A glimpse into government health care

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=130932

I'm sure the resident Obamapologists will say this would never happen under his plan, or blame it on Bush...

[Emanuel20]

"We can't cover everything for everyone," he said. "We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people."


Wow, I work in an unsurance company and I see the meaning of the quote portrayed by every aspect of the insurance company ...They are in the business to make money and that is ALL.

Here in Atlanta, there was one case where an ill child went to kaiser, however they were insured by BCBS and Kaiser sent them to a different hospital b/c they were insured by a different provider. And on the way to the other hospital, the kid died. It kills me to see that such things happen!

[Purple & Gold]

Government Health Care works. It will eventually happen here in the U.S. It's the natural progression of things.

[PEP]

Government Health Care works. It will eventually happen here in the U.S. It's the natural progression of things.
It's good to see that youre optimistic about the govt running health care because everything else theyve gotten their hands on has worked out very well.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Government Health Care works. It will eventually happen here in the U.S. It's the natural progression of things.

If by works you mean people die while on a waiting list to even see a doctor for a diagnosis like what happens over in Europe with their socialized health care, then yeah, we can all look forward to a highly successful and 'working' government health care system.

[Clandestino]

I love it how the people who are pushing for government healthcare always are the first to criticize how much the government sucks

[Anti.Hero]

At least our leaders in the government will still get access to the greatest doctors in the world and won't have to ever wait in lines. That's all that matters.

I mean, look how fast they helped Teddy. He's a swell guy. God bless Amerika.

[Anti.Hero]

Government Health Care works. It will eventually happen here in the U.S. It's the natural progression of things.

Yeah the 2 billion a year your state drops on illegals' health care is doing wanders for your state! hahaha

It's going to be awesome! They will save us all!

[boutons_]

Aggie's, supposedly some kind of business dude, cherry pickiing his half-truths, again.

Chemo is fantastic business, dude, get over it.

He fails to see why OHP won't cover this lady with recurrent, probably metastatic, cancer which is, in nearly all cases, incurable. iow, it's only a matter of time for her, probably shorter rather than longer.

Chemo doesn't work for 100s of 1000s of cancer patients. Ask the US 600K+ who die from cancer every year. Chemo extends the avg patient's life by well under 6 months vs. no chemo, during chemo-life extension the typical chemo patient's QUALITY of life is in the toilet due to chemo toxicity. Chemo even kills more paitents than it cures. EVERYBODY $wins big except the patient.

Chemo is extremely expensive (talking 100s of $K if you drag it out), and in nearly every case, the cost of research, testing, and production are overwhelmingly covered by the price. iow, chemo is not only hugely ineffective, it's hugely profitable, for BigPharma and for the oncologists who basically live off the percentage of chemo they prescribe. There was a poll of oncologists some years ago that said 3 of 4 oncologists would refuse chemo FOR THEMSELVES because, from their first-hand experience, of the side-effects and ineffectiveness.

So, that super-expensive shit doesn't work, the lady's going to die, but the for-profit chemo business, knowing full well what the odds are, gives the sucker, er patient, some cruel, inhumane hope that something can be done (6 months life extension max on avg) and tries to suck out a few $100K from the insurers.

So the OHP, putting on their actuarial/business hat, knows this lady is dead, and covering her suicide is better for OHP (they are economists rationing "$care" and they know some "care", like chemo, is worthless bullshit).

If chemo "worked", then the discussion is totally different.

Here's a page compiling some anti-chemo links:

http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/why-75-of-doctors-would-refuse-chemothrerapy-on-themselves/

"Obamapologists will say this would never happen under his plan"

(Putting words in people's mouths. Do you have a link?)

Sure it will. Why is that fact of end-of-life care the fault of Obama's, or anybody's, health plan?

How many 1000s of uninsured poor people, the one's Obama wants to cover, die unnecessarily now because they "just go to the emergency room" only as a last resort, when their disease is much more expensive to treat, and more likely to be permanently debilitating or fatal. And guess who pays for their super-inflated care? Tax dollars, and paitients who can pay (their bills are jacked up to pay for the poor who can't pay. Somebody's gotta pay and it sure ain't the health corps).

End-of-life (cancer) care requires lots of brutal decisions, such as "why waste 100s of $K on a surely dying person when that money could help non-dying patients? Does Old Sick Senile McFlopPanderKeating even have a health plan? (privatizing MediCare/-Aid/SS isn't a plan. It's coporatete thievery. If you think OHP is heartless, you ain't seen nothin, yet).

OHP not spending $200K+ on a dead-person-walking makes societal/business sense, no matter how brutal it is for the person. The person should go into OHP-covered palliative care, make the best of time remaining.

[Clandestino]

boutons is a fucking doctor now! hahaha

[possessed]

I can hardly wait for the day that we make appointments for physicals two years in advance.

So... Canadians come to the USA for major surgeries so they can be seen sooner and by better doctors, where will they go when we socialize our health care?

Where in the Hell will we go?

[boutons_]

"boutons is a fucking doctor now"

no, but I'm sure better than Clanny assholes who post nothing but rotten tomatoes.

[Clandestino]

You have never posted anything of substance. You have never posted one solution to any problem. You have always cut n pasted terrorist bullshit or ridiculed the USA, US Army, Government, etc. However, all of the sudden you think the US Government should pay for your loser ass to have healthcare.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"boutons is a fucking doctor now"

no, but I'm sure better that Clanny assholes who post nothing but rotten tomatoes.

There was nothing factually wrong with the article, unlike your posts.

The Oregon style of health care is based on a prioritized list, basically a copy of Canada and Great Britain's system.

I'm sure you'll tell me you know more (even though you don't know your head from a hole in the ground), but I have family in Great Britain. We've talked on more than one occasion about universal health care, and they all say it sucks and would be the end of America as a superpower.

[Don Quixote]

"We can't cover everything for everyone," he said. "We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people."


Wow, I work in an unsurance company and I see the meaning of the quote portrayed by every aspect of the insurance company ...They are in the business to make money and that is ALL.

Here in Atlanta, there was one case where an ill child went to kaiser, however they were insured by BCBS and Kaiser sent them to a different hospital b/c they were insured by a different provider. And on the way to the other hospital, the kid died. It kills me to see that such things happen!

Very sad, indeed.

No one is saying the current system is very good. Certainly we must make changes. But is having the government run health care the solution?

[boutons_]

"is having the government run health care the solution?"

"current system" is dominated by for-profit corps, not the govt. That's a solution?

The right-wing knee jerk lie that govt never does, cannot do anything right (except the kick-ass military or enrich Repug/conservative MIC contractors) is total bullshit. The VA has been totally renewed in the past 15 years and runs as well as any private health care (at least until it was overwhelmed and underfunded by the Iraq vets).

The insurance companies select out the chronically ill (and will fight like hell to maintain the selectivivity), dumping them on govt/charity services. Insurance companies also can prevent ill people from getting jobs, since they tell the corp clients not to hire candidates with chronic diseases, not to hire old/sicker candidates. Corps will also try to lay off old employees first because they have hiring medical costs than younger employees.

[Man of Steel]

Boutons--really impressed by your argument. I admit I had to read it a couple of times and as one who has a chronic bad back all of my life and who had a miserable experience in finding health care, I am sensitive to the role of the insurance companies in making medical decisions.

As for Bush--please--I voted for this ass two times--I gave him a pass until the last year or two. As a lifelong Republican, I am voting Obama!

Yes we can.

[shelshor]

There was nothing factually wrong with the article, unlike your posts.

The Oregon style of health care is based on a prioritized list, basically a copy of Canada and Great Britain's system.

I'm sure you'll tell me you know more (even though you don't know your head from a hole in the ground), but I have family in Great Britain. We've talked on more than one occasion about universal health care, and they all say it sucks and would be the end of America as a superpower.

Is this the same government that has been so successful at running the veterans health care system?

And each year in Oregon, the list gets shorter
A few years ago, sex changes were covered; the first item NOT covered on the list was dry, cracked & bleeding hemorrhoids

[Hook Dem]

"boutons is a fucking doctor now"

no, but I'm sure better than Clanny assholes who post nothing but rotten tomatoes."
Isn't that a lot like the pot calling the kettle black??????:lol

[Don Quixote]

At this point, Boutons calling any of us crazy or intellectually unfair is like Liberace calling us gay, Tom Cruise calling us weird, or the KKK outing us as racists.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Is this the same government that has been so successful at running the veterans health care system?

And each year in Oregon, the list gets shorter
A few years ago, sex changes were covered; the first item NOT covered on the list was dry, cracked & bleeding hemorrhoids

There's a slight difference between the VA and what nationalized health care would entail.

Government provided health care would look more like our corrupt welfare program than what the VA has been able to do.

Or do all of you think that the insurance and medical industries are just going to go quietly into the night and not get their hand in the government cookie jar, when it's already there on both sides of the aisle?

[boutons_]

"slight difference between the VA and what nationalized health care would entail."

The successful VA would serve as model for how to do it right, as would other countries' national health programs that deliver care to 100% of their people for 2/3 or 1/2 national cost of the USA's

"Government provided health care would look more like our corrupt welfare program than what the VA has been able to do"

In your talking-points vision of the future, with your knee-jerking wildly.

The most corrupting influence on govt health care is "free market" corps maximizing their revenues while minimizing product delivery (if they delivery anything at all), not corrput govt employees.

The corps are so powerful that they will fight like hell (aka buy politicians at all levels with 100s of $Ms) if anybody even talks about "reducing costs" aka touching their cheese.

It will take real leadership (excludes Old Sick Senile McFlopPanderKeating) to fight them.

Can Obama and the Dems do it? Very probably not, losing the battle may expose to the sheeple how totally, irretrievably, the USA was "bought, sold, and delivered a long time ago" - George Carlin, not that the somnolent sheeple, by definition, give a shit.

