You cant filabuster the repeal of Obamacare?

[fskimospy]

Dems: "Hey, we want to pass this disastrous multi-page monstrosity of a law that's going to screw things up for decades. Would you like to participate? "
Gop: "Uh, no. It's stupid".
Dems: "hah, great, didn't want your input anyway, we'll proceed with this disaster without any input from you and then when everyone realizes it's garbage we'll blame you for not cooperating!"

Again, the revisionist history you're trying to engage in is frankly hilarious. Republicans made a conscious decision for total opposition. IT'S BEEN DOCUMENTED. They were counting on useful idiots like you to convince yourselves it was principled opposition later on despite the evidence staring you in the face.

Hope you enjoy being a useful idiot, haha.

 

[Brainonska511]

Again, the revisionist history you're trying to engage in is frankly hilarious. Republicans made a conscious decision for total opposition. IT'S BEEN DOCUMENTED. They were counting on useful idiots like you to convince yourselves it was principled opposition later on despite the evidence staring you in the face.

Hope you enjoy being a useful idiot, haha.

"No idiot. No idiot. You're the useful idiot!"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"No idiot. No idiot. You're the useful idiot!"

A definition of bipartisanship that I think fits reality is "We welcome your input because it makes what we dictate look more legitimate".

In our system of government one side dictates and the other is only a thing to be used. Real cooperation to come up with an optimal solution is not done.

It's a repetative cycle of control and destroy. Reps turn now but Dems can undo what they come up with another day.

We need more of a meritocracy but that's not going to happen.

 

[thraashman]

Again, the revisionist history you're trying to engage in is frankly hilarious. Republicans made a conscious decision for total opposition. IT'S BEEN DOCUMENTED. They were counting on useful idiots like you to convince yourselves it was principled opposition later on despite the evidence staring you in the face.

Hope you enjoy being a useful idiot, haha.

Come come now, there's no need for that. He's not useful in any fashion and we both know it.

 

[fskimospy]

A definition of bipartisanship that I think fits reality is "We welcome your input because it makes what we dictate look more legitimate".

In our system of government one side dictates and the other is only a thing to be used. Real cooperation to come up with an optimal solution is not done.

It's a repetative cycle of control and destroy. Reps turn now but Dems can undo what they come up with another day.

We need more of a meritocracy but that's not going to happen.

This is only the case in recent years and again it's not even remotely symmetrical. I mean just look at two of the three major bills passed under Obama:

1) The stimulus. It was 1/3rd tax cuts that economists knew were largely ineffective for the explicit purpose of giving Republicans something they could get behind. They refused any and all cooperation despite the country facing the worst economic calamity in eighty years. Think how insane that is.

2) The ACA was essentially built on a REPUBLICAN plan for universal health care. How much more bipartisan can you get than proposing what the other side once held up as an alternative?

Contrast that with Bush's major initiatives, no child left behind and medicare part D. Whatever you think of the merits of them, both attracted significant numbers of Democratic votes. You might say that Bush was passing Democratic friendly initiatives (which is only partly true) but that's kind of my point. Obama's initiatives were very, VERY Republican friendly. At least they were at one time before the Republican Party went insane. When Bush proposed bills that were at least modestly Democrat friendly he got Democratic votes. When Obama proposed bills that were at least modestly Republican friendly he got total, unwavering opposition.

The dysfunction and ultrapartisanship that has consumed Washington is not exclusively caused by the Republicans but it is mostly caused by them. We as a country have to keep this in mind at all times because when you throw up your hands and blame the system instead of the perpetrators you enable them to keep doing it because they won't face consequences for their actions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is only the case in recent years and again it's not even remotely symmetrical. I mean just look at two of the three major bills passed under Obama:

1) The stimulus. It was 1/3rd tax cuts that economists knew were largely ineffective for the explicit purpose of giving Republicans something they could get behind. They refused any and all cooperation despite the country facing the worst economic calamity in eighty years. Think how insane that is.

2) The ACA was essentially built on a REPUBLICAN plan for universal health care. How much more bipartisan can you get than proposing what the other side once held up as an alternative?

Contrast that with Bush's major initiatives, no child left behind and medicare part D. Whatever you think of the merits of them, both attracted significant numbers of Democratic votes. You might say that Bush was passing Democratic friendly initiatives (which is only partly true) but that's kind of my point. Obama's initiatives were very, VERY Republican friendly. At least they were at one time before the Republican Party went insane. When Bush proposed bills that were at least modestly Democrat friendly he got Democratic votes. When Obama proposed bills that were at least modestly Republican friendly he got total, unwavering opposition.

