magically cause these assumptions to become un-violated. Your point is irrelevant on this matter.

Vaevictis
6/21/2009, 01:50 PM
You don't see a major logic flaw in comparing health care choices of Somalia with health care choices of the U.S.?

Example: If you need to have emergency brain surgery and the best option available in Somalia is trepanning of the skull then that's not really much of a choice, now is it?

Actually, my point is pretty simple, and I think the Somalia case is pretty illustrative:

Unlimited choice with respect to what medical procedures you can choose is not a sufficient condition for the United States to be the best system in the world.

In fact, without further data, it doesn't even show that our system is a good one.

OklaPony
6/21/2009, 02:03 PM
Actually, my point is pretty simple, and I think the Somalia case is pretty illustrative:

Unlimited choice with respect to what medical procedures you can choose is not a sufficient condition for the United States to be the best system in the world.
Perhaps not on its own but it's got to be considered a very large component of the equation. Speaking of which, what exactly is the set of criteria by which you would judge this?

In fact, without further data, it doesn't even show that our system is a good one.
Comparing the US to Somalia is ridiculous when it comes to health care.

Vaevictis
6/21/2009, 02:24 PM
Perhaps not on its own but it's got to be considered a very large component of the equation. Speaking of which, what exactly is the set of criteria by which you would judge this?

I would just like to see some data that actually indicates that our system is the best in the world. I keep hearing the meme, and I would like to see it supported.

Look, choice is good. We all prefer choice. But choice isn't always optimal. Sometimes not having choice is more efficient. We take away choice all the time because we decide it's not good for society -- you can't just kill people you don't like, you don't get to have sex with little kids, you can't shoplift, you have to obey traffic signs and lights, etc.

In the case of choice resulting in a better medical system, I would expect to see some data that indicates that it results in better efficiency, better outcomes, etc.

Failing that, all you're doing is stating a preference.

Ultimately, showing that our system is the best is a pretty damn tall order because you have to show that it's better than anything else out there. I ultimately don't expect anyone to prove it because I don't think it's provable.

But I would like to see some folks out there who keep repeating the meme actually show that they have some data that's informing their claim, rather than the standard rah-rah the USA is best conviction that people often have.


Comparing the US to Somalia is ridiculous when it comes to health care.

... and it was deliberate, in order to show that choice by itself is a pretty terrible metric for determining which systems are the best.

Vaevictis
6/21/2009, 02:40 PM
And all of that being said, if people would back off of the "Our system is the best! Don't touch it", and switch to, "I think our system works pretty well. How is what you're proposing better? Can you show me how you know that?"

... well, I think that would be completely fair. 'cause, you know, if you want to make changes to a system, you really ought to consider if what you're doing is going to improve things.

Mostly, I'm just tired of this high school pep rally bull**** that makes it impossible to discuss things and come up with the best course of action.

OUR SYSTEM IS THE BEST!
NO, OUR SYSTEM IS THE BEST!
NOOOOOOO, OUR SYSTEM IS THE BEST!

So, I'm just asking, "Okay, why's your system the best? Prove it."

soonerhubs
6/21/2009, 03:38 PM
And all of that being said, if people would back off of the "Our system is the best! Don't touch it", and switch to, "I think our system works pretty well. How is what you're proposing better? Can you show me how you know that?"

... well, I think that would be completely fair. 'cause, you know, if you want to make changes to a system, you really ought to consider if what you're doing is going to improve things.

Mostly, I'm just tired of this high school pep rally bull**** that makes it impossible to discuss things and come up with the best course of action.

OUR SYSTEM IS THE BEST!
NO, OUR SYSTEM IS THE BEST!
NOOOOOOO, OUR SYSTEM IS THE BEST!

So, I'm just asking, "Okay, why's your system the best? Prove it."

You couldn't be more right. In fact, I'd suggest that the majority of political pissing matches follow the same pep rally template.

Okla-homey
6/21/2009, 03:50 PM
If you're dying right now you don't have time to search for the best price. There is no real competition because you have to get to the nearest provider right now. You can't reasonably decline, because you have the proverbial gun to your head.

There are certain assumptions underlying the hypothesis that free markets are efficient, and in the case of emergent care, they're routinely violated. The fact that the hospital will often negotiate down does not magically cause these assumptions to become un-violated. Your point is irrelevant on this matter.