[Purple & Gold]

If by works you mean people die while on a waiting list to even see a doctor for a diagnosis like what happens over in Europe with their socialized health care, then yeah, we can all look forward to a highly successful and 'working' government health care system.

Please enlighten me on how it doesn't work in Europe. Bear in mind I can see through bullshit a mile away and I have lived in a European country with socialized medicine. I take it you have as well, since you seem to know so much about it.

[DarkReign]

Please enlighten me on how it doesn't work in Europe. Bear in mind I can see through bullshit a mile away and I have lived in a European country with socialized medicine. I take it you have as well, since you seem to know so much about it.

Dont bother. While I understand the merit of your argument, others will never even consider it.

They have health insurance, so do most people in their family. Until that fact changes (and it will), your words fall on deaf ears.

My point is, Universal Health Care is a hot-button issue (as it was meant to be). Its the same as abortion, illegal immigration/amnesty and gay marriage.

A distraction tactic for the politically starved, providing the much-needed reasons for hate and contempt needed by others to despise those unlike themselves.

If you ever encounter the few here who can have an argument free of their own personal motivations, feelings, and self interests youre lucky.

[clambake]

Dont bother. While I understand the merit of your argument, others will never even consider it.

They have health insurance, so do most people in their family. Until that fact changes (and it will), your words fall on deaf ears.

My point is, Universal Health Care is a hot-button issue (as it was meant to be). Its the same as abortion, illegal immigration/amnesty and gay marriage.

A distraction tactic for the politically starved, providing the much-needed reasons for hate and contempt needed by others to despise those unlike themselves.

If you ever encounter the few here who can have an argument free of their own personal motivations, feelings, and self interests youre lucky.

can't you see how gay marriage has destroyed straight people?

[xrayzebra]

Please enlighten me on how it doesn't work in Europe. Bear in mind I can see through bullshit a mile away and I have lived in a European country with socialized medicine. I take it you have as well, since you seem to know so much about it.

Well Mr. P&G, I guess you approve of doctors sending people home with no health care when they consider you terminal. And telling you since you smoke I wont treat you. Putting you on a waiting list, with no idea for how long, when you have debilitating pain. As a matter of fact you will go on a waiting list for most operations. I have
a relative waiting now for an operation for a
hernia. At least now he is scheduled, but had to
wait for a few months. By the way, read the little article below and these are the people you want to write the laws covering your health care.

washingtonpost.com
NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos & Video | City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE
ad_icon
Senate Votes To Privatize Its Failing Restaurants

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 9, 2008; A01

Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month.

The embarrassment of the Senate food service struggling like some neighborhood pizza joint has quietly sparked change previously unthinkable for Democrats. Last week, in a late-night voice vote, the Senate agreed to privatize the operation of its food service, a decision that would, for the first time, put it under the control of a contractor and all but guarantee lower wages and benefits for the outfit's new hires.

The House is expected to agree -- its food service operation has been in private hands since the 1980s -- and President Bush's signature on the bill would officially end a seven-month Democratic feud and more than four decades of taxpayer bailouts.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Rules and Administrations Committee, which oversees the operation of the Senate, said she had no choice.

"It's cratering," she said of the restaurant system. "Candidly, I don't think the taxpayers should be subsidizing something that doesn't need to be. There are parts of government that can be run like a business and should be run like businesses."

In a letter to colleagues, Feinstein said that the Government Accountability Office found that "financially breaking even has not been the objective of the current management due to an expectation that the restaurants will operate at a deficit annually."

But Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), speaking for the group of senators who opposed privatizing the restaurants, said that "you cannot stand on the Senate floor and condemn the privatization of workers, and then turn around and privatize the workers here in the Senate and leave them out on their own."

The Senate Restaurants, as the food service network is known, has a range of offerings, from the ornate Senate Dining Room on the first floor of the Capitol, where senators and their guests are served by staffers wearing jackets and ties, to the huge cafeteria in the Dirksen Building and various coffee shops throughout the Senate complex.

All told, they bring in more than $10 million a year in food sales but have turned a profit in just seven of their 44 years in business, according to the GAO.

In a masterful bit of understatement, Feinstein blamed "noticeably subpar" food and service. Foot traffic bears that out. Come lunchtime, many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be 30 or 40 people long.

House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.

"It's so bad that the Senate hasn't yet figured out that House 'Taco Salad Wednesday' trumps any type of entree they have to offer," said Ron Bonjean, a former press secretary to both the House speaker and the Senate Republican leader.

"Those who think the House and Senate don't talk enough clearly haven't been in the Longworth cafeteria on the House side at lunchtime recently. Senate staffers have been flocking there for better food, more options, and you get some exercise to boot," said Brian Walsh, spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.),who frequently dines on the other side of the Capitol.

In the past 10 years, only 20 new items have been added to the Senate menus. So rare are new entrees that last year's arrival of daily fresh-made sushi was treated in some senatorial quarters as if a new Nobu had opened in the Capitol dining room.

Even revenue in the once-profitable catering division has been decimated, as senators have increasingly sought waivers to bring in outside food for special events with constituents and private groups.

Operation of the House cafeterias was privatized in the 1980s by a Democratic-controlled Congress. Restaurant Associates of New York, the current House contractor, would take over the Senate facilities this fall. The company wins high praise from most staffers and lawmakers, who say they are pleased with the wide variety of new items offered every few months.

Most important to Feinstein, Restaurant Associates turns a substantial profit -- paying $1.2 million in commissions to the House since 2003. Company officials did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

The rules committee began exploring its outsourcing options in 2005, when Republicans controlled the chamber. When Democrats took power last year, Feinstein ordered several studies, including hiring a consultant to examine management practices, before deciding privatization was the only possibility.

In a closed-door meeting with Democrats in November, she was practically heckled by her peers for suggesting it, senators and aides said.

"I know what happens with privatization. Workers lose jobs, and the next generation of workers make less in wages. These are some of the lowest-paid workers in our country, and I want to help them," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a staunch labor union ally, said recently. The wages of the approximately 100 Senate food service workers average $37,000 annually.

Feinstein made another presentation May 7, warning senators that if they did not agree to turn over the operation to a private contractor, prices would be increased 25 percent across the board.

Eventually, Democrats agreed to pass legislation that includes guarantees for those who go to work for Restaurant Associates. They would retain their current salaries and federal health and pension benefits. Employees who choose to leave instead would receive buyout packages of as much as $25,000 -- paid by the Senate. Half the current employees are likely to take that deal.

New employees, however, will not receive federal benefits, though they will be allowed to unionize.

By one estimate, Restaurant Associates would turn a large profit within three years and would begin paying about $800,000 annually in commissions to the Senate.

In the final days of negotiations, Feinstein rolled her eyes and took a deep breath before explaining the ordeal that the Senate Restaurants had become for her.

"It's clearly not the sort of thing that I ran for the Senate to do," she said. "But somebody has to do it."

The idiots cant even run their own restaurant, they have to privatize it. We have been paying for their meals it seems for some time. Make you feel better.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews

[boutons_]

"They have health insurance"

Avg US middle class family of four spends $12K on health care premiums and another $3K out of pocket, fucking year after fucking year. Assume 2 kids in-house for 20 years, that's $300K, after taxes, for health care, with only minor ($3K) illnesses.

iow, they middle-class family spends over nearly 75%, just for health, every year, of the poverty line for a family of 4.

[DarkReign]

Well Mr. P&G, I guess you approve of doctors sending people home with no health care when they consider you terminal. And telling you since you smoke I wont treat you. Putting you on a waiting list, with no idea for how long, when you have debilitating pain. As a matter of fact you will go on a waiting list for most operations.

[snip]

The idiots cant even run their own restaurant, they have to privatize it. We have been paying for their meals it seems for some time. Make you feel better.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews

Ahhh, your tax dollars at work. Calling for Commissions and Internal Investigations to figure out the problems with their government funded food service. Not only that, they had to have a vote on it too.

People wonder why I despise equally those dumb enough to even choose a side in this country, left or right.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The successful VA would serve as model for how to do it right, as would other countries' national health programs that deliver care to 100% of their people for 2/3 or 1/2 national cost of the USA's

Of course it's cheaper, with everyone having to be on a waiting list, the really sick people die before they see a doc.

[Clandestino]

"slight difference between the VA and what nationalized health care would entail."

The successful VA would serve as model for how to do it right, as would other countries' national health programs that deliver care to 100% of their people for 2/3 or 1/2 national cost of the USA's

"Government provided health care would look more like our corrupt welfare program than what the VA has been able to do"

In your talking-points vision of the future, with your knee-jerking wildly.

The most corrupting influence on govt health care is "free market" corps maximizing their revenues while minimizing product delivery (if they delivery anything at all), not corrput govt employees.

The corps are so powerful that they will fight like hell (aka buy politicians at all levels with 100s of $Ms) if anybody even talks about "reducing costs" aka touching their cheese.

It will take real leadership (excludes Old Sick Senile McFlopPanderKeating) to fight them.

Can Obama and the Dems do it? Very probably not, losing the battle may expose to the sheeple how totally, irretrievably, the USA was "bought, sold, and delivered a long time ago" - George Carlin, not that the somnolent sheeple, by definition, give a shit.

Boutons, have you ever used a VA hospital? If not, STFU... I have have used the VA twice, but will never do so again. I choose to pay more for private healthcare.

[boutons_]

"really sick people die before they see a doc."

link? of course not. Just another fear-mongering lie on a par with O'Reilly's "no homeless vets"

100K+ PER YEAR die in USA due to avoidable medical errors. right-wingers don't bitch about that.

