Change is here!!!

[OSUGT]

I do have a question on this whole mess, can the senate kill this? After reading up on a few things I got the feel that the senate can send this back to the house, then they have to vote on it again.

 

So in theory this could still fail, or did I miss something?

 

If you are not in favor of this bill, the best thing that could happen is that those opposed to it win the senate and house in november. At this point, a "repeal bill" could be constructed and sent to Obama. Of course he would veto it.

 

The next best thing would be to cut off funding for it in appropriations. It would then be choked off before it could do any harm.

 

Hopefully, Obama is a one term pres and it could be repealed sometime after 2012.

[HAOLE]

What is comes down to basically is Doctors can charge more because they can get away with it. I would do the same thing.

 

Not really. We have set fee schedules that are primarily based off medicare rates.

[wagner]

If you are not in favor of this bill, the best thing that could happen is that those opposed to it win the senate and house in november. At this point, a "repeal bill" could be constructed and sent to Obama. Of course he would veto it.

 

The next best thing would be to cut off funding for it in appropriations. It would then be choked off before it could do any harm.

 

Hopefully, Obama is a one term pres and it could be repealed sometime after 2012.

 

This is what I don't like:

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/25/copy/what-i-did-was-shameful.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

I am very worried where all of this "debate" is going to go? How long before someone gets killed? It just shows how sad america has become and how far it has fallen.

[OSUGT]

^ agreed, no one should be in physical danger. However, wasnt it Ben Franklin who said, "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither?"

 

Hey, at least Fidel Castro thinks we did the right thing.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ELOMH80&show_article=1

[greg1647545532]

However, wasnt it Ben Franklin who said, "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither?"

 

Franklin's actual quote, which is much less sweeping than the oft-used misquote, is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

You'll see that it's much less relevant here in its original form.

[Guest 614Streets]

Well here is my take on this dire situation!!!!!!!!

 

Jesus!!!!!!! Lord!!!!!! Panic time!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fucking sheepie. Baah.

[OSUGT]

Franklin's actual quote, which is much less sweeping than the oft-used misquote, is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

You'll see that it's much less relevant here in its original form.

 

sorry, but the liberty I had before this bill was passed is essential.

[greg1647545532]

sorry, but the liberty I had before this bill was passed is essential.

 

I'd hardly call it essential, but even if I granted you that, this bill doesn't really provide any "safety" in the intended sense of the word, and if it were temporary you wouldn't be complaining so... still not a relevant quote.

[OSUGT]

no really concerned what you call it...a liberty I had last week has been taken away by a centralized federal govt. If you dont see a problem with that, that's on you because evidently apathy owns you.

[greg1647545532]

no really concerned what you call it...a liberty I had last week has been taken away by a centralized federal govt. If you dont see a problem with that, that's on you because evidently apathy owns you.

 

I've not stated my opinion on the subject of this health care bill. All I'm saying is you picked a stupid quote to throw out there. If you don't see a problem with replacing intelligent discussion with irrelevant quotes during a debate like this, that's on you.

[OSUGT]

ohhh noes, please dont call my quotes stupid. You will hurt my feelings. I guess I should be cool like you and hang out in a politically fired up debate thread and not present an opinion on the matter.

[OSUGT]

Got this from a healthcare speech article...

 

"Let me get this straight. We’re going to be gifted with a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also hasn’t read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke. Gonna be a tough one to figure out"

[HAOLE]

I'd hardly call it essential, but even if I granted you that, this bill doesn't really provide any "safety" in the intended sense of the word, and if it were temporary you wouldn't be complaining so... still not a relevant quote.

 

I dont want to put words in your mouth, but did you just say health care freedom is not essential? Did I misunderstand you?

[greg1647545532]

I dont want to put words in your mouth, but did you just say health care freedom is not essential? Did I misunderstand you?

 

"Health care freedom" isn't a defined thing. This bill no more strips you of any "health care freedom" than the recent credit card reform bill stripped you of "banking freedom." Or were you mad about some essential freedom you lost because credit card companies aren't allowed to change rates on existing balances. "But what about my RIGHT to get a credit card from a company that wants to do that!?!?" It's silly. This bill increases taxes and enacts regulations on the health insurance industry. Odds are your insurance, if you have it, won't change.

 

So, your "freedom" to buy health insurance from a company that is allowed to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions has been infringed. That's not exactly an essential freedom. Your "freedom" to keep whatever tax money this bill will cost you is not an essential freedom. So, pretty much, yeah, this health care bill doesn't infringe on any of your rights. Sorry.

[greg1647545532]

Got this from a healthcare speech article...

