Article I, Section 8, Line 1

So you found a red apple therefore all apples are red? Your point?

I wrote the interfaces of the claims processing you find so vexing and costly. You vastly overstate the issue.


Yes, they're in the tags attached by the GOP to the current flawed Bill that was sent to the House O' Representin'.

The GOP was 100% locked out of the legislative process.


Fortunately I'm not beholden to what the President, via poitical posturing, professes currently to believe or not believe. I like facts and numbers. When you can use that 10 years experience to show us here how paying CEO bonuses and advertising via corporate welfare [susidies to take on the uninsured as currently proposed] let us know!

He presented that fact. If you believe it to be inaccurate, demonstrate otherwise.


That question doesn't address a quote from me nor does it cite a reference so I won't bother answering it.

I cited the article which quoted the president. You are fre to respond or not as you choose.


.lol.. you're funny at spinning. I don't think adding to government will be a deal-killer to China. They like math too.

they have indicated otherwise.
 
Werbung:
1. A penny saved is a penny earned. 2. The GOP was not locked out of the process. If it was there would be a public option or even single payer instead of welfare for private insurers proposed. 3. I don't need to demostrate math. It "is". Take three systems now existing for public healthcare, combine their clerical costs, however minimal, focus on cheaper preventative care instead of costly traige. Now set those numbers next to what the taxpayers are footing now. Less is always less in math, unless you have a parallel universe you're referring to? 4. Which article did you cite? I didn't see a link. Would you provide it again? 5. If China has indicated that they don't want to see our government saving money on THE EXISTING PUBLIC HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, then you need to cite where you saw these statements.
 
1. A penny saved is a penny earned. 2. The GOP was not locked out of the process. If it was there would be a public option or even single payer instead of welfare for private insurers proposed. 3. I don't need to demostrate math. It "is". Take three systems now existing for public healthcare, combine their clerical costs, however minimal, focus on cheaper preventative care instead of costly traige. Now set those numbers next to what the taxpayers are footing now. Less is always less in math, unless you have a parallel universe you're referring to? 4. Which article did you cite? I didn't see a link. Would you provide it again? 5. If China has indicated that they don't want to see our government saving money on THE EXISTING PUBLIC HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, then you need to cite where you saw these statements.


The GOP was famously locked out.
Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman killed any public option.
You cannot refute the president's statement I gather.
The healthcare industry has been pushing preventative care hard for 25 years. You can see the results. Triage is not costly nor is it a negative. It saves lives by prioritizing delivery (chest pains and arterial bleeding over a sprained ankle as opposed to first come first served). Defensive medicine is whats wasteful.
China ? Read the paper, surf the news sites. They've been bobbing up every month or so witht heir concerns.


Post #44 "EVEN THE PRESIDENT DISAGREES"
 
Do you honestly believe free healthcare would be less that $1000 a year ?

How about under $200?

That [$1000] figure comes from a study by Families USA estimating the effect on premiums of uncompensated care, which is care that is provided to the uninsured but not paid for. But that group advocates vigorously for wider government health coverage.The figure is not supported by the Kaiser Family Foundation or the Congressional Budget Office. Both have reported that uncompensated care actually leads to lower hospital profits, not higher premiums. KFF’s estimate of the amount of uncompensated care shifted to premium-payers works out to about $200 per family per year, not $1,000. - Factcheck.org
 
How about under $200?


but Obama care would be what, 8-10k just in premiums. never mind the Rx.

nah, but it all comes out in the wash, its the volume.

the medical biz has been treating the indigent for generations and doing it efficiently. its only when medicaid came along that it got expensive. not unmlike every other instance where government touched it.
 
Who are the contributors to that Journal again?

Yeah...that's what I thought..

I just happen to have two medical bills sitting on the table in front of me. One is for a visit to my doctor for care for an infection. The other was a follow up to the ER after-hours when my doctor wasn't open. Hmmmm.... Nope. The ER one is roughly 4 times what the same visit was to my preventative doctor.
 
Who are the contributors to that Journal again?

Yeah...that's what I thought..
Doctors and health care professionals... Are they "paid bloggers"? Is everyone who offers facts that don't support your opinions a "paid blogger"?