200-300 $B tax dollars OVER-spent for health care for uninsured.
no problem for right-wingers

nearly everybody who declares personal bankruptcy does so for medical catastrophe AND they had medical insurance. no problem for bubbas.

I got lots of facts. Aggie gots lots of lies and Repug talking points.

[boutons_]

Clanny, go fuck your military ass.

You're have the $ to choose, many aren't.

Typical that you extrapolate failure to the the entire VA system by your extremely limited experience.

[Clandestino]

Clanny, go fuck your military ass.

You're have the $ to choose, many aren't.

Typical that you extrapolate failure to the the entire VA system by your extremely limited experience.

LMAO! You talk about shit you have no knowledge about.

I, of course, have many vet friends. None of my friends with the means to pay use VA healthcare. It sucks. So, it is not only me, it is everyone who has a choice.

[Purple & Gold]

Dont bother. While I understand the merit of your argument, others will never even consider it.

They have health insurance, so do most people in their family. Until that fact changes (and it will), your words fall on deaf ears.

My point is, Universal Health Care is a hot-button issue (as it was meant to be). Its the same as abortion, illegal immigration/amnesty and gay marriage.

A distraction tactic for the politically starved, providing the much-needed reasons for hate and contempt needed by others to despise those unlike themselves.

If you ever encounter the few here who can have an argument free of their own personal motivations, feelings, and self interests youre lucky.

You're right I guess I should have known better. Repubs only vote for their own self interests and only care about what affects them. Selfish fucks that could care less about what is good for society in general. They could care less about people that have zero coverage as long as it's not them or their family. Selfish fucks.

[Purple & Gold]

I use the VA hospital when I have to. While it's not the best (mainly due to what they will and won't cover) I at least have some form of coverage. When it comes to dental, no coverage at all and I am forced to go to T.J. to get my dental work done. I am lucky because T.J. is so close to me, not everybody has that luxury and option. Sad that people, even veterans, have to go out of the country to get the care they need.

[Purple & Gold]

Well Mr. P&G, I guess you approve of doctors sending people home with no health care when they consider you terminal. And telling you since you smoke I wont treat you. Putting you on a waiting list, with no idea for how long, when you have debilitating pain. As a matter of fact you will go on a waiting list for most operations. I have
a relative waiting now for an operation for a
hernia. At least now he is scheduled, but had to
wait for a few months. By the way, read the little article below and these are the people you want to write the laws covering your health care.

washingtonpost.com
NEWS | OPINIONS | SPORTS | ARTS & LIVING | Discussions | Photos & Video | City Guide | CLASSIFIEDS | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE
ad_icon
Senate Votes To Privatize Its Failing Restaurants

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 9, 2008; A01

Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month.

The embarrassment of the Senate food service struggling like some neighborhood pizza joint has quietly sparked change previously unthinkable for Democrats. Last week, in a late-night voice vote, the Senate agreed to privatize the operation of its food service, a decision that would, for the first time, put it under the control of a contractor and all but guarantee lower wages and benefits for the outfit's new hires.

The House is expected to agree -- its food service operation has been in private hands since the 1980s -- and President Bush's signature on the bill would officially end a seven-month Democratic feud and more than four decades of taxpayer bailouts.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Rules and Administrations Committee, which oversees the operation of the Senate, said she had no choice.

"It's cratering," she said of the restaurant system. "Candidly, I don't think the taxpayers should be subsidizing something that doesn't need to be. There are parts of government that can be run like a business and should be run like businesses."

In a letter to colleagues, Feinstein said that the Government Accountability Office found that "financially breaking even has not been the objective of the current management due to an expectation that the restaurants will operate at a deficit annually."

But Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), speaking for the group of senators who opposed privatizing the restaurants, said that "you cannot stand on the Senate floor and condemn the privatization of workers, and then turn around and privatize the workers here in the Senate and leave them out on their own."

The Senate Restaurants, as the food service network is known, has a range of offerings, from the ornate Senate Dining Room on the first floor of the Capitol, where senators and their guests are served by staffers wearing jackets and ties, to the huge cafeteria in the Dirksen Building and various coffee shops throughout the Senate complex.

All told, they bring in more than $10 million a year in food sales but have turned a profit in just seven of their 44 years in business, according to the GAO.

In a masterful bit of understatement, Feinstein blamed "noticeably subpar" food and service. Foot traffic bears that out. Come lunchtime, many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be 30 or 40 people long.

House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.

"It's so bad that the Senate hasn't yet figured out that House 'Taco Salad Wednesday' trumps any type of entree they have to offer," said Ron Bonjean, a former press secretary to both the House speaker and the Senate Republican leader.

"Those who think the House and Senate don't talk enough clearly haven't been in the Longworth cafeteria on the House side at lunchtime recently. Senate staffers have been flocking there for better food, more options, and you get some exercise to boot," said Brian Walsh, spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.),who frequently dines on the other side of the Capitol.

In the past 10 years, only 20 new items have been added to the Senate menus. So rare are new entrees that last year's arrival of daily fresh-made sushi was treated in some senatorial quarters as if a new Nobu had opened in the Capitol dining room.

Even revenue in the once-profitable catering division has been decimated, as senators have increasingly sought waivers to bring in outside food for special events with constituents and private groups.

Operation of the House cafeterias was privatized in the 1980s by a Democratic-controlled Congress. Restaurant Associates of New York, the current House contractor, would take over the Senate facilities this fall. The company wins high praise from most staffers and lawmakers, who say they are pleased with the wide variety of new items offered every few months.

Most important to Feinstein, Restaurant Associates turns a substantial profit -- paying $1.2 million in commissions to the House since 2003. Company officials did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

The rules committee began exploring its outsourcing options in 2005, when Republicans controlled the chamber. When Democrats took power last year, Feinstein ordered several studies, including hiring a consultant to examine management practices, before deciding privatization was the only possibility.

In a closed-door meeting with Democrats in November, she was practically heckled by her peers for suggesting it, senators and aides said.

"I know what happens with privatization. Workers lose jobs, and the next generation of workers make less in wages. These are some of the lowest-paid workers in our country, and I want to help them," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a staunch labor union ally, said recently. The wages of the approximately 100 Senate food service workers average $37,000 annually.

Feinstein made another presentation May 7, warning senators that if they did not agree to turn over the operation to a private contractor, prices would be increased 25 percent across the board.

Eventually, Democrats agreed to pass legislation that includes guarantees for those who go to work for Restaurant Associates. They would retain their current salaries and federal health and pension benefits. Employees who choose to leave instead would receive buyout packages of as much as $25,000 -- paid by the Senate. Half the current employees are likely to take that deal.

New employees, however, will not receive federal benefits, though they will be allowed to unionize.

By one estimate, Restaurant Associates would turn a large profit within three years and would begin paying about $800,000 annually in commissions to the Senate.

In the final days of negotiations, Feinstein rolled her eyes and took a deep breath before explaining the ordeal that the Senate Restaurants had become for her.

"It's clearly not the sort of thing that I ran for the Senate to do," she said. "But somebody has to do it."

The idiots cant even run their own restaurant, they have to privatize it. We have been paying for their meals it seems for some time. Make you feel better.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews

What the fuck are you talking about and what the fuck does cafeteria food have to do with healthcare :lmao. You sure are grasping at straws. Comparing cafeteria lunch to nationalized healthcare :lmao!!

And sending people home because they have no coverage is what happens in the U.S. It's a common occurrence, look it up I'm sure you'll find all types of occasions when this happens. In Europe they send people home with no coverage when they consider you terminal?? Bullshit, not true. No coverage since you smoke?? Bullshit. Have you ever been to Europe?? Because if you have you would know that EVERYBODY and their mom smokes there. You're basically saying nobody has coverage there, because EVERYBODY is a smoker there. Just fear mongering and lies.

I can tell you a story of how American doctors operated on my friend for an appendix and then sowed him up with laser nicks in his abdomen. He complained later of pain in his stomach and they sent him home with Motrin. The pain was unbearable so we took him to a German hospital late at night. Luckily the German doctors treated him immediately and found that he was leaking poisonous fluids into his body. There was no waiting list, he wasn't told he wasn't covered, he wasn't sent home without being treated. He was operated on, stayed in the hospital for weeks with his stomach open to detoxify the poisons in his body. He was not given substandard healthcare, even though he was not a German citizen. The German doctors saved his life and could not believe the care that the American doctors gave him. He was also a smoker by the way, in case you were wondering. This was possible because everybody is covered. And once again no there was no waiting list. He was treated immediately and given proper care.

[Anti.Hero]

Will health care quality and speed decline?

If so, I wish death on all politicians who push for this.











Just kidding FBI.

[Anti.Hero]

What the fuck are you talking about and what the fuck does cafeteria food have to do with healthcare :lmao. You sure are grasping at straws. Comparing cafeteria lunch to nationalized healthcare :lmao!!

And sending people home because they have no coverage is what happens in the U.S. It's a common occurrence, look it up I'm sure you'll find all types of occasions when this happens. In Europe they send people home with no coverage when they consider you terminal?? Bullshit, not true. No coverage since you smoke?? Bullshit. Have you ever been to Europe?? Because if you have you would know that EVERYBODY and their mom smokes there. You're basically saying nobody has coverage there, because EVERYBODY is a smoker there. Just fear mongering and lies.

I can tell you a story of how American doctors operated on my friend for an appendix and then sowed him up with laser nicks in his abdomen. He complained later of pain in his stomach and they sent him home with Motrin. The pain was unbearable so we took him to a German hospital late at night. Luckily the German doctors treated him immediately and found that he was leaking poisonous fluids into his body. There was no waiting list, he wasn't told he wasn't covered, he wasn't sent home without being treated. He was operated on, stayed in the hospital for weeks with his stomach open to detoxify the poisons in his body. He was not given substandard healthcare, even though he was not a German citizen. The German doctors saved his life and could not believe the care that the American doctors gave him. He was also a smoker by the way, in case you were wondering. This was possible because everybody is covered. And once again no there was no waiting list. He was treated immediately and given proper care.