Who said anything about shopping for the best price when your melon is burst in a car wreck or you keel over with a heart attack? Not me. What I'm trying to say, apparently not very well, is the hospital and docs in Poteau, Tahlequah or Enid, or any other ER where EMSA hauls you, (who legally can't turn you away regardless of your ability to pay until you are stable) will eventually present you with a bill. On that bill, you will be charged X. If you have insurance, your carrier ends up paying a negotiated amount. You don't end up paying X if you lack insurance. You end up being responsible for Y, and Y<X. If you're unable to pay Y, they will file a physician's or hospital lien and your credit takes a lick but they can't repossess the surgery for cryin' out loud. It's really pretty simple. You're a smart guy. Surely you can understand.

Here's something else to consider, again, in the area of taking personal responsibility reasonably affordably. Since most folks under 65 who end-up in hospital with big bills end up there as a result of a car wreck, one can take some easy steps to guard against being hit with big hospital bills you cannot pay.

1) uninsured motorist (UM) insurance through your auto insurance carrier. By law, anyone who writes auto policies in Oklahoma must offer it. It's remarkably cheap to add $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident on your policy. That 100/300 pays for you and your passengers up to those limits if the jerk who hit you lacks insurance, as 1 out of 3 Okies do. If you don't have that coverage, especially if you lack good health insurance, and I say this out of love for my fellow Okies, you sir (or ma'am) are a dumarse of the first-order.

2) medical payments insurance (med pay) through your auto insurance carrier. Med pay is even cheaper than UM. You can buy $10,000 worth for about 2 bucks extra on your monthly premium. It's "no-fault" insurance that pays if you have medical bills, no matter who is at fault. I have $100,000 worth (about ten bucks extra) because I want to know that even if the wreck is my fault, I can take care of the med bills of all those in my car. And here's the good part, that med pay is paid even if my health insurer takes care of my bill or it's the other guy's fault and his insurance pays my bills. It is the proverbial "double-dipping" and it's cheapy-cheap.

Okla-homey
6/21/2009, 04:07 PM
"Death Blow" to the health care initiative?

Let's hope so.

The latest out of the CBO is a trillion bucks over the next ten years to cover only one third of the currently uninsured.


Obama's proposal to provide health insurance for some 50 million Americans who lack it has become a contentious point for a Democratic-controlled House and Senate struggling to reach a consensus Obama desperately wants.

Much of the concern came after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the plan would cost $1 trillion over 10 years but cover only about one-third of those now lacking health insurance.

Democrats protested that the estimate overlooked important money-savers to be added later. But Republicans seized on the costly projection and the bill's half-finished nature, throwing Democratic leaders on the defensive.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said officials would have to rethink their best-case scenario for providing a sweeping overhaul of the health care system at a relatively low price.

"So we're in the position of dialing down some of our expectations to get the costs down so that it's affordable and, most importantly, so that it's paid for because we can't go to the point where we are now of not paying for something when we have trillions of dollars of debt," said Grassley, R-Iowa.

"And we anticipate paying for it through some savings and Medicare, and from some increases in revenue," he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she wasn't certain there are enough votes in the president's own party to support the proposal.

"I think there's a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus," she said.

The overhaul's chief proponent in the Senate, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, urged patience as lawmakers continued working on the bill. However, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the bill's cost was problematic.

"You do the math," McCain said. "It comes up to $3 trillion. And so far, we have no proposal for having to pay for it."

The CBO estimates "were a death blow to a government-run health care plan," Graham said. "The Finance Committee has abandoned that. We do need to deal with inflation in health care, private and public inflation, but we're not going to go down to the government-owning-health-care road in America and I think that's the story of this week. There's been a bipartisan rejection of that."



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090621/D98V71N00.html

O says its money we must spend now to avoid spending even more in the out years. Dear Mr. President, you can't spend trillions shoring up the domestic car makers, the US financial sector, and "simulating" the economy and do this too.

We may have dodged a bullet folks.

Okla-homey
6/21/2009, 05:26 PM
and this just in, as to the 50 million uninsured in the US. From George Will, who many may consider a partisan hack, but I have no reason to doubt his numbers.

1- Almost 39% of the above 50 million uninsureds live in FL, TX, NM, AZ and CA. See a pattern?

2- About 21% of the 50 million aren't citizens.

3- Up to 14 million are already eligible for existing programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VA) but haven't bothered to enroll. 9.1 million make over $75K a year and haven't bothered to buy health insurance. These two groups are about half of the 50 million uninsureds.