I found a whole bunch of "paid bloggers" out there:

Study Raises Questions About Cost Savings From Preventive Care - Washington Post

Health Experts Clash Over 'Cost Savings' From Prevention Measures - AAFP

Prevention Does Not Necessarily Provide Expected Cost Savings - Medical News Today

Congressional Budget Expert Says Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs - ABC News

Health prevention often costs more than saves - MSNBC!!!!

Now... Your argument has been that government can reduce health care costs... I've yet to see even one person make an argument about how government can lower the cost of providing health care. Can you make such an argument?
 
One is for a visit to my doctor for care for an infection. The other was a follow up to the ER after-hours when my doctor wasn't open.

I'm curious--I raised this question in another forum (the one on legalizing marijuana) but it probably belongs in here. If most prescription drugs (like antibiotics) were sold over the counter, do you think this would help reduce health costs? Would the risks outweigh the benefits? They do this in some countries, and surprisingly, there isn't mass death.

Would you have gone to see your Dr. and/or ER if this suggestion was reality (not that I mean to pry into your particulars)?
 
Well if you look back on my posts you'll notice that I did have to do this via friends who snuck antibiotics back from Mexico. I probably wouldn't be alive today if not for researching my own condition and finding the latest best medicine [that was priced clear out of my reach via my medical "coverage" at the time].

I think it's a good idea to regulate medicine though. Street hacks could put anything in a bottle and call it good. I just think that production costs vs actual retail needs to be researched with good oversight and profits regulated very tightly. We're talking about people's lives and limbs here, not whether they can fill up their gas tank this week or not.

With our current botched system I was literally told to go home and die twice by the time I was 40, alone with two young kids to boot. Twice I had to fight to get the right medical services to live. If I had no fierce advocates I wouldn't be writing this here today. It makes me wonder how many of the good but lonely and downtrodden have quietly been laid six feet under from the gross negligence we call our healthcare system?
 
So which lawyer wants to tell me why our "general Welfare" isn't connected to relieving the fiscal burdens now crushing our economic infrastructure via the healthcare industry having an unfettered monopoly? Every day hundreds of american citizens are killed and we don't even notice. Their manslaughterers are the economic tyrants that won't allow them access to adequate and affordable healthcare. We are at war and we are losing citizens every day to the enemy.

Again, please explain why we cannot call our citizens inability to avoid premature death a "general Welfare" issue?

Siho I know I've had some disagreements with you in the past but I have to call 'em like I see 'em.

This post... this wonderful cannot be denied by any rational human being that can read above a 3rd grade level post...

KICKS FRICKIN' A$$!!!;)


Quote:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
 
Thanks Toppy. Sometimes when I look back at something I wrote, I hardly recognize it. When I write I go into a sort of trance and I think some of the stuff I tap comes from the right side of my brain.

Lefties have this gift very often, though it isn't exclusive to them. I notice how many Presidents are south-paws considering their minority in the general population. When I saw that President Obama is left handed I just shook my head in amazement. There really is something to it? The description of communication below and cognitive reasoning fits him like a glove.

The handedness of Presidents of the United States is difficult to establish with any certainty before recent decades. During the 18th and 19th centuries left-handedness was considered a disability and teachers would make efforts to suppress it in their students.[1][4] For this reason there are few concrete references to determine the handedness of presidents prior to the early 20th century. The first president to be described as left-handed was Herbert Hoover,[5] though some dispute this.[2] Before this point, there is no evidence of any left-handed president, though it was said about President James Garfield that he could simultaneously write Latin with his right hand and Greek with his left.[3] If true, this could be a sign that he was ambidextrous. Ronald Reagan is rumored to have been left-hand dominant, but forced by his schoolteachers and parents to switch.[5] However, documentation of this is unreliable. If true, it would place Reagan in the category of ambidextrous presidents.[2] The same was also the case with Harry Truman, according to the biographer David McCullough.[6]

As of 2009, three or four (counting Reagan) out of the last five presidents have been left-handed.[3] Counting as far back as Truman, the number is five (or six) out of twelve. In the 1992 election, all three major candidates – George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot – were left-handed.[2] The 1996 election also involved three left-handed candidates: Clinton, Perot, and Bob Dole, who learned to use his left hand after his right hand was paralyzed by a World War II injury. Additionally, both major-party candidates in the 2008 presidential election – Barack Obama and John McCain – were left-handed.[7] The percentage of the population who are left-handed is about 10%.[3] While some write this trend off as a coincidence, others have tried to come up with scientific explanations. According to Daniel Geschwind, a professor of human genetics at UCLA: "Six out of the past 12 presidents is statistically significant, and probably means something".[3]