That's weird. I have heard many shit stories of german health care. I just don't know who to believe anymore!

[Clandestino]

yeah, not every german has healthcare.

[Purple & Gold]

That's weird. I have heard many shit stories of german health care. I just don't know who to believe anymore!

Believe the Truth!!

[Purple & Gold]

yeah, not every german has healthcare.

Actually only the top 10% are allowed to opt out and get their own healthcare. Everybody else has to be covered by law.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"really sick people die before they see a doc."

link? of course not. Just another fear-mongering lie on a par with O'Reilly's "no homeless vets"

100K+ PER YEAR die in USA due to avoidable medical errors. right-wingers don't bitch about that.

200-300 $B tax dollars OVER-spent for health care for uninsured.
no problem for right-wingers

nearly everybody who declares personal bankruptcy does so for medical catastrophe AND they had medical insurance. no problem for bubbas.

I got lots of facts. Aggie gots lots of lies and Repug talking points.

My aunt, for one. So eat shit and die you little fuckwad.

Oh, and copy and paste jobs from liberal blogs don't qualify as facts.

[boutons_]

"My aunt"

please provide details and documentation. else, "eat shit and die you little fuckwad"

All the stuff I posted is on publicly available info, has nothing to with left or right. It's just the way the "free market/for-profit" health care system has rigged the game to fuckover their clients.

[xrayzebra]

Actually only the top 10% are allowed to opt out and get their own healthcare. Everybody else has to be covered by law.


Why would the top ten percent want to opt out if
it is such a good health system. Strange that the
well to do can go the private route.

Like Teddy, reckon he could run off down to
North Carolina, was it, for the best doctor for his
condition was located to get treated under
Universal Health Care? Well he could, but could
you?

[Wild Cobra]

Why would the top ten percent want to opt out if
it is such a good health system. Strange that the
well to do can go the private route.
How convenient. I'll bet the lawmakers are in that top 10%, excluding themselves from the inadequate system of rationed health care.

[boutons_]

"Why would the top ten percent want to opt out if
it is such a good health system"

here's how it works.

The insurance companies keep hiking premiums annually 2x or 3x rate of inflation.

The healthy/wealthy top end can afford, by $$ and by their health, to go shopping for a better deal. If they can't find a better, they stick around, they can afford it, whether they like it or not.

The unhealthy/unwealthy bottom end hang on to their skyrocketing insurance, continuously downgranding their plan so they afford (aka underinsured), knowing because they have a chronic condition, they'll be denied insurance elsewhere.

Finally, they drop out, going completely uninsured.

That's how an insurance company can "ethnically cleanse" its client list of unhealthy (expensive claims) clients on the bottom end.

It's a simple business principle: sell the fewest products at the highest price and margin to people who can pay. Would you rather sell one $250K sell 10 $20K cars?

btw, recent reports show that poor, uneducated people have more disease and die sooner than educated, non-poor. Exactly the kind of ruthless social Darwinism enforced by "free market" the conservatives/Repugs live by.

Access to health care is a "right"?
Fuck no, it's a luxury product like any other.
If you can't afford it, fuck off.

[Clandestino]

Actually only the top 10% are allowed to opt out and get their own healthcare. Everybody else has to be covered by law.

that's not true. the girl i knew had no job, thus no healtcare...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"My aunt"

please provide details and documentation. else, "eat shit and die you little fuckwad"

All the stuff I posted is on publicly available info, has nothing to with left or right. It's just the way the "free market/for-profit" health care system has rigged the game to fuckover their clients.

Okay you fucking douche. I'll just get my uncle on the phone to scan and email me her medical documents so I can post them here on the forum, I'll tell him I need them to shut up some liberal fuckwad who wants universal health care in our country because he's too fucking stupid to know any better.

You really are a piece of shit you know that?

[jochhejaam]

When I think of Government-run Health-Care the first thoughts that come to mind are, corrupt and inept.

[Emanuel20]

Health Care is an important issue regarding United States as well as the rest of the world.

From reading the arguments being raised in this thread, I think that the solution would have to combine private insurance market and a little gov’t intervention in the insurance sector. For example, USA needs to keep its thriving insurance market however a couple changes would improve it.

Currently, most of the middle, upper middle, and high class can afford health insurance at the concurrent rates. The problem would be people at the poor class and lower middle class which are individuals that have more health problems and therefore would receive higher premiums. Here is where the gov’t can help the lower class by making a threshold of income and if the income is lower than the threshold the gov’t can help the struggling family with their insurance premiums. For example, some families might be making 50-55,000 a year, which would enable them to pay a portion of their premium and the other one can be covered by the pool mentioned below. If both parents combined are making 30,000 a year; they can’t afford health insurance; however the gov’t can insure them through the Pool (explained below).

Therefore the government can start by passing a bill that requires every insurance company to pay a certain percent of its premiums, contribution, and transfer them to a CRL pool that would be used to cover the lower class population that is unable to purchase insurance. To make up for the fees contributed to the pool, insurance companies can invest their regular amount + the percent charged by the government; which would only contribute to a small amount of loss. Also, the pool’s assets can be invested so that insurance companies would have to pay lower percentage as the pools’ assets cover the risk of the lower class's health claims.

I would like to see everyone get health care but I have lived in a socialized heath care environment in Europe and I did not like it. Currently, my friend’s mother in Europe is waiting for a tumor surgery and if not operated within 4 weeks, she would not be able to recover. Her scheduled date is 2 month from now…..What the hell is she supposed to do? Wait….
Of course, she is going to another country to receive the surgery.

Also, the service you would receive in socialized health care is horrible…I’d rather work two jobs to pay for a quality health care! Also, there is a higher percentage of people that have died due to medical mistakes in a socialized heath care environment than in the private environment.

[Don Quixote]

Great post! I don't think the Americans who want a totally government-run health-care system really know what they're getting themselves into. It would decrease the quality of health care and it wouldn't really make the current system any better. We'd end up with "medical tourism," where people who have a little $$ will travel for decent care. Your proposal that the companies set up a fund for the poor seems moderate and reasonable; my only concern is that the government will "raid" it and use it for other purposes.

And ... best of luck for your friend's mother.

[Emanuel20]

"Great post! I don't think the Americans who want a totally government-run health-care system really know what they're getting themselves into. It would decrease the quality of health care and it wouldn't really make the current system any better. We'd end up with "medical tourism," where people who have a little $$ will travel for decent care. Your proposal that the companies set up a fund for the poor seems moderate and reasonable; my only concern is that the government will "raid" it and use it for other purposes.
And ... best of luck for your friend's mother."

Thanks

"my only concern is that the government will "raid" it and use it for other purposes."

To decrease corruption, the organization responsible for the fund should not correlate different gov't interests.

[ElNono]

My biggest beef with the current system is the overinflated prices for everything. Have you looked at your insurance reports? A standard procedure that is billed for $2000, the insuance pays $300. The reality is that the procedure really costs 300 bucks, but if doctors don't bill $2000 then they wouldn't even be able to cover their costs, and make a little profit on top.
The big, huge issue with this is that if you don't have insurance, or your insurance does not cover that particular procedure, you will be billed for $2000, even tough it really costs $300.
And this is really terrible even for middle class families.
The other thing I don't like is that Insurance companies will go to any extent, exploit any hole, turn every stone in order to avoid complying with state mandated coverage for certain procedures.
I've personally had to go through this here in Jersey, where our Insurance company classifies the company as self-insured, so they can avoid covering state mandated coverage procedures.
I ended up having to pay $700+ for a medicine that an Insurance Co pays only $100 bucks.
I'm still pissed off about that shit.

[Wild Cobra]

Health Care is an important issue regarding United States as well as the rest of the world.

From reading the arguments being raised in this thread, I think that the solution would have to combine private insurance market and a little gov’t intervention in the insurance sector. For example, USA needs to keep its thriving insurance market however a couple changes would improve it.

Yes. Tort reform would help allot.



Currently, most of the middle, upper middle, and high class can afford health insurance at the concurrent rates. The problem would be people at the poor class and lower middle class which are individuals that have more health problems and therefore would receive higher premiums. Here is where the gov’t can help the lower class by making a threshold of income and if the income is lower than the threshold the gov’t can help the struggling family with their insurance premiums. For example, some families might be making 50-55,000 a year, which would enable them to pay a portion of their premium and the other one can be covered by the pool mentioned below. If both parents combined are making 30,000 a year; they can’t afford health insurance; however the gov’t can insure them through the Pool (explained below).

What makes you think someone making $50k cannot pay all the premium? It would be about $600 I think without other changes. Implement some tort reform and educe some regulations, that number should be half or less.



Therefore the government can start by passing a bill that requires every insurance company to pay a certain percent of its premiums, contribution, and transfer them to a CRL pool that would be used to cover the lower class population that is unable to purchase insurance. To make up for the fees contributed to the pool, insurance companies can invest their regular amount + the percent charged by the government; which would only contribute to a small amount of loss. Also, the pool’s assets can be invested so that insurance companies would have to pay lower percentage as the pools’ assets cover the risk of the lower class's health claims.

How about taking all tax liabilities off of insurance companies which would reduce the amount they have to charge to make a profit?

I don't know what a CRL pool is, but how do you keep the people being subsidized from all favoring one company over another. Wouldn't insurance companies have to ration how many people they can subsidize?



I would like to see everyone get health care but I have lived in a socialized heath care environment in Europe and I did not like it. Currently, my friend’s mother in Europe is waiting for a tumor surgery and if not operated within 4 weeks, she would not be able to recover. Her scheduled date is 2 month from now…..What the hell is she supposed to do? Wait….
Of course, she is going to another country to receive the surgery.

