Looks like the public option has enough votes to pass the senate

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
if we're going to be authoritarian about medical care we might as well pick the best of the authoritarian systems

Your comparing the Public option to that?? The public option is like Medicare and I don't see seniors dropping like flys who are on it.

medicare by itself was 3.2% of GDP in 2008. so we're spending more as a % of GDP on just medicare than that entry states singapore is spending on its entire system. singapore GDP per capita is slightly higher than the US so on a per capita basis it seems we're spending as much just on medicare as singapore is on everyone.

we're getting screwed and nothing in the health care deformation bill is doing anything to put a stop to it.

Of course not, just like their ineffectual gun laws it's nothing but feel good BS that causes more problems than it solves. If they don't create a cycle of dependence how else are they going to get votes?

I know right? That's why senior citizens all vote democrat! Oh wait...

More lies, did you get that talking point from Fake News?

Where did I say anything about seniors? Stop making up lies, and take your meds already. It's sad when you are making shit up just because you want to post something angry. Don't worry, your free shrink visits are on the way.

The cycle of dependence statement duh..seniors depend on medicare.

It is social health care.

Sorry we don't have meds for your brain damage, puggy!

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
if we're going to be authoritarian about medical care we might as well pick the best of the authoritarian systems

Your comparing the Public option to that?? The public option is like Medicare and I don't see seniors dropping like flys who are on it.

medicare by itself was 3.2% of GDP in 2008. so we're spending more as a % of GDP on just medicare than that entry states singapore is spending on its entire system. singapore GDP per capita is slightly higher than the US so on a per capita basis it seems we're spending as much just on medicare as singapore is on everyone.

we're getting screwed and nothing in the health care deformation bill is doing anything to put a stop to it.

Of course not, just like their ineffectual gun laws it's nothing but feel good BS that causes more problems than it solves. If they don't create a cycle of dependence how else are they going to get votes?

I know right? That's why senior citizens all vote democrat! Oh wait...

More lies, did you get that talking point from Fake News?

Where did I say anything about seniors? Stop making up lies, and take your meds already. It's sad when you are making shit up just because you want to post something angry. Don't worry, your free shrink visits are on the way.

The cycle of dependence statement duh..seniors depend on medicare.

It is social health care.

Sorry we don't have meds for your brain damage, puggy!

You aren't really that bright are you?

 

[StageLeft]

Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

Exactly. Most people are in for a rude awakening when/if a "public option" does pass.

Seriously, I see people, even in this thread, interchange Public Option with UHC, as if they are anywhere near the same thing.

They think they will just go to a Dr. and not shell out any $$$$.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

Why would they when they can get someone else to pick up the tab?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
if we're going to be authoritarian about medical care we might as well pick the best of the authoritarian systems

Your comparing the Public option to that?? The public option is like Medicare and I don't see seniors dropping like flys who are on it.

medicare by itself was 3.2% of GDP in 2008. so we're spending more as a % of GDP on just medicare than that entry states singapore is spending on its entire system. singapore GDP per capita is slightly higher than the US so on a per capita basis it seems we're spending as much just on medicare as singapore is on everyone.

we're getting screwed and nothing in the health care deformation bill is doing anything to put a stop to it.

Of course not, just like their ineffectual gun laws it's nothing but feel good BS that causes more problems than it solves. If they don't create a cycle of dependence how else are they going to get votes?

I know right? That's why senior citizens all vote democrat! Oh wait...

More lies, did you get that talking point from Fake News?

Where did I say anything about seniors? Stop making up lies, and take your meds already. It's sad when you are making shit up just because you want to post something angry. Don't worry, your free shrink visits are on the way.

The cycle of dependence statement duh..seniors depend on medicare.

It is social health care.

Sorry we don't have meds for your brain damage, puggy!

You aren't really that bright are you?

Coming from a repug..wow. The party of morons.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

What do you expect when 45% of Americans pay not taxes or get tax credits?

45% of Americans have no skin in the game to begin with so what difference does it make to them?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Talking private vs public option is like arguing about which tire to change on a car that's run out of gas.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: OCguy
Yes! It is so certain, it is on blog.abcnews.com.


A procedural trick to get it passed? Wow, that must be one beautiful bill!