 

"Let me get this straight. We’re going to be gifted with a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also hasn’t read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke. Gonna be a tough one to figure out"

 

Do you have any original thoughts or do you just quote people all day?

[TTQ B4U]

Doctors can charge more because they can get away with it. I would do the same thing.

 

Doctors have to charge more because what they end up with is less than what the vet will take home. Especially once you factor in all the labor it takes to actually collect the money.

[HAOLE]

"Health care freedom" isn't a defined thing. This bill no more strips you of any "health care freedom" than the recent credit card reform bill stripped you of "banking freedom." Or were you mad about some essential freedom you lost because credit card companies aren't allowed to change rates on existing balances. "But what about my RIGHT to get a credit card from a company that wants to do that!?!?" It's silly. This bill increases taxes and enacts regulations on the health insurance industry. Odds are your insurance, if you have it, won't change.

 

So, your "freedom" to buy health insurance from a company that is allowed to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions has been infringed. That's not exactly an essential freedom. Your "freedom" to keep whatever tax money this bill will cost you is not an essential freedom. So, pretty much, yeah, this health care bill doesn't infringe on any of your rights. Sorry.

 

Here is the issue that you are missing. This law has little to nothing to do with helping anyone get health care. This law is about control of your life. If you control the health care of a country, you control the population. This is one step short of using food as a weapon.

 

The Constitution tells us what the government can do and the federalist papers tell us why. There is good reason health care was not mentioned in the constitution, controlling health at the governmental level gives power to control birth, death, and time in between. The constitution was written to outline what the government can do, not what it cant do. This is very important to understand, most people look at the constitution and a paper the tells the government what it cant do. In the federalist papers you will find, the writers had great foresight in the constitution. I cant recall who it was, maybe Jefferson, that talked about the dangers in defining what the government cant do. If the government has direct set of guides of what it cant do, anything that is not mentioned becomes fair game. This is one of the reasons several of the signers had issue with having a bill of rights. Our bill of rights tells we the people what we can do, what is not mentioned is what we cant do. This leaves open many avenues for the federal government to restrict us.

 

The bottom line is the law is there to control you and your decisions. It is there to control how long you live, how well you live and who will live.

[greg1647545532]

Here is the issue that you are missing. This law has little to nothing to do with helping anyone get health care. This law is about control of your life. If you control the health care of a country, you control the population. This is one step short of using food as a weapon.

 

<snipping the grade school review of the constitution>

 

The bottom line is the law is there to control you and your decisions. It is there to control how long you live, how well you live and who will live.

 

Wow, I had no idea they were trying to CONTROL MY LIFE! I thought they were just trying to prohibit some really damaging practices that have evolved in the health insurance marketplace. Must be the lizard people in Washington again. Or the Jews. Or the lizard Jews.

 

Either you're trolling me or you've jumped off the deep end.

 

Not that you'll care, but you're probably right that the real reason politicians are so bent on reforming health care doesn't have much to do with actually helping people. IMO, it has everything to do with Medicare and Medicaid and how those are programs that, like them or not, are never going to go away, and yet are unsustainable. Every new president comes in and probably gets the same "status update" that basically says "social security, medicare and medicaid are going to bankrupt the country." Bush's efforts to reform social security were commendable, but doomed to failure because the Democrats stonewalled any Republican initiative and the result was an overly complicated bill that was probably insufficient to actually fix the problems anyway. It was doomed to failure.

 

Likewise, this bill was born of an effort to solve a problem that will basically never be solved. The idea is that we need more people paying into the system if we expect it to be sustainable. Single payer would solve that problem exceedingly well -- everyone has to buy insurance, you buy it from the government via taxes, problem solved. But Republicans throw a goddamn hissyfit about socialized medicine and stamp their feet, and the result is the same thing that happened with the social security bill -- an overly complicated and probably insufficient bill finally went forward. Only this one somehow made it through.

 

I've said in other threads here that I don't know how I feel about this bill. I think it's going to add a lot of overhead and probably won't fix the financial situation entirely. Single payer would be better. I could even be convinced that nothing might be better. A lot of people say "it's a step in the right direction," and I can kind of see that, but that's basically admitting that health care in America is still gonna be a problem even after this bill, until we finally are overcome with the costs and move to a single payer system. So I guess we'll just keep biding our time.

 

In any case, what this bill is definitely NOT is a doomsday, end of the world, lizard people will control our lives scenario. You're just being ridiculous, and you've either let the right-wing hate machine drum you up into an unnecessary fervor, or you're just naturally prone to unnecessary fervors.