Here's Will's plan to cover the 20 million who lack insurance and can't afford it: Give them money. In the form of tax credits or a health care debit card with a pre-loaded amount that can be reloaded if appropriate. This would produce people who are more empowered than dependent. Me likey.

Vaevictis
6/21/2009, 06:15 PM
Who said anything about shopping for the best price when your melon is burst in a car wreck or you keel over with a heart attack? Not me.

I did, actually. This is in response to the belief that the current medical system is a market system, and is thereby preferable to the alternative.

I am simply pointing out that the medical system, in many ways, is not a market system that necessarily results in the most efficient allocation of resources. There are many frictions in the system that prevent it from working properly as a free market ought.

The inability to search for the best price because of time constraints and the threat of death or disability is one of these frictions.

This is all I am saying: Do not assume that the current system is efficient in any sense of the word on account of it being a market system. The system violates many of the underlying assumptions that lead to a market system being efficient.

It might be that the system as constituted is more efficient than the alternatives being presented, but it is not reasonable to make that assumption on the basis of it being a market system. There are too many frictions to draw that conclusion. You have to look at data.


What I'm trying to say, apparently not very well, (...) You're a smart guy. Surely you can understand.

I get it. Based on the quoting you did, I inferred (incorrectly, I now see), that you were using this point to argue against my statement that the medical system as constituted is not an efficient market.

It appears as if we are talking about two separate things here, so let me state the following: Yes, I get that hospitals will often negotiate down from their initial point. I also understand that they do so, in part, because collections are difficult.

Fair enough?

TUSooner
6/21/2009, 07:14 PM
***
upto 14 million are already eligible for existing programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VA) but haven't bothered to enroll. 9.1 million make over $75K a year and haven't bothered to buy health insurance. These two groups are about half of the 50 million uninsureds.

Here's Will's plan to cover the 20 million who lack insurance and can't afford it: Give them money. In the form of tax credits or a health care debit card with a pre-loaded amount that can be reloaded if appropriate. This would produce people who are more empowered than dependent. Me likey.

My ignorance on the subject in general, and on any particular plan, is well established. Nonetheless, this seems like the direction we need to be moving in, along with a requirement that people buy health insurance (like they must buy car insurance). Given any 2 alternatives, I'd opt for whichever requires the least amount of gubment meddling, dictating, managing, rationing, or injecting trainloads of cash. Target the problem and curb the desire to manufacture utopia

Okla-homey
6/21/2009, 08:47 PM
I did, actually. This is in response to the belief that the current medical system is a market system, and is thereby preferable to the alternative.

I am simply pointing out that the medical system, in many ways, is not a market system that necessarily results in the most efficient allocation of resources. There are many frictions in the system that prevent it from working properly as a free market ought.

The inability to search for the best price because of time constraints and the threat of death or disability is one of these frictions.

This is all I am saying: Do not assume that the current system is efficient in any sense of the word on account of it being a market system. The system violates many of the underlying assumptions that lead to a market system being efficient.

It might be that the system as constituted is more efficient than the alternatives being presented, but it is not reasonable to make that assumption on the basis of it being a market system. There are too many frictions to draw that conclusion. You have to look at data.



I get it. Based on the quoting you did, I inferred (incorrectly, I now see), that you were using this point to argue against my statement that the medical system as constituted is not an efficient market.

It appears as if we are talking about two separate things here, so let me state the following: Yes, I get that hospitals will often negotiate down from their initial point. I also understand that they do so, in part, because collections are difficult.

Fair enough?


Agreed. Let me tell you a story. A while back, I represented a nice lady who was in a wreck. She was taken by helicopter to the hospital. After a week there, she was released and had some follow-up dr's appts, home health visits and PT until she was good. That lady was a tribal citizen and qualified for IHS. When I asked her why she didn't use that system, which would have paid for all of it had she bothered to complete the paperwork in the hospital, she said, "well, I just don't like having to wait in line over there and didn't want to have to do that for my follow-ups and PT." <Homey rolls eyes and shakes head>

They guy who hit her had low liability limits that only covered about half of it. I got her that and her providers took about 20 cents on the dollar and called it even.