Doesn't sound like a trick at all: If there's a filibuster, a procedural vote to defeat it is needed. Once that's accomplished, the bill goes to a vote. Voting yes on the procedural vote and no on the bill is akin to voting "present."

Not in a political campaign...

The argument, "Just allow us to do an up or down vote," is a major, recurring argument in Washington. And it's pretty persuasive.

Consider a Bluedog Democrat facing a re-election challenge. He can say he made a principled vote to end Republican obstructionism by voting the kill the filibuster, to allow an "up or down" vote. But then he can correctly claim that he voted against the bill.

Consider, too, that even Bluedogs have an interest in giving Obama a major victory as opposed to a devastating loss.

I don't think Reid would risk alienating Snowe if he wasn't pretty sure of his numbers.

That is quite a risk for a bluedog to take. They know full well a vote to override the veto means that the bill will pass - and voters know that as well. You can bet that the opposition will beat them into the ground with it.
You haven't been around politics very long have you... clearly you don't know reid's history, nor the history of playing games with votes like this.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: OCguy
Yes! It is so certain, it is on blog.abcnews.com.


A procedural trick to get it passed? Wow, that must be one beautiful bill!

Doesn't sound like a trick at all: If there's a filibuster, a procedural vote to defeat it is needed. Once that's accomplished, the bill goes to a vote. Voting yes on the procedural vote and no on the bill is akin to voting "present."

Not in a political campaign...

The argument, "Just allow us to do an up or down vote," is a major, recurring argument in Washington. And it's pretty persuasive.

Consider a Bluedog Democrat facing a re-election challenge. He can say he made a principled vote to end Republican obstructionism by voting the kill the filibuster, to allow an "up or down" vote. But then he can correctly claim that he voted against the bill.

Consider, too, that even Bluedogs have an interest in giving Obama a major victory as opposed to a devastating loss.

I don't think Reid would risk alienating Snowe if he wasn't pretty sure of his numbers.

That is quite a risk for a bluedog to take. They know full well a vote to override the veto means that the bill will pass - and voters know that as well. You can bet that the opposition will beat them into the ground with it.
You haven't been around politics very long have you... clearly you don't know reid's history, nor the history of playing games with votes like this.

He's not talking about a veto though, he's talking about a procedural vote.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talking private vs public option is like arguing about which tire to change on a car that's run out of gas.

I'd say it is more like installing airbags in a car that swerves to the right randomly.

More people will survive, but the car is still likely to crash.

It's a good step, but not going to fix the underlying problem.

As long as after it goes into place we go UHC - cradle to the grave so that the government can negotiate all the costs and push our costs down like every other country we will be fine.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira
The argument, "Just allow us to do an up or down vote," is a major, recurring argument in Washington. And it's pretty persuasive.

Consider a Bluedog Democrat facing a re-election challenge. He can say he made a principled vote to end Republican obstructionism by voting the kill the filibuster, to allow an "up or down" vote. But then he can correctly claim that he voted against the bill.

Consider, too, that even Bluedogs have an interest in giving Obama a major victory as opposed to a devastating loss.

I don't think Reid would risk alienating Snowe if he wasn't pretty sure of his numbers.

That is quite a risk for a bluedog to take. They know full well a vote to override the veto means that the bill will pass - and voters know that as well. You can bet that the opposition will beat them into the ground with it.
You haven't been around politics very long have you... clearly you don't know reid's history, nor the history of playing games with votes like this.

You're right that I don't know much about Reid. But based on your comment, I checked Wikipedia. And the ONLY thing I see that could call into question his strategic decisions on voting was:

In 2006 Reid co-sponsored the "Prevention First Amendment" with Hillary Clinton, which would fund abortion prevention efforts, such as giving women broader access to contraception; however the bill faced Republican opposition and failed.

But that Wiki factoid doesn't say that he mis-managed the vote on that legislation. I looked further into that amendment (to the Fiscal 2006 Budget Resolution), and it failed on a 47-yes to 53-no vote. So the votes weren't even remotely there.

In other words, I don't get the impression the Reid has a history of botching his handling of important measures. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see it.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Welcome to either excess costs or rationing.

Meh meh meh meh meh.

