dubya dubbed: Just Go To The ER

Romney on ‘60 Minutes’: Uninsured Can Go to ER


On CBS’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday night, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney revealed his new plan for the millions of Americans who don’t have any health care coverage: Go to the emergency room.

“Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance,” he told Scott Pelley during the interview. “If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”

Yes, this is the same man who implemented the universal health care law in Massachusetts while he was the governor. It’s also the same man who reiterated the need for universal coverage back in 2010 during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“Look, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility, particularly if they are people who have sufficient means to pay their own way,” he said back then.

Here’s a new defense for Romney if he’s asked again about his 47 percent remark (and he most likely will be): “Hey, I often say things I don’t mean!”

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item...=Google+Reader

Etch-a-sketch'ed NoWhereMan, the best the Repugs have to offer.

whatever one thinks of that, that is the current system

I think his remarks were in response to the safety net piece of Pelley's question.

Not that he has a cogent plan. Nobody on the Hill does.

and it's not exactly news at this point that Mitt Romney's opinions are very changeable

What exactly was wrong with his answer? Did you listen to the video? His point is to let it be a state by state solution and not a one size fits all federal solution. He even went on to discuss how he handled it in his state until the video clip cut him off.

And he's right. Everybody gets health care under the current system. It might not be the most efficient way to deliver it but it gets delivered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

and it's not exactly news at this point that Mitt Romney's opinions are very changeable

---

Replace "changeable" with "evolving".:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

What exactly was wrong with his answer?

---

nothing. it's a minor variation of the John Kerry flip-flop thing. alleged and quotable inconsistencies. bullshit and rhetoric, in other words.

however, it remains factually true that Mitt Romney's major political accomplishment most resembles that of Obama: mandated universal health insurance. there was always a danger this would not remain altogether hidden.

There is a huge difference between a federal level solution and a state level solution.

And the fact that he was flexible doesn't seem like that big of a handicap. All the hardcore Republicans hate Obama more than they do him, and that very flexibility could appeal to independents and moderates.

Face it, Romney is a loser. Stressing his squishy appeal to moderates is probably useless at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

flexibility

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

There is a huge difference between a federal level solution and a state level solution.

---

how so? the core idea is the same: universal health insurance mandate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Face it, Romney is a loser. Stressing his squishy appeal to moderates is probably useless at this point.

---

Oh, I'm pretty well resigned to 4 more years of our existing loser.

You have 20lbs of shit and a 5lb bag. All these candidates have their creative bullshit ways of saying they have the solution but the truth is you cannot get 20lbs of shit into a 5lb bag.

isnt that just how it is in most westernize countries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Oh, I'm pretty well resigned to 4 more years of our existing loser.

---

sore loser beforehand? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

sore loser beforehand? :lol

---

Meh, call it what you want. I think Obama has some good speechwriters, reads a teleprompter well, and is a good strategic campaigner. At the same time I think he is a terrible president.

we apparently agree on that much, and that Romney is a loser.

Yet in 2010, in an appearance on MSNBC, Romney said almost exactly the opposite: "It doesn't make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility," he said at the time.

That's because back then, Romney was defending the Massachusetts law he signed as governor. It's the one that requires most people to either have health insurance or pay a fine — just like the federal law he now vows to repeal.

He used even more colorful language back in 2007, talking to Fox News host Glenn Beck. "When they show up at the hospital, they get care; they get free care paid for by you and me," he said. "If that's not a form of socialism, I don't know what is."

But in addition to flip-flopping, Romney is missing a key fact about the uninsured and emergency room care, says health policy professor Harold Pollack of the University of Chicago. Just because hospitals are required to see patients in the emergency room doesn't mean that care is required to be free.

"The emergency room is perfectly entitled to send you a whopping bill," said Pollack. "And there are many people across America who are facing significant financial problems from serious bills that they've received for emergency care."

It's only when the uninsured don't — or can't — pay those bills that the costs come back to the taxpayers. Pollack also says Democrats and Republicans largely agree that emergency rooms are wholly inappropriate places for most people to get health care.

"It's just about the least cost-effective way you can get your medical care. And we also have really damaged the institution of emergency department care by expecting it to take on these burdens it's not really designed to assume — to provide primary care to low-income people," he said.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...s?sc=17&f=1001

:lol what a lying dumbfuck.

"a rolling stone gathers no moss"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...-way-but-lucid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I think his remarks were in response to the safety net piece of Pelley's question.