[greg1647545532]

I wanted to add, I know anything I say is meaningless. The damage has been done -- conservatives have worked so hard to hate this bill with all their might that they'll never change their minds. The negative opinion gets reinforced at every turn. Likewise, democrats are humping themselves silly over this team, slapping each other on the back and stroking each others' dicks. Same sort of reinforcement. Once this bill goes into effect, republicans will point to every single problem with health care in America and blame it on this bill, and democrats will point to every single problem with health care in America and blame it on republicans standing in the way of a better bill. Progress will never happen because anyone with a political axe to grind is retarded.

 

Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/opinion/25nyhan.html?sudsredirect=true

 

It's been scientifically proven that humans are too retarded for politics.

 

Studies have shown that people tend to seek out information that is consistent with their views; think of liberal fans of MSNBC and conservative devotees of Fox News. Liberals and conservatives also tend to process the information that they receive with a bias toward their pre-existing opinions, accepting claims that are consistent with their point of view and rejecting those that are not. As a result, information that contradicts their prior attitudes or beliefs is often disregarded, especially if those beliefs are strongly held.

[iwishiwascool]

It's weird.

 

I had a long conversation with a Pediatriac Surgeon and board member at Nationwide Children's earlier this week in his home. Though his life is far more impacted than that of a Chiropractor or even Resident Surgeon, his feelings on the matter were far less apocalyptic... he didn't even mention the chips that democrats were planning to implant in our brains that tell us when we can masturbate.

 

He actually saw it as an opportunity to innovate, streamline, and improve patient care. He previewed for me the presentation he was giving to the board in the morning.

 

I guess the difference between him and the complainers, is his ability to see a challenge and progress (How has Glen Beck Pavlov'd your reaction to that word) as an opportunity...

 

You believe that if you subscribe to an idea you also subscribe to that ideas ideology and to every possible negative consequence that the ideology implies when you carry it to absurd extremes. You believe that if one believes in a minimum safety net for the nations neediest, one believes in totalitarian control. You believe that faith provides a moral compass for our nations foundation, If the left had a Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, they would insist this could only lead to totalitarian theocracy.

 

*I lifted some of this language from JS's immitation of GB.

[iwishiwascool]

The moral of the story is:

 

Everything you do not agree with is not a "slippery slope" leading to the most hyperbolic extreme of what you (and the news sources that reinforce your preconceived notions) can fathom.

 

"Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country...And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

 

That was in Ronald Regan in 1964.

 

"Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink."

 

Goldwater in 65.

[HAOLE]

It's weird.

 

I had a long conversation with a Pediatriac Surgeon and board member at Nationwide Children's earlier this week in his home. Though his life is far more impacted than that of a Chiropractor or even Resident Surgeon, his feelings on the matter were far less apocalyptic... he didn't even mention the chips that democrats were planning to implant in our brains that tell us when we can masturbate. .

 

Please explain how he is more impacted than Kirk or myself? Every doc no matter the title, will have to take a bite off the crap sandwich that we have been given.

[iwishiwascool]

The debate isn't whether you or he will be impacted, but to what degree. In addition to his surgical duties, he is responsible for administrating the hospital to react and adjust to the changes. You don't think the administration board of a hospital might be impacted more than you?

[kirks5oh]

The debate isn't whether you or he will be impacted, but to what degree. In addition to his surgical duties, he is responsible for administrating the hospital to react and adjust to the changes. You don't think the administration board of a hospital might be impacted more than you?

 

yeah, i'm not a resident physician either. i'm a fully licensed private practicing surgeon. my job will be impacted to a much, much larger extent then the surgeon you talked to. i can almost certainly guarantee that he is a salaried employee of the hospital---doesn't matter how much surgery he does, who he operates on (those with and without insurance), he will make the same amount of money, and see the exact same patients that he has been all throughout his career.

 

i'm also fairly certain that if he's on the board of the hospital, he's been in practice for quite some time, and may even be close to retirement. these doc's are much less concerned about health care reform, because they've built their retirement up with years of practice---especially in the 80's and 90's where doctors really made good money. they're on their way out, and don't really care about what happens next, they're just happy to be leaving. these are the docs that raped medicare back in the 80's, making 3-4 times as much as docs do these days---they bankrupt medicare.

 

people that will be affected the most are young physicians (like me), who are in a private practice (like me), who get paid based on what they produce--the more you operate, the more you get paid (like me), and who primarily do elective procedures (like me) that aren't absolutely necessary for survival--i.e.--obama can tell you that you don't need a knee replacement, you can take medication and hobble around the rest of your life.

 

so, how is this pediatric surgeon going to be affected much more than me by the new bill???? oh, he might have to attend an extra meeting every month--wow, that seems like a huge burden for him. it wasn't dr. king was it?

[greg1647545532]

Obama is going to be making judgement calls on knee surgery?!?!? Isn't he, like, really busy?