We already have both of those....

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

I just don't see someone with a $500/month car payment skipping health insurance. If they can afford that kind of car payment, they're working a good job with benefits.

The guy without health insurance is the guy whose car cost $500.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talking private vs public option is like arguing about which tire to change on a car that's run out of gas.

I'd say it is more like installing airbags in a car that swerves to the right randomly.

More people will survive, but the car is still likely to crash.

It's a good step, but not going to fix the underlying problem.

As long as after it goes into place we go UHC - cradle to the grave so that the government can negotiate all the costs and push our costs down like every other country we will be fine.

No, that's not right at all.

Look, we have developed a system that is based on cost containment despite what medicine costs, and perversely that's part of the reason that we're in this mess. Now we're going to do all the wrong things, but do them harder.

This is how it works elsewhere:

Patient/Physician/other health care provider> party > cost.

Cost is the absolute last concern.

Refer to my earlier post about a complete workup. Suppose that someone presents with symptoms of Alzheimers. You have 7 minutes to work with this patient, because someone is up you ass to move to the next patient. More patients per unit time = efficiency.

Nope, this isn't a friggin assembly line. Because you worked really fast you got it wrong. She has a severe B12 deficiency, not Alzheimers.

Next patient comes in with her daughter. You've seen the woman before and she's been OK, but now she seems quiet. Alzheimers again. Nope. Vascular dementia. You didn't spend enough time with her to note her condition previously. Oops. But the insurance company AND the government use the patients per unit time theory. The assembly line is backing up because of you. It's not the AMA preventing more doctors from graduating, but

Two botched diagnoses because you didn't have the time. Do you have any concept of what that means in terms of quality of life AND costs?

Again with dementia (I attended a seminar yesterday dealing with this, so that's what I'm running with), you are trying to figure out just what you are dealing with. You want a PET scan. Lots of money. You get dinged by governmentprivateinsurance (one word on purpose because it's all the same) because if the expense. Problem is that you could order an MRI (which is what you do because you that's what's left), and you have to go with statistical probability. Wrong. You treated with a medication that drove the patient up the wall, as well as the caregivers. Why? Because an MRI determines structure, but a PET shows function. Did you know all that? No? Well neither did the people at Aetna, or the people at Medicare. They have a script like the Dell people and that's it.

Rheumatoid arthritis is NOT a benign disease. It will cripple and cause loss of productivity, suffering and general misery economically, physically and mentally.

A patient walks into a GP's office because that's what his privategovernment insurance demands and there's a pretty certain diagnosis of RA.

What happens? The doc writes for a non steroidal anti-inflammatory. Makes sense right? After all it's an inflammatory condition. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Most of the damage occuring from RA happens early in the course of the disease, and if it isn't managed it is all over. The diseases progresses and there's not much you can do if that opportunity is missed.

Ok, let's say the patient is lucky enough to see a rheumatologist who is up on things. He knows that the only thing that's going to alter the natural history of this disease is to hit it hard and early. So he prescribes adalimumab. Guess what? That's indicated for moderate to severe RA and that's stupid. It's like putting water on a fire AFTER the house burns down. But hey it costs a great deal so we have to wait. privategovernment insurance dings it. Use an NSAID, because the accountants know best.

Heaven knows I can go on and on with Namenda, and a dozen other treatments and meds but the point is the same.

Allowing the provider to give the best care UP FRONT gives the best outcome AND lowest cost over the life of a patient with chronic illness, and it's almost NEVER the cheapest way to go.

You can spend a fair bit up front and not so much later, or you can do a half assed job, see a bizillion people, and give what the powers that be no matter how much it sucks. That way you can save some cash up front and pay many times what good therapy would cost.

Did you see this in the health care bill? Nope. You didn't. I doubt that most of those who wrote it or will vote on it did either.

So you are arguing whether to fix the Left or Right tire, and it has absolutely nothing to do with health care. You are really talking public vs private accountants.

It makes no sense.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talking private vs public option is like arguing about which tire to change on a car that's run out of gas.

I'd say it is more like installing airbags in a car that swerves to the right randomly.

More people will survive, but the car is still likely to crash.

It's a good step, but not going to fix the underlying problem.