Not that he has a cogent plan. Nobody on the Hill does.

---

I keep asking people who call themselves conservative for a "free-market" plan or alternative to single payor that ends the inefficient cost-shifting of our current system.

I haven't gotten one yet.

Single payor system is the best solution out of any that I have seen. Or, if you prefer, least bad, sticking with the current system of heath insurance/care among that solution set. Long term the current system of rationing health care is unsustainable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...-way-but-lucid

---

:lmao

You forgot the follow up:

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

single payer, and single buyer (forbidden by Repug regulations), are the best solutions, as has been shown in other countries, but of course, USA must ignore all other countries as totally irrelevant to the USA's "exceptional"ly superior table ranking.

All industrial countries struggle with proving universal health care, but the USA "exceptionally" allows the sick-care for-profit industry suck down wealth from citizens at a much higher rate, while not providing universal health care. Fucking clients, esp sick clients, is The American Way of Capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I keep asking people who call themselves conservative for a "free-market" plan or alternative to single payor that ends the inefficient cost-shifting of our current system.

I haven't gotten one yet.

Single payor system is the best solution out of any that I have seen. Or, if you prefer, least bad, sticking with the current system of heath insurance/care among that solution set. Long term the current system of rationing health care is unsustainable.

---

I suppose you've missed my 10,000 posts on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I suppose you've missed my 10,000 posts on this topic.

---

TB :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I suppose you've missed my 10,000 posts on this topic.

---

doubt it. RG is stuck in the strawmannish "many say" or "typical conservatives say" mode. any reply not fitting fit the contours of the cookie cutter gets tossed aside as scrap and ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

I can't post a cogent, original thought.

---

and yet, the flip-flopping, lying, slandering extremist Mormon bishop has the gall to claim:


Romney on Obama: 'Talk is cheap'

:lol

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,5169355.story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

doubt it. RG is stuck in the strawmannish "many say" or "typical conservatives say" mode. any reply not fitting fit the contours of the cookie cutter gets tossed aside as scrap and ignored.

---

I haven't put words in anybody's mouth, thank you very little.

I just can't remember hearing any real purely-free market approach, TB's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I suppose you've missed my 10,000 posts on this topic.

---

No, I dimly remember you putting forth something, and thinking it sounded reasonable enough, but can't remember the specifics.

I would have to spend a bit of time searching to really ferret it out.

(unless of course, you were gratious enough to spell it out for the 10,001st time)

Ok...10,001.:lol
The existing conventional wisdom's basic reasoning is that 3rd party payers (both insurance companies and medicare) allow consumers to overuse and abuse healthcare services, and thus the American consumers are spending so much on healthcare, well...because they can. The argument continues that the existence of this guaranteed market fuelled by 3rd party payers in turn fuels all kinds of companies to step up for part the pie by creating all kinds of gadgets, tests and drugs that may or may not be evidenced based (i.e. effective). In turn, doctors oblige as consumers gobble up all this supposed innovation, and round and round we go. Everyone, the argument goes, from provider to patient to durable supply companies, are trapped in this happy web of gravy and entitlement.

Lots of conservatives make this argument. (it is hardly an all inclusive argument but nevertheless partly true). However, the "remedy," they propose is foolish because it is predicated on the fantasy that after these third party payers are removed or curtailed consumers will go head-on with the industry and doctors, start "shopping" harder when they have to pay for more things out of pocket and then make wiser healthcare choices, selecting cheaper care and/or consuming only what they need.

An irony here is that the same people making the above argument instantly become alarmists as soon as an evidenced based recommendation is made to consumers to forgo any type of test. The U.S. Preventive Task Force 2009 recommendation against routine breast cancer screenings for women under fifty comes to mind. Worries were abound that 3rd party payers would start denying claims for the routine procedure. They would equally freak out if a guideline established that the prostate specific antigen test was largely useless, as is the case with the established guidelines in many countries (the UK, Australia to name two) But, isn't that exactly what they wanted? The theory goes that fewer consumers would get the unnecessary test in the first place since they would have to pay out of pocket for this procedure and the remainder would go shopping, and both these results would drive prices down, the screening equipment companies would not have that "guaranteed" market. etc.