Yep... The elitists here keep pushing that shit idea on us. They don't care because they can go outside the system. What these socialized ideas do is cover everyone as "the least common denominator." Insurance in the USA started as an incentive to stay for a company, as a benefit over increasing wages. There is no right to free health care.



Also, the service you would receive in socialized health care is horrible…I’d rather work two jobs to pay for a quality health care! Also, there is a higher percentage of people that have died due to medical mistakes in a socialized heath care environment than in the private environment.

Yep, I agree. I have worked two jobs at times myself. Myself an my family have normally been covered by insurance through my various employer. Right now, I pay a little over $100/month to cover myself and family for my selected health plan. My employer pays something like 85%(?) of the full cost, so it really costs about $700/month. This is a cost that I choose not to pay when I had jobs without insurance because doctor visits are as low as $35, lab tests for my daughters chronic condition are about $100, etc. All you have to do is shop around for doctors who are fair. They normally give a huge discount for customers who pay as they go. They normally don't have to spend time billing insurance companies or try to collect money from patients. Her normal medical maintenance is only about $450/year including medication. She has hypothyroidism.



My biggest beef with the current system is the overinflated prices for everything. Have you looked at your insurance reports? A standard procedure that is billed for $2000, the insuance pays $300. The reality is that the procedure really costs 300 bucks, but if doctors don't bill $2000 then they wouldn't even be able to cover their costs, and make a little profit on top.

I don't believe that. There can be discounts, but not that much. What you are talking about might be the bill for just one aspect of the whole visit. Often, at hospitals, the doctors bill separately from the hospitals. I've see this on out of pocket payment when too large to pay in full.



The big, huge issue with this is that if you don't have insurance, or your insurance does not cover that particular procedure, you will be billed for $2000, even tough it really costs $300.

Depends on the place you deal with. What you describe is one reason the health care system costs so much. People cannot be turned down for emergency procedures, then the health care providers often don't get paid. That's why huge profits are built into insured coverage costs. This is why a good hospital or clinic will charge far less with payments in full.



And this is really terrible even for middle class families.
The other thing I don't like is that Insurance companies will go to any extent, exploit any hole, turn every stone in order to avoid complying with state mandated coverage for certain procedures.

Some do. That's why you shop around. If you know where to go before having to make a last minute decision, it can cost half or less. When the consumer is informed, the market responds. As long as places can get away with high profits, what incentive do they have to reduce prices? Their standard pricing keeps them from going bankrupt.



I've personally had to go through this here in Jersey, where our Insurance company classifies the company as self-insured, so they can avoid covering state mandated coverage procedures.
I ended up having to pay $700+ for a medicine that an Insurance Co pays only $100 bucks.
I'm still pissed off about that shit.

Different health plans are different. This might be one where the consumer pays the first $1000 or so before coverage picks up the majority of costs. There are free market plans like this out there. They are primarily meant to cover only excessive expenditures, keeping people from financial hardship. These are among the cheapest options I can get through my employer.

Bet you have no monthly premiums to pay, or they are lower than they would be else wise.

[Purple & Gold]

that's not true. the girl i knew had no job, thus no healtcare...

When was this? Because it had always been, and from what I understand that everybody is covered including the unemployed. Not saying that what you are saying is not true, but the unemployed have always been covered. Of course things may have changed, but I doubt it.

[Purple & Gold]

Why would the top ten percent want to opt out if
it is such a good health system. Strange that the
well to do can go the private route.

Like Teddy, reckon he could run off down to
North Carolina, was it, for the best doctor for his
condition was located to get treated under
Universal Health Care? Well he could, but could
you?

Of course the top 10% can always get better coverage. You get what you pay for, but not everybody can afford the best care. When you cover everybody something has to give. At least everybody gets health care, which is the main issue. And it's good coverage, sometimes better than coverage in the U.S. Hell sometimes Mexico has better doctors then the U.S.

[xrayzebra]

Of course the top 10% can always get better coverage. You get what you pay for, but not everybody can afford the best care. When you cover everybody something has to give. At least everybody gets health care, which is the main issue. And it's good coverage, sometimes better than coverage in the U.S. Hell sometimes Mexico has better doctors then the U.S.

Where is the equality in that? And no one in the U.S. is denied health care. No hospital can turn anyone away by law. Also, I don't know where you are from, but here in San Antonio, we pay a pretty hefty hospital tax that operates a county hopital, named, University Hospital, that provides health service for anyone, including illegals, that shows up on their door steps. University has made it abundantly clear they will never question anyone's citizenship.

Oh, as a little side note. Mexico, I believe has some form of universal health care. But Mexican citizens on the border will come to the American side to have their children so they are citizens of this country and for other procedures. Which has/is causing a monetary crunch on these hospitals because they cant/refuse to pay.

[Purple & Gold]

Health Care is an important issue regarding United States as well as the rest of the world.

From reading the arguments being raised in this thread, I think that the solution would have to combine private insurance market and a little gov’t intervention in the insurance sector. For example, USA needs to keep its thriving insurance market however a couple changes would improve it.

Currently, most of the middle, upper middle, and high class can afford health insurance at the concurrent rates. The problem would be people at the poor class and lower middle class which are individuals that have more health problems and therefore would receive higher premiums. Here is where the gov’t can help the lower class by making a threshold of income and if the income is lower than the threshold the gov’t can help the struggling family with their insurance premiums. For example, some families might be making 50-55,000 a year, which would enable them to pay a portion of their premium and the other one can be covered by the pool mentioned below. If both parents combined are making 30,000 a year; they can’t afford health insurance; however the gov’t can insure them through the Pool (explained below).

Therefore the government can start by passing a bill that requires every insurance company to pay a certain percent of its premiums, contribution, and transfer them to a CRL pool that would be used to cover the lower class population that is unable to purchase insurance. To make up for the fees contributed to the pool, insurance companies can invest their regular amount + the percent charged by the government; which would only contribute to a small amount of loss. Also, the pool’s assets can be invested so that insurance companies would have to pay lower percentage as the pools’ assets cover the risk of the lower class's health claims.

I would like to see everyone get health care but I have lived in a socialized heath care environment in Europe and I did not like it. Currently, my friend’s mother in Europe is waiting for a tumor surgery and if not operated within 4 weeks, she would not be able to recover. Her scheduled date is 2 month from now…..What the hell is she supposed to do? Wait….
Of course, she is going to another country to receive the surgery.

Also, the service you would receive in socialized health care is horrible…I’d rather work two jobs to pay for a quality health care! Also, there is a higher percentage of people that have died due to medical mistakes in a socialized heath care environment than in the private environment.

I'm sorry to hear about your friends mother, but keeping the U.S.'s thriving insurance market is not the way to go about things. I'm not saying scrap all health insurances, but there is a reason why they are "thriving". They are making huge $'s off of the sick and elderly that have no choice but to go to them. They are making huge profits and half the time will not care for somebody if they have any preexisting conditions. Kaiser just had to pay a large settlement for wrongly terminating policies because of misinformation and preexisting conditions. Not to mention the power the pharmaceutical companies have with insurance companies. All should be covered and it's as simple as that. Nobody should have to go into debt because they got sick or got in an accident that was beyond their control.

My cousin who got sick at 18 now is straddled with a monthly bill to cover her hospital stay. At 18 already paying over $200's a month because you got sick. Doesn't anybody see anything wrong with this?? Now she can't even go to school because between gas, her hospital bill, rent, food, etc. there just isn't enough money to go around. She has to work 2 jobs, which doesn't allow college, which in turn will severely impact her future. Hospitals making big bucks off of people that have no options is just immoral.

While socialized health care is not always the best and sometimes people and cases do fall through the cracks, it is much better than the U.S. model. In the U.S. model people are made to go through hoops all the time, being made to fill out all types of paperwork and being rejected time and time again is many times an insurance companies "policy" before they are given care. Not only in socialized countries do people have to go out of the country to get health care. It happens in the U.S. as well. I've been to both types of doctors and the U.S. versions service is not much better. Sometimes it is just as bad if not worse. There will always be cases on both sides that will paint each side as horrible or great, but when dealing with such large numbers of people the whole is what needs to be looked at.

[Purple & Gold]

Where is the equality in that? And no one in the U.S. is denied health care. No hospital can turn anyone away by law. Also, I don't know where you are from, but here in San Antonio, we pay a pretty hefty hospital tax that operates a county hopital, named, University Hospital, that provides health service for anyone, including illegals, that shows up on their door steps. University has made it abundantly clear they will never question anyone's citizenship.

Oh, as a little side note. Mexico, I believe has some form of universal health care. But Mexican citizens on the border will come to the American side to have their children so they are citizens of this country and for other procedures. Which has/is causing a monetary crunch on these hospitals because they cant/refuse to pay.

Are you saying it's equal now?? Nothing will ever be equal, it's about getting the best care to the most people. In the U.S. you will not be denied coverage, but you will sure be sent a bill. If you can't cover it then it goes to creditors, etc. This will affect a persons future greatly.

The thing is that if people were able to go to the doctor for regular care, than many of these late night emergency room visits will not be needed. This not only helps the patient, but the taxpayer as well. A little bit of prevention (doctors visits) will stop little problems from turning into grave sicknesses. Of course the hospitals don't care because they charge more for emergency rooms, ambulances, etc. It's all profit to them.

As for Mexico, it is one of the most corrupt governments in the world. I don't really think I need to tell you why people would want their children to be U.S. citizens. This is the only place in the world were a 1st world country borders a 3rd world country. With that comes special issues and cases that pertain only to us and the region we are in.