The dysfunction and ultrapartisanship that has consumed Washington is not exclusively caused by the Republicans but it is mostly caused by them. We as a country have to keep this in mind at all times because when you throw up your hands and blame the system instead of the perpetrators you enable them to keep doing it because they won't face consequences for their actions.

Let's be more precise. How about point 2?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...5/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

It was similar but not the same. It was put forward by some Republicans but well supported? Not really. It was also from 1993 and no one can reasonably say "well you want this because you supported it, a few decades ago". No, that would be like binding Obama to everything the Democrats did in the early '90s. The point is that this was constructed by Democrats and in the winner take all system the Republicans have no real say in the matter when it comes to it. The same situation exists in reverse now. You can oppose. You can be invited, but ultimately the Republicans are going to tell you what they find acceptable.

You really can't deny that's how it works and why I believe we need substantial changes partisans will oppose no matter what.

What we have now is merely an ongoing situation caused by the systemic nature of our government. Those in power are just that- powerful, and while some might invite others in, the party in office holds kingly powers to dominate. Just how it is.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's be more precise. How about point 2?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...5/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/

It was similar but not the same. It was put forward by some Republicans but well supported? Not really. It was also from 1993 and no one can reasonably say "well you want this because you supported it, a few decades ago". No, that would be like binding Obama to everything the Democrats did in the early '90s.

This is kind of my point though, the parties have changed since 1993 but that is primarily due to the radicalization of Republican legislators. This isn't a partisan point, the data is quite clear. If the goal or the ideal is bipartisanship and one party stays where it is and the other party moves to an ideological extreme it's hard to say that both parties are responsible for a lack of bipartisanship. If I offer to sell you a cookie for $1 and you say yes and then the next day I demand $2 for the same cookie and you refuse it would be pretty ridiculous for someone to say we were both equally responsible for the lack of a transaction.

The point is that this was constructed by Democrats and in the winner take all system the Republicans have no real say in the matter when it comes to it. The same situation exists in reverse now. You can oppose. You can be invited, but ultimately the Republicans are going to tell you what they find acceptable.

You really can't deny that's how it works and why I believe we need substantial changes partisans will oppose no matter what.

What we have now is merely an ongoing situation caused by the systemic nature of our government. Those in power are just that- powerful, and while some might invite others in, the party in office holds kingly powers to dominate. Just how it is.

Again, this is a relatively new development. If you look at DW-NOMINATE scores for the two parties in the past there was substantial overlap. ie: the most liberal Republicans were to the left of the most conservative Democrats. This has changed in recent years, primarily due to a large Republican shift to the right. The fact that one party would be powerful while the other is powerless is a new thing that mostly comes from the ideological gulf that has developed. Again this is not partisan, it is just a simple fact that if you don't like the 'all powerful' parties in charge then you have two choices - either scrap the entire US system of governance (I'm there with you!) or convince the Republicans to step back from the ideological extremes as they are the ones driving it.

The most important thing though is to NOT treat this as a 'both parties do it' problem. When you do that you hand a victory to the people responsible for the thing you don't like.

 

[fskimospy]

dp

 

[ivwshane]

This is kind of my point though, the parties have changed since 1993 but that is primarily due to the radicalization of Republican legislators. This isn't a partisan point, the data is quite clear. If the goal or the ideal is bipartisanship and one party stays where it is and the other party moves to an ideological extreme it's hard to say that both parties are responsible for a lack of bipartisanship. If I offer to sell you a cookie for $1 and you say yes and then the next day I demand $2 for the same cookie and you refuse it would be pretty ridiculous for someone to say we were both equally responsible for the lack of a transaction.



Again, this is a relatively new development. If you look at DW-NOMINATE scores for the two parties in the past there was substantial overlap. ie: the most liberal Republicans were to the left of the most conservative Democrats. This has changed in recent years, primarily due to a large Republican shift to the right. The fact that one party would be powerful while the other is powerless is a new thing that mostly comes from the ideological gulf that has developed. Again this is not partisan, it is just a simple fact that if you don't like the 'all powerful' parties in charge then you have two choices - either scrap the entire US system of governance (I'm there with you!) or convince the Republicans to step back from the ideological extremes as they are the ones driving it.

The most important thing though is to NOT treat this as a 'both parties do it' problem. When you do that you hand a victory to the people responsible for the thing you don't like.

Unfortunately eski you are wasting your time, hayabusa is already a "both sides are the same" kind of guy. He lives in a fantasy world where only good bills that are 100% pure and completely fix an issue get passed. There is zero reasoning with the guy and no amount of facts you present will change that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is kind of my point though, the parties have changed since 1993 but that is primarily due to the radicalization of Republican legislators. This isn't a partisan point, the data is quite clear. If the goal or the ideal is bipartisanship and one party stays where it is and the other party moves to an ideological extreme it's hard to say that both parties are responsible for a lack of bipartisanship. If I offer to sell you a cookie for $1 and you say yes and then the next day I demand $2 for the same cookie and you refuse it would be pretty ridiculous for someone to say we were both equally responsible for the lack of a transaction.