I just don't think gubmint needs to tear down an existing system that serves us pretty darn well and replace it with some ginormous entitlement nightmare that will hemorrage cash like an arterial bleed. I like the approach that involves Mr. Occam's razor. Just give the folks money who are uninsurable, not eligible for an existing program, or unable to legitimately afford private health insurance money and call it a day. I'd even support raising the existing Medicaid income threshhold if necessary. I don't know WTF we do about the illegals though, other than give them papers and get them paying taxes so they can qualify for employer-provided healthcare.

Vaevictis
6/21/2009, 10:52 PM
Well, for what it's worth -- I'm not advocating a mirror of the Canadian system. I think it has some advantages over our system and some disadvantages as well. I don't think I see it as sufficiently better as to warrant up-ending our system and suffering the consequences of such an upheaval.

At the same time, the system we have currently suffers from some rather nasty inefficiencies that I would like to take a look at solving. I'm not prescribing anything in particular at this point, but I would like to have us all take a look without a bunch of Chicken Littles running around screaming about how the sky is falling -- and that includes people from both sides of the aisle.

What I would like is a measured, reasoned look, with data guiding us. I think that's a reasonable request, not that I think it will actually happen that way.

I'd like people to step back and look at the system, and realize that it's not a system you can wave the magic wands of "profit motive", or "market based allocation" at. The things that make those naturally efficient just don't apply here. Consumers are often coerced (eg, by the threat of death or disability) into accepting services at times, places and prices that may not be optimal. There are massive barriers to entry and exit. This is a market that is naturally inefficient.

I'd like people to realize that the arguments that (1) the government never does anything efficiently, and (2) if the government gets involved, private enterprise can't compete are inherently contradictory. If the government isn't giving people what they want, private enterprise sure as heck can compete. See parcel delivery or security services for a prime example. The key is not to outlaw private enterprise competing with the government.

I'd like people to realize that capitalism and markets are not the same thing. You can and do have one without the other. Capitalism is private ownership of the enterprise, markets are a system for allocating resources.

You can have non-capitalist entities operating in a market system. The prime example of this would be the US Postal Service, which is owned by the government -- but at the same time, it operates in a more or less market system* in competition with private parcel delivery services.

* It's pretty close to a market system in many ways, but the law permits the Post Office to set price floors, so it's not exactly.

TUSooner
6/21/2009, 11:00 PM
I'd like people to realize that the arguments that (1) the government never does anything efficiently, and (2) if the government gets involved, private enterprise can't compete are inherently contradictory. If the government isn't giving people what they want, private enterprise sure as heck can compete. See parcel delivery or security services for a prime example. The key is not to outlaw private enterprise competing with the government.
This is good.

stoopified
6/22/2009, 08:08 AM
The most impressive part was when O breathed life into the fly and it flew off alive and unharmed.

StoopTroup
6/22/2009, 11:32 AM
The Day that the Medical Community quits being a lacky to the Insurance Companies will be the day they take back their Profession.

Back in the 80's...really before that...Doctors became slaves to the system. Unfortunately it has now come to the point that Government intervention is eminent. The same thing is happening in aviation. Greed has ruined more than one profession in this Country.

StoopTroup
6/22/2009, 11:42 AM
I'd like people to realize that the arguments that (1) the government never does anything efficiently, and (2) if the government gets involved, private enterprise can't compete are inherently contradictory. If the government isn't giving people what they want, private enterprise sure as heck can compete. See parcel delivery or security services for a prime example. The key is not to outlaw private enterprise competing with the government.


V...you make some good points in there but if these Private Enterprises don't want the Government to get involved they simply need to bite the bullet and fix the problem they created. So many greedy bastards want to run things...fill their pockets....file for bankruptcy protection and then do it all over again. The bankruptcy laws changed for you and me on our personal stuff and it protected the credit industry from folks running up huge personal debt without repayment. They since have found they can't have things both ways and Government has now had to pass laws keeping them from being Loan Sharks. History repeated itself in a way.

The Insurance Companies don't want to fix the Medical Community. They want to continue to protect their interests. Our ability to get decent Healthcare is getting worse everyday. If they don't want the Government to be involved they simply have to bite the bullet for a couple of decades and reverse what they started. They won't do that. We all know that no business is gonna bite the bullet anymore. They are going to lay off everyone they can to fill their pockets with as much dough as they can and then leave the mess to the Tax Payers and the Government.

Something needs to be done.

NYC Poke
6/22/2009, 11:57 AM
I read over the week that a third of the costs for primary care givers goes to extracting payment from insurers (I think it was on the Business page of the NYT). Food for thought.