[Purple & Gold]

My biggest beef with the current system is the overinflated prices for everything. Have you looked at your insurance reports? A standard procedure that is billed for $2000, the insuance pays $300. The reality is that the procedure really costs 300 bucks, but if doctors don't bill $2000 then they wouldn't even be able to cover their costs, and make a little profit on top.
The big, huge issue with this is that if you don't have insurance, or your insurance does not cover that particular procedure, you will be billed for $2000, even tough it really costs $300.
And this is really terrible even for middle class families.
The other thing I don't like is that Insurance companies will go to any extent, exploit any hole, turn every stone in order to avoid complying with state mandated coverage for certain procedures.
I've personally had to go through this here in Jersey, where our Insurance company classifies the company as self-insured, so they can avoid covering state mandated coverage procedures.
I ended up having to pay $700+ for a medicine that an Insurance Co pays only $100 bucks.
I'm still pissed off about that shit.

Insurance companies are scum and anybody that tells you to just shop around doesn't live in the real world or could really just care less.

[xrayzebra]

Insurance companies are scum and anybody that tells you to just shop around doesn't live in the real world or could really just care less.

Yeah, until you need them and they pay the bill.
You want cheaper insurance and full payments of
most charges....go the HMO route.....

Yeah they have rules, but so does everyone.

[ElNono]

I don't believe that. There can be discounts, but not that much. What you are talking about might be the bill for just one aspect of the whole visit. Often, at hospitals, the doctors bill separately from the hospitals. I've see this on out of pocket payment when too large to pay in full.

Wish I could show you the bills.
Surgery: billed $7000, insurance paid $1200.
Lab Work: billed $350, insurance paid $60

and the list goes on...


Some do. That's why you shop around. If you know where to go before having to make a last minute decision, it can cost half or less. When the consumer is informed, the market responds. As long as places can get away with high profits, what incentive do they have to reduce prices? Their standard pricing keeps them from going bankrupt.


Shop around for what? My wife's job offers only a single plan. Take it or leave it. I only have insurance through her, since we don't make enough money at my job to have insurance.


Different health plans are different. This might be one where the consumer pays the first $1000 or so before coverage picks up the majority of costs. There are free market plans like this out there. They are primarily meant to cover only excessive expenditures, keeping people from financial hardship. These are among the cheapest options I can get through my employer. Bet you have no monthly premiums to pay, or they are lower than they would be else wise.

The plan we have has no premium. They'll cover 100% of in-network visits, and 80% of out of network. Thing is, they're only in Jersey. We used to go see a specialist in Philly, and now we can't anymore. We have to go see the Jersey dude, and he sucks. But what are you gonna do?
What pisses me off mostly is that they exploit a hole in the law to deny coverage of state mandated procedures, and like I said, 90% of the time they only pay 10%-30% of the billed amount.
This is the sad state of business here in Jersey.

[bresilhac]

Yeah, until you need them and they pay the bill.
You want cheaper insurance and full payments of
most charges....go the HMO route.....

Yeah they have rules, but so does everyone.

I cannot believe you would actually try to defend those greedy, profit-driven insurance companies for any reason. The insurance business is an obscene fraud and most people don't even realize it as such. Insurance companies take the money they rake in via "premiums" and invest it all in the markets to make lots of cash for themselves and their stakeholders.

And if they have to reluctantly pay on a few of their rigged policies it's like pulling an impacted molar. They'll fight you every step of the way to try and get out of paying for anything. Fact is there is nothing benevolent or altruistic about an insurance company contrary to what they would like you to believe.

In fact, insurance companies are shining examples of how capitalism actually works. Screw as many "customers" out of as much money as you can while paying out as little in benefits as you can while simultaneously paying the least taxes as you can. Man do I wish I was the CEO of Kaiser or MetLife.

[xrayzebra]

I cannot believe you would actually try to defend those greedy, profit-driven insurance companies for any reason. The insurance business is an obscene fraud and most people don't even realize it as such. Insurance companies take the money they rake in via "premiums" and invest it all in the markets to make lots of cash for themselves and their stakeholders.

And if they have to reluctantly pay on a few of their rigged policies it's like pulling an impacted molar. They'll fight you every step of the way to try and get out of paying for anything. Fact is there is nothing benevolent or altruistic about an insurance company contrary to what they would like you to believe.

In fact, insurance companies are shining examples of how capitalism actually works. Screw as many "customers" out of as much money as you can while paying out as little in benefits as you can while simultaneously paying the least taxes as you can. Man do I wish I was the CEO of Kaiser or MetLife.

Hey, you don't like insurance companies, screw them, don't take out any. It is a free country, you know.

But I'll just bet you think it is right for the Government to require all drivers have car insurance. Right.

And for government to furnish flood insurance for folks who live in flood prone areas. And to help folks on the coast who don't have hurricane insurance. Yeah I bet you think that is great for YOU and me to pay out through our taxes. Yep, help those people to rebuild in the same area so we can do it all over again in a few years. You know like New Orleans, which is below sea level. Is America great or what.

Cause you don't like those damn captialist, which built the country you live in. Give me a break.

[TDMVPDPOY]

medicare/free health cover for underprivilege only works when ppl who uses it, doesnt abuse the system and putting burden on it.....another problem also is baby boomers

[Emanuel20]

What makes you think someone making $50k cannot pay all the premium? It would be about $600 I think without other changes. Implement some tort reform and educe some regulations, that number should be half or less.

-Well, the 78% of families of 4 that make under $50K in GA struggle to pay insurance premiums if they have any.

How about taking all tax liabilities off of insurance companies which would reduce the amount they have to charge to make a profit?

-Insurance companies make their profits from accurate estimation and they charge premiums based on claims (in healthcare) and previous medical conditions and the likeliness of future medical conditions. The decrease of tax liabilities will not have a significant impact of their profit trend.

I don't know what a CRL pool is, but how do you keep the people being subsidized from all favoring one company over another. Wouldn't insurance companies have to ration how many people they can subsidize?

-Well, every insurance company would be allowed a percentage of the Pool based on participation of lower class. (They would have some limit). Therefore, you will have a balanced participation of the lower class covered by different insurance companies.

[boutons_]

"would be about $600"

The avg family of four pays $12K/year for premiums, then $3K outta pocket.

[Emanuel20]

"would be about $600"

The avg family of four pays $12K/year for premiums, then $3K outta pocket.

Depending on what kind of insurance coverage you have.
Here in GA, we did a survey and found out that the average family of 4 pays about $500-$600 monthly (combination of HMO, Indemnity, PPO). I guess this is only for GA, but still when you generalize it, this is not more than 7,200 annually. But I have a feeling that if you take United States as a whole and draw the stats, 12K annually would not be far from the truth (maybe a little less :rolleyes).

[RandomGuy]

NEW YORK - Employer health care costs are poised to rise almost 10 percent in 2008 — more than double the annual inflation rate — and nearly that much again in 2009, according to an industry report released Tuesday.

The study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers predicts that medical costs will increase 9.9 percent in 2008 and an additional 9.6 percent in 2009.

"Health care providers, insurers and employers will have to monitor medical costs carefully if we are to avoid a resurgence of the double-digit annual increases seen in the past," said Dr. David Chin, leader of the Health Research Institute at PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

The report identified two factors driving the increase:

_A hospital building boom, as hospitals replace facilities and add private rooms and centers for outpatient treatment.

_An increase in the expenses those with insurance are paying for those without. Cost-shifting from the uninsured, Medicare and Medicaid will account for nearly one in every five dollars spent by private insurers in 2009, according to the study, as the federal government underfunds public insurance programs and the number of people with private insurance continues to decrease.

One of the things employers are doing in response is increasing wellness, prevention and disease management programs, which they say not only keeps employees healthy but also raises productivity.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers surveyed more than 500 employers and health plans, with total coverage of more than 11 million people, for the report.
Linky dinky doo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_bi_ge/healthcare_costs)

Read it and deal with it. This is exactly what I and other progressives have said would happen over time, based on the available economic data.

I seriously would LOVE to see the conservative "solution" to this problem, other than the patently immoral "let people without health insurance just die" bit already expressed here.

[RandomGuy]

Like it or not government subsidizing or regulation of health care is coming.

The ONLY way to avoid this is to abolish the laws that require emergency rooms to accept and treat all patients who show up without insurance. If you can't/won't do that, then stop bitching, and give me a solution.

I see three basic choices.

1) We can either have the conservative, grab-asstic, "do-nothing" solution that will simply accelerate this trend, and probably cause some sort of systemic collapse.

OR

2) We can do something akin to a single-payor system with the government playing the role of a massive insurer.

OR

3) We can let the government run health-care lock stock and barrel, about as grab-asstic as the first solution.

Anyone else have any bright ideas, do tell.

[RandomGuy]

people die while on a waiting list to even see a doctor for a diagnosis like what happens over in Europe with their socialized health care

:rolleyes
Source?

Statistics?

I call bullshit. Put up or shut up.

The only data I have seen is that Europeans are healthier in general than Americans.

Hardly indicative of people dying in the streets, is it?

[Wild Cobra]

:rolleyes
Source?

Statistics?

I call bullshit. Put up or shut up.

The only data I have seen is that Europeans are healthier in general than Americans.

Hardly indicative of people dying in the streets, is it?
Don't ask me for a link either. I'm not looking it up. I am shocked that people get into this single payer idea without looking at the bad aspects themselves. It works this way. Patients who get cancer do not get treated right away. Too many end up on waiting lists to be seen. By the time they get seen and treated, many who could have survived now become terminally ill because of the progression of cancer from a controllable cancer, to uncontrollable.

There are other situations that do occur. I'm not an expert here, I just know things like this happen regularly.

[boutons_]

"By the time they get seen and treated, many who could have survived now become terminally ill because of the progression of cancer from a controllable cancer, to uncontrollable."