Amar Klar, a scientist who has worked on handedness, says that left-handed people "have a wider scope of thinking", and points to the disproportionately high number of Nobel Prize winners, writers and painters who are left-handed.[5] The left hemisphere of the brain generally handles language, but in left-handed people, this division is less pronounced.[3] One out of seven left-handers processes language using both sides of the brain, compared with just one out of twenty in the general (predominantly right-handed) population, perhaps because of a relationship between dexterity and language. An increased amount of space dedicated to language could account for enhanced communication skills as seen in Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. Klar suggests that with both halves handling language, the left-handed and ambidextrous are capable of more complex reasoning.[5] Michael Peters, a neuropsychologist at the University of Guelph, points out that left-handed people have to get by in a world adapted to right-handers, something which can give them extra mental resilience.[1] The American trend, however, is not replicated in other countries; while only two British post-war prime ministers were left-handed (Winston Churchill and James Callaghan),[3] no Canadian prime minister since at least 1980 has shown this trait.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

I have been shown things I have written and am amazed that I wrote them. Sometimes I don't even recognize them. This creeps me out a little. That one above you quoted falls into the category of "vague recognition". :confused:
 
Who are the contributors to that Journal again?

Yeah...that's what I thought..

I just happen to have two medical bills sitting on the table in front of me. One is for a visit to my doctor for care for an infection. The other was a follow up to the ER after-hours when my doctor wasn't open. Hmmmm.... Nope. The ER one is roughly 4 times what the same visit was to my preventative doctor.


the first is not preventative care. that would include:
pap smear
colonoscopy
prostate exam
breast xray
stress test
periodic bloodwork
aids test
and the like

you go to the ER once every so often, you do the rest as often as annually. the medical test people love preventative care, its quite lucrative. not a bad idea mind you but not at all cheap.
 
I fully agree dogtowner that costs must be analyzed carefully and healthcare not be made a boondoggle business. I think for one thing the way to lure good health care providers into the field is to make their tuition free. Just go around to schools and do the aptitude testing, select the best candidates and lure them in with full scholarships.

Then when they are in practice, they don't have to worry about paying down student loans. In fact, make that branch of "service" like the military. Instead of paying ridiculous salaries, cut them deals on retirement and on interest rates for loans...that type of thing.

I'd like to see your input for the expanded Medicare system. Obama and the lame dems are making noise about "expanding Medicare" down to 55 year olds and up.

Too bad this leaves all the young people who elected them out in the cold. Dems are about the lamest I know in strategy. I'm thinking of starting a sister thread to the "Unofficial GOP strategy" called "How to Lose Your Job" and it will feature the unofficial dem strategy. :cool:
 
Werbung:
I fully agree dogtowner that costs must be analyzed carefully and healthcare not be made a boondoggle business. I think for one thing the way to lure good health care providers into the field is to make their tuition free. Just go around to schools and do the aptitude testing, select the best candidates and lure them in with full scholarships.

Then when they are in practice, they don't have to worry about paying down student loans. In fact, make that branch of "service" like the military. Instead of paying ridiculous salaries, cut them deals on retirement and on interest rates for loans...that type of thing.

I'd like to see your input for the expanded Medicare system. Obama and the lame dems are making noise about "expanding Medicare" down to 55 year olds and up.

Too bad this leaves all the young people who elected them out in the cold. Dems are about the lamest I know in strategy. I'm thinking of starting a sister thread to the "Unofficial GOP strategy" called "How to Lose Your Job" and it will feature the unofficial dem strategy. :cool:


that has been tried with minimal success as a means to place docs in unattractive locations. trouble is they serve the minimum and then move on to greener pastures. its really more a problem of capacity of education which the AMA rules with an iron fist.

I do not agree with expanding Medicare mainly because its rife with problems today nd bleeding money. No point in making that worse. I think that the idea came about as a means to funnel money to it to help with the funding problem.

I want the issue addressed seriously. Medical care costs too much and paperwork is NOT the problem.
 
Back
Top