As long as after it goes into place we go UHC - cradle to the grave so that the government can negotiate all the costs and push our costs down like every other country we will be fine.

No, that's not right at all.

Look, we have developed a system that is based on cost containment despite what medicine costs, and perversely that's part of the reason that we're in this mess. Now we're going to do all the wrong things, but do them harder.

This is how it works elsewhere:

Patient/Physician/other health care provider> party > cost.

Cost is the absolute last concern.

Refer to my earlier post about a complete workup. Suppose that someone presents with symptoms of Alzheimers. You have 7 minutes to work with this patient, because someone is up you ass to move to the next patient. More patients per unit time = efficiency.

Nope, this isn't a friggin assembly line. Because you worked really fast you got it wrong. She has a severe B12 deficiency, not Alzheimers.

Next patient comes in with her daughter. You've seen the woman before and she's been OK, but now she seems quiet. Alzheimers again. Nope. Vascular dementia. You didn't spend enough time with her to note her condition previously. Oops. But the insurance company AND the government use the patients per unit time theory. The assembly line is backing up because of you. It's not the AMA preventing more doctors from graduating, but

Two botched diagnoses because you didn't have the time. Do you have any concept of what that means in terms of quality of life AND costs?

Again with dementia (I attended a seminar yesterday dealing with this, so that's what I'm running with), you are trying to figure out just what you are dealing with. You want a PET scan. Lots of money. You get dinged by governmentprivateinsurance (one word on purpose because it's all the same) because if the expense. Problem is that you could order an MRI (which is what you do because you that's what's left), and you have to go with statistical probability. Wrong. You treated with a medication that drove the patient up the wall, as well as the caregivers. Why? Because an MRI determines structure, but a PET shows function. Did you know all that? No? Well neither did the people at Aetna, or the people at Medicare. They have a script like the Dell people and that's it.

Rheumatoid arthritis is NOT a benign disease. It will cripple and cause loss of productivity, suffering and general misery economically, physically and mentally.

A patient walks into a GP's office because that's what his privategovernment insurance demands and there's a pretty certain diagnosis of RA.

What happens? The doc writes for a non steroidal anti-inflammatory. Makes sense right? After all it's an inflammatory condition. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Most of the damage occuring from RA happens early in the course of the disease, and if it isn't managed it is all over. The diseases progresses and there's not much you can do if that opportunity is missed.

Ok, let's say the patient is lucky enough to see a rheumatologist who is up on things. He knows that the only thing that's going to alter the natural history of this disease is to hit it hard and early. So he prescribes adalimumab. Guess what? That's indicated for moderate to severe RA and that's stupid. It's like putting water on a fire AFTER the house burns down. But hey it costs a great deal so we have to wait. privategovernment insurance dings it. Use an NSAID, because the accountants know best.

Heaven knows I can go on and on with Namenda, and a dozen other treatments and meds but the point is the same.

Allowing the provider to give the best care UP FRONT gives the best outcome AND lowest cost over the life of a patient with chronic illness, and it's almost NEVER the cheapest way to go.

You can spend a fair bit up front and not so much later, or you can do a half assed job, see a bizillion people, and give what the powers that be no matter how much it sucks. That way you can save some cash up front and pay many times what good therapy would cost.

Did you see this in the health care bill? Nope. You didn't. I doubt that most of those who wrote it or will vote on it did either.

So you are arguing whether to fix the Left or Right tire, and it has absolutely nothing to do with health care. You are really talking public vs private accountants.

It makes no sense.

I agree with most of your points, like I said, cradle to the grave UHC, best care possible because we cut out the bean counters and risk analyzers in the middle is the best solution.

The only good part about this is taking care of people in the interim and once they are all used to being able to have health care no matter what we can shift to a national health care service.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

I agree with most of your points, like I said, cradle to the grave UHC, best care possible because we cut out the bean counters and risk analyzers in the middle is the best solution.

The only good part about this is taking care of people in the interim and once they are all used to being able to have health care no matter what we can shift to a national health care service.

Bahaha!

I think you are leaving "supply" out of your little pie-in-the-sky equation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talking private vs public option is like arguing about which tire to change on a car that's run out of gas.

I'd say it is more like installing airbags in a car that swerves to the right randomly.