OklahomaTuba
6/22/2009, 01:13 PM
I'm not surprised by that Poke.

I had back surgery last year, and I STILL have some bills that my insurance is supposed to pay and hasn't.

All I know is I am very thankful I had health insurance.

NYC Poke
6/22/2009, 01:58 PM
I'm not surprised by that Poke.

I had back surgery last year, and I STILL have some bills that my insurance is supposed to pay and hasn't.

All I know is I am very thankful I had health insurance.

Tuba, hope everything is okay with your back and that your insurance company finally comes through.

My dad had a stroke, and after I graduated law school, I went to my mom's to help her sort through the piles and piles of medical bills/insurance company notices (she was working crazy hours to keep her job so she could keep the insurance). My dad was seeing several specialists at several clinics, and also undergoing physical therapy at a couple of places. There were bills for each one, with a separate bill from the doctor and the clinic and more if tests were run.

I finally had to sort them by treatment date and treating entity. For each visit and for each entity, there would be a bill. Then there would be a notice from the insurance company saying they were denying the claim. Then there would be three for for more bills, couple with three or four more claims rejections. Then the letters (and phone calls) from collections agencies. Finally, months later, there would be a notice from the insurance company saying they had settled the claim.

Rinse, lather, repeat, for maybe 10 or 20 bills per week with all the consequent following correspondence. It was amazing.

Regardless of political inclinations, I think we can all agree that this is an enormous inefficiency that should be addressed. I'm not saying I know what the answer is, but it seems like we should work together when we find areas where we can agree.

OklahomaTuba
6/22/2009, 02:05 PM
Regardless of political inclinations, I think we can all agree that this is an enormous inefficiency that should be addressed. I'm not saying I know what the answer is, but it seems like we should work together when we find areas where we can agree.
For sure! I think we all have the same goal on this.

I feel like there is a lot of areas for reform and increasing access to insurance, and I hope it happens.

I know in Oklahoma we have a program called InsurOklahoma that seems to work well, or so I have heard it has.

I would really prefer State's opting to do their own thing, as it may spawn competition and innovation between the state programs. Just a stupid idear on my part though. And I also see a lot of benefits to having personal plans instead of employer plans.

I really detest centrally planned programs that just get way to large to manage effectively, like Social Security, Medicare, etc. Those two programs alone are bankrupting this country! There has to be a solution, and I hope we find it soon.

Sorry to hear about your Dad. Its not fun at all.

StoopTroup
6/23/2009, 11:14 AM
Tuba, hope everything is okay with your back and that your insurance company finally comes through.

My dad had a stroke, and after I graduated law school, I went to my mom's to help her sort through the piles and piles of medical bills/insurance company notices (she was working crazy hours to keep her job so she could keep the insurance). My dad was seeing several specialists at several clinics, and also undergoing physical therapy at a couple of places. There were bills for each one, with a separate bill from the doctor and the clinic and more if tests were run.

I finally had to sort them by treatment date and treating entity. For each visit and for each entity, there would be a bill. Then there would be a notice from the insurance company saying they were denying the claim. Then there would be three for for more bills, couple with three or four more claims rejections. Then the letters (and phone calls) from collections agencies. Finally, months later, there would be a notice from the insurance company saying they had settled the claim.

Rinse, lather, repeat, for maybe 10 or 20 bills per week with all the consequent following correspondence. It was amazing.

Regardless of political inclinations, I think we can all agree that this is an enormous inefficiency that should be addressed. I'm not saying I know what the answer is, but it seems like we should work together when we find areas where we can agree.

Good Post.

StoopTroup
6/23/2009, 11:15 AM
For sure! I think we all have the same goal on this.

I feel like there is a lot of areas for reform and increasing access to insurance, and I hope it happens.

I know in Oklahoma we have a program called InsurOklahoma that seems to work well, or so I have heard it has.

I would really prefer State's opting to do their own thing, as it may spawn competition and innovation between the state programs. Just a stupid idear on my part though. And I also see a lot of benefits to having personal plans instead of employer plans.

I really detest centrally planned programs that just get way to large to manage effectively, like Social Security, Medicare, etc. Those two programs alone are bankrupting this country! There has to be a solution, and I hope we find it soon.

Sorry to hear about your Dad. Its not fun at all.

Good Post Tuba.