This just illustrates the truth that consumers are not capable of navigating a "free market" for healthcare. On the one hand, they are not knowledgeable enough to decide they do not need a medicine or procedure that a professional recommends (e.g. breast cancer screening), and certainly not equipped to make sense of conflicting recommendations by professionals who do not always know what is actually evidenced based even themselves. Even if they were equipped, consumers bragging about the half-price triple bypass they got, would most likely send their friends running in the other direction from that doctor rather than flocking to him/her to get one of those "discount bypasses" for themselves.

All this combines to illustrate that the healthcare market does not and cannot operate like other "free-er" markets with better information symmetry than healthcare and it is worth noting that American consumers still find ways to make stupid choices in those less complicated markets with (hopefully but probably not) less dire outcomes.

We like to pretend this problem is super complicated but, at its core, it really isn't. We only pretend it is because we really, really do not want to take the simple steps to correct it. The only real answer involves what you (and the rest of America) does not want to hear. The "tough pill" is that meaningful cost containment is only possible if the government controls even more (not less) aspects of healthcare than it already does. The evidence is abound the world over: This madness will never end unless the authority steps in and starts drawing hard and fast lines for both healthcare professionals and consumers to follow.

Step 1. Healthcare records need to be nationalized, put in a data base and analyzed to truly determine what practices are evidenced based. From this, better Guidelines need to be developed by government bodies made of healthcare professionals with the specific task of sorting through the mess- like but not necessarily the U.S. preventive services task force, MedPAC or IPAB .

Step 2. Based on the guidelines, the 3rd party payers (ideally, one single payer) need to start limiting access to care (i.e. rationing) more than they already do, but intelligently like in many other countries that achieve equal or better health outcomes while spending less. I'm sorry, but the doctors are not going to stop the madness. The patients aren't going to stop the madness. That leaves the government to step in and say, we aren't paying either of you for x, y and z because the evidence for it is shit. Then, if Americans still want to overconsume dubious patches, pill and potions, they can just buy some supplemental plan or pay out of pocket. But, most won't. Failing this, healthcare costs in this country will never be controlled. The rest is just a pipe dream.

Step 3. Create a Fed single payer HMO...this would handle all routine visits/vaccinations/exams....hell, routine checkup exams represent about 8% of the total outlay for healthcare alone! Realize that the vast majority of these patients that come in for an "annual exam" have already seen their doctor multiple times the preceding year. A single, governing body can identify and prevent unneeded exams like these by dint of a layer of guidelines/filters. This is something the current model has failed miserably at.

Step 4. Allow insurance companies to be...well, insurance companies. Their original purpose was to leverage risk across time. So, let them handle the specialist stuff and subsequent surgeries. The fed would have to impose a documentation/coding standard so that the outcomes can be included in a master medical database. That standard should be exactly what the single payer/fed system would use. Freed of the need, and administrative burden of functioning as an HMO, Insurance companies would significantly reduce their overhead. Policy premiums should be required to reflect this. Participation should be mandatory (which is not ideal, but a needed caveat to make this even feasible from a political standpoint).

"Healthcare records need to be nationalized,"

the latest doctor fraud discovered where records were electronic is that the docs upgrade the coding from a $40 code to a $120 code.

Medicare/medicaid/VA/single-payer docs must be govt employees and on a strict salary, not fee-for-service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Face it, Romney is a loser. Stressing his squishy appeal to moderates is probably useless at this point.

---

Yes.

This election will be the lesser of two losers.

At least one of those losers has real world executive experience making money, instead of going in debt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

how so? the core idea is the same: universal health insurance mandate.

---

I see.

One size fits all.

Can you wear anybody's shoes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I suppose you've missed my 10,000 posts on this topic.

---

I don't know about Random, but I don't know what future date to go to to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

One size fits all.

Can you wear anybody's shoes?

---

devastating, perceptive, informative analogy :lol

I swear, you two hacks bring nothing to any discussion.

TB, bringin it down hard :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

TB, bringin it down hard :lol

---

Well, that was better than your typical altnet/thinkprogress.borg bullshit link.:toast

TB :lol

always expressing his bullshit opinion supposedly to refute facts and direct quotes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

TB :lol

always expressing his bullshit opinion supposedly to refute facts and direct quotes

---

lol at boutons getting repeatedly bitch slapped into oblivion.

TB :lol

:lol Boutons
:lol wingnut
:lol most partisan hack on the forum

soza and TB bringin it hard n fast. such little bitches

take your bitch slapping like the little hack you are, bitch.