Again, this is a relatively new development. If you look at DW-NOMINATE scores for the two parties in the past there was substantial overlap. ie: the most liberal Republicans were to the left of the most conservative Democrats. This has changed in recent years, primarily due to a large Republican shift to the right. The fact that one party would be powerful while the other is powerless is a new thing that mostly comes from the ideological gulf that has developed. Again this is not partisan, it is just a simple fact that if you don't like the 'all powerful' parties in charge then you have two choices - either scrap the entire US system of governance (I'm there with you!) or convince the Republicans to step back from the ideological extremes as they are the ones driving it.

The most important thing though is to NOT treat this as a 'both parties do it' problem. When you do that you hand a victory to the people responsible for the thing you don't like.

It is a systemic problem which exists because that is how the system is. The Democrats in this instance did not entertain the best solutions but those which the party favored, a very different thing. They then asked the Republicans for input but the system restricts control over the legislative process to one side.

You might read the article I linked to which says there were a lot of suggestions none of which were supported in the end. Some Republican created a plan which was somewhat similar to Obamacare. That it was THE plan which was supported by Republicans as a whole is untrue. The Dems found something in the past and made more of it than there was.

Again this is a systemic issue and if Trump wanted something the Dems object to they could be invited to participate in the creation of something they are against. It might also be possible that in some past time something akin might be found.

One Party rules. That's how it is. Yell at the Republicans for being crazy, I won't argue, but at the most fundamental level this is how it is.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Regardless of the politics behind it the Affordable Care Act is not affordable at all. For everyone it helps I can't help but wonder how many it puts on the financial brink due to skyrocketing costs?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Unfortunately eski you are wasting your time, hayabusa is already a "both sides are the same" kind of guy. He lives in a fantasy world where only good bills that are 100% pure and completely fix an issue get passed. There is zero reasoning with the guy and no amount of facts you present will change that.

And yet we find that you have consistently failed to take reality in account. Who won the election again? Didn't do so well with that. Then as long as Hillary wins nothing else matters, I believe that was your philosophy. So I wouldn't point the finger when you have lost so spectacularly about so many thing, and worse have no idea why it is.

You focus on Reps vs Dems and the idea that perhaps something more basic might exist seems to be complete anathema to the point you don't understand the arguments being made. You think this an attack or defense of parties. No it's about how the power structure works and that ultimately "cooperation" is an option. There is no mandate for it in our way of doing things. That is the fundamental problem which eludes your comprehension. I'd like to see the system change so to discourage the lack of shared responsibility and have a way to have more voices which have real say.

Feel free however to do what doesn't work as you have and bang the table when you fail again just as with Hillary.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Regardless of the politics behind it the Affordable Care Act is not affordable at all. For everyone it helps I can't help but wonder how many it puts on the financial brink due to skyrocketing costs?

Time to think outside the box of partisan dictates maybe? Naa, rather have the world burn first (no not you).

 

[ivwshane]

Regardless of the politics behind it the Affordable Care Act is not affordable at all. For everyone it helps I can't help but wonder how many it puts on the financial brink due to skyrocketing costs?

It really doesn't matter now, the Republicans are going to fix that.

Once the ACA is replaced I'm sure the right will be just as vocal when prices continue to rise, even if it's at a slower pace. When insurance companies don't start selling across state lines I'm sure they will continue to complain that we need to allow companies to sell across state lines.

I for one am looking forward to a Republican plan that will lower prices, cover the same or more people, and cost less for the federal government and the states all while offering better coverage.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It really doesn't matter now, the Republicans are going to fix that.

Once the ACA is replaced I'm sure the right will be just as vocal when prices continue to rise, even if it's at a slower pace. When insurance companies don't start selling across state lines I'm sure they will continue to complain that we need to allow companies to sell across state lines.

I for one am looking forward to a Republican plan that will lower prices, cover the same or more people, and cost less for the federal government and the states all while offering better coverage.

It won't happen any more than with your guy because at the most fundamental level this is all driven by ignorance on the part of politicians. Many support those failures because doing something better is to be discouraged.

 

[ivwshane]

And yet we find that you have consistently failed to take reality in account. Who won the election again? Didn't do so well with that. Then as long as Hillary wins nothing else matters, I believe that was your philosophy. So I wouldn't point the finger when you have lost so spectacularly about so many thing, and worse have no idea why it is.