This already happens, right now in your ever so lovely USA, to 1000s of un/under-insured people who wait as long as they can before going to dubya's emergency room. Now their disease is 10x or 100x more expensive, longer lasting that early treatment. The ER/hospital sends the bills to govt and/or simply raises all the hospital's billing to patients who can pay.

Another aspect of the US system is that many people don't buy their prescription drugs because the ever increasing co-pays, because of dubya's donut hole, so they get sicker rather than spend the money. Especially true for retired people on fixed incomes.

Remember that dubya's health bill made it illegal for the US govt to negotiate prices with BigPharma.

CBO says the Medicare/Medicaid system is solvent until the 2040s, and some say that's too pessimistic.

[xrayzebra]

:rolleyes
Source?

Statistics?

I call bullshit. Put up or shut up.

The only data I have seen is that Europeans are healthier in general than Americans.

Hardly indicative of people dying in the streets, is it?

RG I think most of us could only give antidotical
instances. I don't know how they would start to generate the statistical information needed to show how many people are dead or dying from non-treatment. I not sure the government would if it could. It certainly wouldn't look good on them, would it?

I suppose we could (I could) do like a lot of single payer (universal health care) supporters and pull some figures out of the air. Like 100,000 and call it a crisis. But I wont

[RandomGuy]

Yes. Tort reform would help allot.

Not according to the PriceWaterHouseCoopers white paper.

Tort reform= hollow ideological solution lacking data that makes people "feel good"

Tort reform would do a bit, but not as much as its advocates claim, and certainly not much in the long run.

[Wild Cobra]

Not according to the PriceWaterHouseCoopers white paper.

I will simply say they are wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

I will simply say they are wrong.:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Don't ask me for a link either. I'm not looking it up. I am shocked that people get into this single payer idea without looking at the bad aspects themselves. It works this way. Patients who get cancer do not get treated right away. Too many end up on waiting lists to be seen. By the time they get seen and treated, many who could have survived now become terminally ill because of the progression of cancer from a controllable cancer, to uncontrollable.

There are other situations that do occur. I'm not an expert here, I just know things like this happen regularly.

A single payor system does have bad aspects, just as any solution does.

BUT

At some point, doing nothing will cost more than those "bad aspects".

ALL CHOICES INVOLVE ECONOMIC COSTS. Some are "out of pocket" expenses, and some are "opportunity costs".

The opportunity costs of doing nothing rise as time passes, and the spiral of unaffordable health insurance continues.

For those who dislike single-payor systems, fine. Let's do fuckall nothing for a few years and rely on some nebulous "free-market" solution to save us.

Keep crossing our fingers, and hope it all gets better, when all indications are it will only get worse.

[RandomGuy]

I will simply say they are wrong.

:lmao

Dude the whole "I disagree with the data, so it MUST be faulty" bit is getting a bit worn don't you think?

Don't you get tired of dismissing out-of-hand data that doesn't fit into your reality?

[RandomGuy]

I will simply say they are wrong.

Perhaps I should elucidate a bit.

PWC does an issue paper every year where they take accounting and economic data from various sources, and attempt to identify the cost drivers that are increasing the costs of health care.

Increased malpractice insurance is in there to be sure, but is NOT the primary cause of the increases in health care costs in the US.

My post kinda implied that it was insignificant, and that is not entirely correcgt.

Tort reform would be a band-aid solution to a gushing wound that needs stitches and surgery, to borrow an apt metaphor.

[xrayzebra]

A single payor system does have bad aspects, just as any solution does.

BUT

At some point, doing nothing will cost more than those "bad aspects".

ALL CHOICES INVOLVE ECONOMIC COSTS. Some are "out of pocket" expenses, and some are "opportunity costs".

The opportunity costs of doing nothing rise as time passes, and the spiral of unaffordable health insurance continues.

For those who dislike single-payor systems, fine. Let's do fuckall nothing for a few years and rely on some nebulous "free-market" solution to save us.

Keep crossing our fingers, and hope it all gets better, when all indications are it will only get worse.

"They", you know the people who don't exist, say the reason UHC wont work is because that when something is perceived as "free" that demand goes up for the "free" stuff.

So possibly, if you could convince people it isn't free, that there is going to some cost involved or make it more difficult to navigate the system, boy I can already hear the cat calls, maybe that would let the system do what it was created to do. Provide health care. But I find it hard to believe you are going to get people to enter the field of medicine, as Doctors, and dedicate themselves to 8 years of education for what a national health plan, run by the government, would pay them. I know England has a problem with it.

[Wild Cobra]

A single payor system does have bad aspects, just as any solution does.

BUT

At some point, doing nothing will cost more than those "bad aspects".

ALL CHOICES INVOLVE ECONOMIC COSTS. Some are "out of pocket" expenses, and some are "opportunity costs".

The opportunity costs of doing nothing rise as time passes, and the spiral of unaffordable health insurance continues.

For those who dislike single-payor systems, fine. Let's do fuckall nothing for a few years and rely on some nebulous "free-market" solution to save us.

Keep crossing our fingers, and hope it all gets better, when all indications are it will only get worse.

I'm not in favor of doing nothing. That's what we have been doing with oil production, and we will soon see $5.00 per gallon gas. We've been doing in essence no commercial development because of government interference. That's what universal health care will be. Government interference.

Think health care is expensive now? Just wait until it's free!

The solution is to take a realistic look at regulations and judicial harm. Let the free market handle more in a competitive fashion rather than government dictates.

Tort reform is a big one. Start looking up or asking local physicians what they pay for malpractice insurance annually. Take that figure and divide by say 2080 for an hourly rate of what your time with the doctor costs.

A good aspect of government insurance is removal or the lawsuits. Think the governments going to pay malpractice to the degree court awards are? Wouldn't real tort reform and the competitive free market be cheaper?

Consider also the numerous added costs of extra tests to cover their bases. If doctors misses something that proves to be relevant, they get their pants sued off. Therefore, they do, and we pay for too many unrelated tests for the one time they might miss something and get sued. That's one way we pay so much for lack of tort reform. Under government health care, they don't have to protect themselves from this, in fact, they will be discouraged from additional tests to save money. Even the tests they really think should be done!

Liability and payouts to patients should be limited to mistakes that should not have occurred. Real malpractice. Not any mistake that is possible. All medical procedures have some risk. Some more than others. This should be understood, and people should not get paid for claims that are known risks for a procedure, or known side effects for medicines.

If we start with the free market ideas that single payer systems will force on us anyway, and it doesn't get better, then we can talk about single payer systems. Not until we try free market solutions first.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not in favor of doing nothing. That's what we have been doing with oil production, and we will soon see $5.00 per gallon gas. We've been doing in essence no commercial development because of government interference. That's what universal health care will be. Government interference.

Think health care is expensive now? Just wait until it's free!

The solution is to take a realistic look at regulations and judicial harm. Let the free market handle more in a competitive fashion rather than government dictates.

Tort reform is a big one. Start looking up or asking local physicians what they pay for malpractice insurance annually. Take that figure and divide by say 2080 for an hourly rate of what your time with the doctor costs.

A good aspect of government insurance is removal or the lawsuits. Think the governments going to pay malpractice to the degree court awards are? Wouldn't real tort reform and the competitive free market be cheaper?

Consider also the numerous added costs of extra tests to cover their bases. If doctors misses something that proves to be relevant, they get their pants sued off. Therefore, they do, and we pay for too many unrelated tests for the one time they might miss something and get sued. That's one way we pay so much for lack of tort reform. Under government health care, they don't have to protect themselves from this, in fact, they will be discouraged from additional tests to save money. Even the tests they really think should be done!

Liability and payouts to patients should be limited to mistakes that should not have occurred. Real malpractice. Not any mistake that is possible. All medical procedures have some risk. Some more than others. This should be understood, and people should not get paid for claims that are known risks for a procedure, or known side effects for medicines.

If we start with the free market ideas that single payer systems will force on us anyway, and it doesn't get better, then we can talk about single payer systems. Not until we try free market solutions first.I will simply say you are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

I will simply say you are wrong.
OK, Fair enough. However, consider mt last statement:


If we start with the free market ideas that single payer systems will force on us anyway, and it doesn't get better, then we can talk about single payer systems. Not until we try free market solutions first.

Tort reform

Stop procedures done as a CYA measure rather than ones deemed nedded

Etc.

[ChumpDumper]

I have considered your statement and will simply say you are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

I have considered your statement and will simply say you are wrong.
And I will simply say you are being a horses ass again.

[ChumpDumper]

I will simply say you are wrong about that too.

[Wild Cobra]

I will simply say you are wrong about that too.

Whatever.

Don't you agree we should try smaller changes that can be reasonable before changing the entire system?

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever.

Don't you agree we should try smaller changes that can be reasonable before changing the entire system?That's been happening for the past fifteen years.

[TeyshaBlue]

"
Remember that dubya's health bill made it illegal for the US govt to negotiate prices with BigPharma.

Where did it say that? That's simply ludicrous. The Government negotiates the best pricing on the planet with "Big Pharma".

[Wild Cobra]

That's been happening for the past fifteen years.

Not that I've seen. Many doctors still pay over $250,000 annually for insurance!

[ChumpDumper]

Not that I've seen.You're blind.

[RandomGuy]

"They", you know the people who don't exist, say the reason UHC wont work is because that when something is perceived as "free" that demand goes up for the "free" stuff.

So possibly, if you could convince people it isn't free, that there is going to some cost involved or make it more difficult to navigate the system, boy I can already hear the cat calls, maybe that would let the system do what it was created to do. Provide health care. But I find it hard to believe you are going to get people to enter the field of medicine, as Doctors, and dedicate themselves to 8 years of education for what a national health plan, run by the government, would pay them. I know England has a problem with it.