More people will survive, but the car is still likely to crash.

It's a good step, but not going to fix the underlying problem.

As long as after it goes into place we go UHC - cradle to the grave so that the government can negotiate all the costs and push our costs down like every other country we will be fine.

No, that's not right at all.

Look, we have developed a system that is based on cost containment despite what medicine costs, and perversely that's part of the reason that we're in this mess. Now we're going to do all the wrong things, but do them harder.

This is how it works elsewhere:

Patient/Physician/other health care provider> party > cost.

Cost is the absolute last concern.

Refer to my earlier post about a complete workup. Suppose that someone presents with symptoms of Alzheimers. You have 7 minutes to work with this patient, because someone is up you ass to move to the next patient. More patients per unit time = efficiency.

Nope, this isn't a friggin assembly line. Because you worked really fast you got it wrong. She has a severe B12 deficiency, not Alzheimers.

Next patient comes in with her daughter. You've seen the woman before and she's been OK, but now she seems quiet. Alzheimers again. Nope. Vascular dementia. You didn't spend enough time with her to note her condition previously. Oops. But the insurance company AND the government use the patients per unit time theory. The assembly line is backing up because of you. It's not the AMA preventing more doctors from graduating, but

Two botched diagnoses because you didn't have the time. Do you have any concept of what that means in terms of quality of life AND costs?

Again with dementia (I attended a seminar yesterday dealing with this, so that's what I'm running with), you are trying to figure out just what you are dealing with. You want a PET scan. Lots of money. You get dinged by governmentprivateinsurance (one word on purpose because it's all the same) because if the expense. Problem is that you could order an MRI (which is what you do because you that's what's left), and you have to go with statistical probability. Wrong. You treated with a medication that drove the patient up the wall, as well as the caregivers. Why? Because an MRI determines structure, but a PET shows function. Did you know all that? No? Well neither did the people at Aetna, or the people at Medicare. They have a script like the Dell people and that's it.

Rheumatoid arthritis is NOT a benign disease. It will cripple and cause loss of productivity, suffering and general misery economically, physically and mentally.

A patient walks into a GP's office because that's what his privategovernment insurance demands and there's a pretty certain diagnosis of RA.

What happens? The doc writes for a non steroidal anti-inflammatory. Makes sense right? After all it's an inflammatory condition. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Most of the damage occuring from RA happens early in the course of the disease, and if it isn't managed it is all over. The diseases progresses and there's not much you can do if that opportunity is missed.

Ok, let's say the patient is lucky enough to see a rheumatologist who is up on things. He knows that the only thing that's going to alter the natural history of this disease is to hit it hard and early. So he prescribes adalimumab. Guess what? That's indicated for moderate to severe RA and that's stupid. It's like putting water on a fire AFTER the house burns down. But hey it costs a great deal so we have to wait. privategovernment insurance dings it. Use an NSAID, because the accountants know best.

Heaven knows I can go on and on with Namenda, and a dozen other treatments and meds but the point is the same.

Allowing the provider to give the best care UP FRONT gives the best outcome AND lowest cost over the life of a patient with chronic illness, and it's almost NEVER the cheapest way to go.

You can spend a fair bit up front and not so much later, or you can do a half assed job, see a bizillion people, and give what the powers that be no matter how much it sucks. That way you can save some cash up front and pay many times what good therapy would cost.

Did you see this in the health care bill? Nope. You didn't. I doubt that most of those who wrote it or will vote on it did either.

So you are arguing whether to fix the Left or Right tire, and it has absolutely nothing to do with health care. You are really talking public vs private accountants.

It makes no sense.

I agree with most of your points, like I said, cradle to the grave UHC, best care possible because we cut out the bean counters and risk analyzers in the middle is the best solution.

The only good part about this is taking care of people in the interim and once they are all used to being able to have health care no matter what we can shift to a national health care service.

Understand that everything that's being proposed and likely proposed touches on NONE of my points.

That's why I strongly advocated having providers and properly informed consumer advocates advising Congress in advance

If anyone wants health care reform talk to people that know about health care first. That shouldn't be such a difficult concept for Left or Right.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

I agree with most of your points, like I said, cradle to the grave UHC, best care possible because we cut out the bean counters and risk analyzers in the middle is the best solution.