In this case the demand for "too much" free stuff isn't a problem, when the "free stuff" is preventive care.

Preventive care is cheaper than curative care. You WANT people to consume it, because it is CHEAPER than the alternative, especially when you look at the country/society as a whole.

If you like, I can provide a quote from one of my insurance textbooks.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not in favor of doing nothing. That's what we have been doing with oil production, and we will soon see $5.00 per gallon gas. We've been doing in essence no commercial development because of government interference. That's what universal health care will be. Government interference.

Think health care is expensive now? Just wait until it's free!

The solution is to take a realistic look at regulations and judicial harm. Let the free market handle more in a competitive fashion rather than government dictates.

Tort reform is a big one. Start looking up or asking local physicians what they pay for malpractice insurance annually. Take that figure and divide by say 2080 for an hourly rate of what your time with the doctor costs.

A good aspect of government insurance is removal or the lawsuits. Think the governments going to pay malpractice to the degree court awards are? Wouldn't real tort reform and the competitive free market be cheaper?

Consider also the numerous added costs of extra tests to cover their bases. If doctors misses something that proves to be relevant, they get their pants sued off. Therefore, they do, and we pay for too many unrelated tests for the one time they might miss something and get sued. That's one way we pay so much for lack of tort reform. Under government health care, they don't have to protect themselves from this, in fact, they will be discouraged from additional tests to save money. Even the tests they really think should be done!

Liability and payouts to patients should be limited to mistakes that should not have occurred. Real malpractice. Not any mistake that is possible. All medical procedures have some risk. Some more than others. This should be understood, and people should not get paid for claims that are known risks for a procedure, or known side effects for medicines.

If we start with the free market ideas that single payer systems will force on us anyway, and it doesn't get better, then we can talk about single payer systems. Not until we try free market solutions first.

Meh. Have tort reform of some sort. Admittedly "defensive" medicine is practiced and contributes to it.

Malpractice insurance is only a component of the price increases for health care we have seen.



After that is done, what is your next "free market" solution?

[RandomGuy]

Under a free-market solution, wouldn't a doctor attempt to game the system and do as many tests as they could get away with in order to charge patients with insurance anyways?

How would tort reform avoid this?

[boutons_]

tort reform in TX caused patients bills to go down? or what is simply the TX Repugs protecting the insurance companies and doctors?

[ElNono]

I think the biggest issue with private insurance is that they're no different that any other company. They fight tooth and nail with providers, but it's not to lower the customer prices, it's to maximize profits. Their priority are shareholders, not customers.
I sincerely don't know what can you do about it. If you put a cap on profits, then they'll just leave (like what Jersey did with car insurance some years ago).
It's an issue that I think needs to be addressed at some point if you want to make the system any more 'fair'.

[RandomGuy]

tort reform in TX caused patients bills to go down? or what is simply the TX Repugs protecting the insurance companies and doctors?


That is an excellent question.

Individual states have enacted various versions of tort reform. If, as WC would seem to suggest, lawsuits and defensive medicine were a primary cost driver, then Texas and other states should see a strong difference in the rate of increases in health care costs.

Since this is WC's case to make, it is his burden of proof to show this. The PWC paper supports my thesis that malpractice insurance is a relatively minor part of the price increase. If you like, I will post some direct quotes later.

[RandomGuy]

I will simply say they are wrong.

Is that how you do chemistry too?

"I will simply say that the data suggesting oxidation rates for that solution are wrong."

I call bullshit. If you have data that suggests the PWC paper is wrong, present it.

Data, not your bullshit opinion.

[RandomGuy]

I see no data on tort reform affects on health care costs forthcoming.

Since there is no data to back up the assertion that tort reform makes a fart's worth of difference, we must conservatively assume it doesn't affect health care cost increases as much as proponents claim.

Now what is the next "free-market" solution to the problem? Step up. If all you have is criticisms of someone else's idea, you got jack. I want a plan of action.

[RandomGuy]

Don't ask me for a link either. I'm not looking it up. I am shocked that people get into this single payer idea without looking at the bad aspects themselves. It works this way. Patients who get cancer do not get treated right away. Too many end up on waiting lists to be seen. By the time they get seen and treated, many who could have survived now become terminally ill because of the progression of cancer from a controllable cancer, to uncontrollable.

There are other situations that do occur. I'm not an expert here, I just know things like this happen regularly.

Translation:

"I have no data for my opinion other than what I pulled out of my ass"

Gotcha.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Wild Cobra]

Real translation, I don't have that much time to spend.

I don't know about you, but I have a life.

If you want government health care, then move to a socialistic country. Hell no to having it here where we need to maintain the free market.

The reasons are complicated, and Random, you must be one of those grown up kids living in your parents basement to have all the time you do to find holes in peoples arguments.

Too many times, I have given clear answers, then you go off on tangents arguing against things I didn't cover.

You have too much time and consistently fail to address pointed questions and answers, yet expect other to do that for you. When I do have the time to argue with you again, I will likely pass since you just don't get the truth when clearly pointed out. If you do, you twist it how ever you can, not admitting fault.

Seriously, I have no desire to do the research it takes to make my points, as you will still not believe it.

[RandomGuy]

Real translation, I don't have that much time to spend.

I don't know about you, but I have a life.

If you want government health care, then move to a socialistic country. Hell no to having it here where we need to maintain the free market.

The reasons are complicated, and Random, you must be one of those grown up kids living in your parents basement to have all the time you do to find holes in peoples arguments.

Too many times, I have given clear answers, then you go off on tangents arguing against things I didn't cover.

You have too much time and consistently fail to address pointed questions and answers, yet expect other to do that for you. When I do have the time to argue with you again, I will likely pass since you just don't get the truth when clearly pointed out. If you do, you twist it how ever you can, not admitting fault.

Seriously, I have no desire to do the research it takes to make my points, as you will still not believe it.

That is always your excuse when confronted with a reality that doesn't fit into your opinion. "I don't have time." You have time to have an opinion, but never to actually see if that opinion is a good one supported by things like facts. I am glad you aren't in charge of anything, but you would fit right in somewhere in the Bush administration.

I would give any data you could present a fair hearing. Given the fact you are a hack, and generally dishonest, I would give that a good skeptical eye, though.

I don't go off on tangents, and I fully understand what you say. But if you want to salvage some bit of your ego and lie to yourself that you have somehow proven any of your dogma as "fact", who I am I to interfere in your delusion?

[Wild Cobra]

That is always your excuse when confronted with a reality that doesn't fit into your opinion. "I don't have time." You have time to have an opinion, but never to actually see if that opinion is a good one supported by things like facts.

When I have supplied good facts, you ignore them.

It is summer you know. Maybe you spend your free time indoors, but I like to spend most of my free time outdoors. I really don't have the time to find good reliable data unless I wish to spend much more time on the computer. Winter time, I will spend more time here. Untill this last week, Oregon has refused to participate in global warming.



I would give any data you could present a fair hearing. Given the fact you are a hack, and generally dishonest, I would give that a good skeptical eye, though.

Bullshit. You always find ways to argue against things I don't even say, ignoring my points entirely rather often.



I don't go off on tangents, and I fully understand what you say.

Right. Ozone is smog and NO and NO2 are the same.

[RandomGuy]

You always find ways to argue against things I don't even say, ignoring my points entirely rather often.

Link? Post?

I call bullshit on this one. Put up an example of this.

If I do it all the time, it should be easy for you.

[RandomGuy]

Right. Ozone is smog and NO and NO2 are the same.

I have never said ozone is smog and NO and NO2 are the same.

Ozone and smog are not the same, but are similar enough in usage to be fairly interchangible for most casual purposes.

Since you are a hack and not interested in fair dialogue, you nitpicked on that endlessly to make your weak-ass case. Don't blame me for distorting your words and hypocritically turn around in the same sentence and do the same to what I say.

[Wild Cobra]

I have never said ozone is smog and NO and NO2 are the same.

Ozone and smog are not the same, but are similar enough in usage to be fairly interchangible for most casual purposes.

Since you are a hack and not interested in fair dialogue, you nitpicked on that endlessly to make your weak-ass case. Don't blame me for distorting your words and hypocritically turn around in the same sentence and do the same to what I say.

Again, you miss my point.

[RandomGuy]

Again, you miss my point.

Your point was that I don't understand what you say, and you distorted what *I* said to somehow prove that.

As I have said before, stop flattering yourself by thinking you are so smart that I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

[Wild Cobra]

Ozone and smog are not the same, but are similar enough in usage to be fairly interchangible for most casual purposes.

You really believe that?

Ozone is a component of smog. Smog has several othetr components. The level of ozone in smog can range from zero man made (rather minimul natural) to harmful levels.

To say they are interchangeable in a casual sense is rather ignorant of the subject. I continued to try to separate the two. You still hold them to close. That is your mistake. Not mine.

To explain again about my PROVING the article has fallacies. When this occurs in any material, all points the author make are suspect. The accuracy needs to then be tested before relying on the author. The author then makes his case against the Bush administration by using the words of two liberal pundits as fact. There is also no balance of using two pundits for the administration. I was also challenging the accuracy of these two spokes people for the two activist groups. Something still never resolved. I hay they are full of shit. The author obviously didn't care about the accuracy of the article. You go on to find a few accurate items that I never disagreed with, trying to make me disagree?

Give me a break. You ignored the fact I was also challenging that aspect of the liberal activists words. The author obviously doesn't give a shit of getting the facts right. Why should we trust the two activists words he used?

[Sec24Row7]

The only problem I have with Socialized Medicine is that I am going to have to pay for your shitty health care... as well as my and my employees good health care...

Right now I pay for my good health care and my employees good health care...


I don't know who the fuck you are...