The only good part about this is taking care of people in the interim and once they are all used to being able to have health care no matter what we can shift to a national health care service.

Bahaha!

I think you are leaving "supply" out of your little pie-in-the-sky equation.

We already treat people who cannot afford care anyway, supply exists and the need for it will be reduced.

If everyone gets preventative care it will be much less intensive, reducing need for supply.

If you really believe supply will jump we can easily increase supply by widening quotas / establishing med schools / boosting incentives.

It's easy if you try. If we were a better country this would already be done. Cradle to the Grave UHC would already be in place.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talking private vs public option is like arguing about which tire to change on a car that's run out of gas.

I'd say it is more like installing airbags in a car that swerves to the right randomly.

More people will survive, but the car is still likely to crash.

It's a good step, but not going to fix the underlying problem.

As long as after it goes into place we go UHC - cradle to the grave so that the government can negotiate all the costs and push our costs down like every other country we will be fine.

No, that's not right at all.

Look, we have developed a system that is based on cost containment despite what medicine costs, and perversely that's part of the reason that we're in this mess. Now we're going to do all the wrong things, but do them harder.

This is how it works elsewhere:

Patient/Physician/other health care provider> party > cost.

Cost is the absolute last concern.

Refer to my earlier post about a complete workup. Suppose that someone presents with symptoms of Alzheimers. You have 7 minutes to work with this patient, because someone is up you ass to move to the next patient. More patients per unit time = efficiency.

Nope, this isn't a friggin assembly line. Because you worked really fast you got it wrong. She has a severe B12 deficiency, not Alzheimers.

Next patient comes in with her daughter. You've seen the woman before and she's been OK, but now she seems quiet. Alzheimers again. Nope. Vascular dementia. You didn't spend enough time with her to note her condition previously. Oops. But the insurance company AND the government use the patients per unit time theory. The assembly line is backing up because of you. It's not the AMA preventing more doctors from graduating, but

Two botched diagnoses because you didn't have the time. Do you have any concept of what that means in terms of quality of life AND costs?

Again with dementia (I attended a seminar yesterday dealing with this, so that's what I'm running with), you are trying to figure out just what you are dealing with. You want a PET scan. Lots of money. You get dinged by governmentprivateinsurance (one word on purpose because it's all the same) because if the expense. Problem is that you could order an MRI (which is what you do because you that's what's left), and you have to go with statistical probability. Wrong. You treated with a medication that drove the patient up the wall, as well as the caregivers. Why? Because an MRI determines structure, but a PET shows function. Did you know all that? No? Well neither did the people at Aetna, or the people at Medicare. They have a script like the Dell people and that's it.

Rheumatoid arthritis is NOT a benign disease. It will cripple and cause loss of productivity, suffering and general misery economically, physically and mentally.

A patient walks into a GP's office because that's what his privategovernment insurance demands and there's a pretty certain diagnosis of RA.

What happens? The doc writes for a non steroidal anti-inflammatory. Makes sense right? After all it's an inflammatory condition. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Most of the damage occuring from RA happens early in the course of the disease, and if it isn't managed it is all over. The diseases progresses and there's not much you can do if that opportunity is missed.

Ok, let's say the patient is lucky enough to see a rheumatologist who is up on things. He knows that the only thing that's going to alter the natural history of this disease is to hit it hard and early. So he prescribes adalimumab. Guess what? That's indicated for moderate to severe RA and that's stupid. It's like putting water on a fire AFTER the house burns down. But hey it costs a great deal so we have to wait. privategovernment insurance dings it. Use an NSAID, because the accountants know best.

Heaven knows I can go on and on with Namenda, and a dozen other treatments and meds but the point is the same.

Allowing the provider to give the best care UP FRONT gives the best outcome AND lowest cost over the life of a patient with chronic illness, and it's almost NEVER the cheapest way to go.

You can spend a fair bit up front and not so much later, or you can do a half assed job, see a bizillion people, and give what the powers that be no matter how much it sucks. That way you can save some cash up front and pay many times what good therapy would cost.

Did you see this in the health care bill? Nope. You didn't. I doubt that most of those who wrote it or will vote on it did either.

So you are arguing whether to fix the Left or Right tire, and it has absolutely nothing to do with health care. You are really talking public vs private accountants.

It makes no sense.

I agree with most of your points, like I said, cradle to the grave UHC, best care possible because we cut out the bean counters and risk analyzers in the middle is the best solution.

The only good part about this is taking care of people in the interim and once they are all used to being able to have health care no matter what we can shift to a national health care service.

Understand that everything that's being proposed and likely proposed touches on NONE of my points.

That's why I strongly advocated having providers and properly informed consumer advocates advising Congress in advance

If anyone wants health care reform talk to people that know about health care first. That shouldn't be such a difficult concept for Left or Right.

You missed what I said though, that with our current national politics we can either inch closer to a solution or stay where we are.

We are inching closer to the ultimate solution, a NHS. This is not it, but once we make everyone accustomed to health care for all, we can turn it into a government backed health care system that can solve the problem completely by letting doctors do their jobs and just paying them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We are inching closer to the ultimate solution, a NHS. This is not it, but once we make everyone accustomed to health care for all, we can turn it into a government backed health care system that can solve the problem completely by letting doctors do their jobs and just paying them.

Ahh, if only.

The RA case I spoke was Medicare. Other situations were medicaid and private insurance. In other words programs which were in place for years or even decades have not had their problems fixed, nor has there ONCE been talks of serious reform.

The assumption you make is that our politicians will do what's best for the public, but from their POV, the "best" is defined by holding onto power. Since health care reform is going to be very very very expensive up front to do right, people WILL have to pay for it. That means more taxes, and more taxes is a pretty good way to get kicked out.

I've been providing health care in one way or another for longer than many here have lived. In all that time, I have yet to see the welfare of the patient put first. If I believed that what you suggest would happen, then I'd say go for it.

Since they didn't bother to address the real problems at all, and indeed don't seem to understand that which they are legislating, I have no faith in it.

Do it over, do it right and I'll support it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: OCguy
Yes! It is so certain, it is on blog.abcnews.com.


A procedural trick to get it passed? Wow, that must be one beautiful bill!

Doesn't sound like a trick at all: If there's a filibuster, a procedural vote to defeat it is needed. Once that's accomplished, the bill goes to a vote. Voting yes on the procedural vote and no on the bill is akin to voting "present."

Not in a political campaign...

The argument, "Just allow us to do an up or down vote," is a major, recurring argument in Washington. And it's pretty persuasive.

Consider a Bluedog Democrat facing a re-election challenge. He can say he made a principled vote to end Republican obstructionism by voting the kill the filibuster, to allow an "up or down" vote. But then he can correctly claim that he voted against the bill.

Consider, too, that even Bluedogs have an interest in giving Obama a major victory as opposed to a devastating loss.

I don't think Reid would risk alienating Snowe if he wasn't pretty sure of his numbers.

That is quite a risk for a bluedog to take. They know full well a vote to override the veto means that the bill will pass - and voters know that as well. You can bet that the opposition will beat them into the ground with it.
You haven't been around politics very long have you... clearly you don't know reid's history, nor the history of playing games with votes like this.

He's not talking about a veto though, he's talking about a procedural vote.

Yes, sorry - filibuster.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

I just don't see someone with a $500/month car payment skipping health insurance. If they can afford that kind of car payment, they're working a good job with benefits.

The guy without health insurance is the guy whose car cost $500.

I know a guy who has no health insurance. Works full time tending bar at a pretty decent place. He drives a BMW that he doesn't have paid off(payment more than my mortgage). Seems to me he's making the choice not to buy Insurance.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

What do you expect when 45% of Americans pay not taxes or get tax credits?

45% of Americans have no skin in the game to begin with so what difference does it make to them?

all americans pay taxes

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some sort of public approach makes sense, but people need to realize that health care is expensive and budget for it as they budget for anything important in their lives like a house or a car. Many people will pay $500/month for their car, but that for insurance for their health? Fvck that!

What do you expect when 45% of Americans pay not taxes or get tax credits?

45% of Americans have no skin in the game to begin with so what difference does it make to them?

all americans pay taxes

I dare say he's referring to income tax.