You focus on Reps vs Dems and the idea that perhaps something more basic might exist seems to be complete anathema to the point you don't understand the arguments being made. You think this an attack or defense of parties. No it's about how the power structure works and that ultimately "cooperation" is an option. There is no mandate for it in our way of doing things. That is the fundamental problem which eludes your comprehension. I'd like to see the system change so to discourage the lack of shared responsibility and have a way to have more voices which have real say.

Feel free however to do what doesn't work as you have and bang the table when you fail again just as with Hillary.

Thanks for making my point

Like I said, you live in a fantasy world, insulated by revisionist history.

 

[ivwshane]

It won't happen any more than with your guy because at the most fundamental level this is all driven by ignorance on the part of politicians. Many support those failures because doing something better is to be discouraged.

Whoosh!

 

[fskimospy]

It is a systemic problem which exists because that is how the system is. The Democrats in this instance did not entertain the best solutions but those which the party favored, a very different thing. They then asked the Republicans for input but the system restricts control over the legislative process to one side.

Yes, political parties pass the things that they favor, this is true for every country in all of human history. An important note to remember though is that the ACA was the result of thousands and thousands of hours of research into the best solutions and was probably the most empirically supported/based bill in US history. If the ACA doesn't meet your standard for law then no law does.

You might read the article I linked to which says there were a lot of suggestions none of which were supported in the end. Some Republican created a plan which was somewhat similar to Obamacare. That it was THE plan which was supported by Republicans as a whole is untrue. The Dems found something in the past and made more of it than there was.

I didn't say it was THE plan, just that it was a Republican plan, which it was. It's hard to think of a more bipartisan move than essentially offering up a plan of your opponent's from the past. I mean isn't that an absolutely INCREDIBLE attempt at bipartisan outreach? It of course got zero votes and was demonized as the Worst Thing Ever. This is not normal and it's not how the US government has functioned for its entire history up until the mid-2000's.

Again this is a systemic issue and if Trump wanted something the Dems object to they could be invited to participate in the creation of something they are against. It might also be possible that in some past time something akin might be found.

One Party rules. That's how it is. Yell at the Republicans for being crazy, I won't argue, but at the most fundamental level this is how it is.

Again, that's simply NOT been how it is for most of US history. Don't take my word for it, look for yourself. There was significant overlap between the parties and plenty of bills were crafted by both.

Single party control is new, and it's mostly the fault of conservatives. If you can't call this out for what it is then you're part of the problem because they are counting on people like you to enable them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thanks for making my point

Like I said, you live in a fantasy world, insulated by revisionist history.

And you won the election, right?

Most of my life has been dealing with health care. I see what works and what does not. Know who knows more about healthcare than Congress and the President? Want to find out how things really are and what needs to happen?

Get a bunch of nurses together and give them coffee and bullshit with for an hour or two. You'll learn more truth than from either party.

The ASA isn't even about healthcare. It's about insurance, and while we need that there has been no systematic examination of our current state of medical care without partisan entanglements.

You lost, your program was not what was needed and though some good things came out of it, it wasn't 100%, but maybe 1% of very real issues, which are far more complex than going to Mars.

So if you are so smart, explain in some detail what health care is, what makes the US different from other nations in that regard (and I mean how care is impacted, not insurance).

What do patients and providers need? What are some functional changes which may improve things? No, passing a law doesn't do anything. I mean on the ground right now in the docs office things.

You have a lot of opinions backing you perspective. Show us what you know which justifies your opinions of people like me and the medical community as a whole. Going to show tables and graphs? That shows you don't know what people and the system as it is works and what can be done.

My bet is that you have no expertise or real hands on experience, but you do have a lot of opinions on that which you haven't a clue.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, political parties pass the things that they favor, this is true for every country in all of human history. An important note to remember though is that the ACA was the result of thousands and thousands of hours of research into the best solutions and was probably the most empirically supported/based bill in US history. If the ACA doesn't meet your standard for law then no law does.



I didn't say it was THE plan, just that it was a Republican plan, which it was. It's hard to think of a more bipartisan move than essentially offering up a plan of your opponent's from the past. I mean isn't that an absolutely INCREDIBLE attempt at bipartisan outreach? It of course got zero votes and was demonized as the Worst Thing Ever. This is not normal and it's not how the US government has functioned for its entire history up until the mid-2000's.



Again, that's simply NOT been how it is for most of US history. Don't take my word for it, look for yourself. There was significant overlap between the parties and plenty of bills were crafted by both.

Single party control is new, and it's mostly the fault of conservatives. If you can't call this out for what it is then you're part of the problem because they are counting on people like you to enable them.

There are a great many nations which have a system where cooperation isn't an option but by design forces it. Sometimes that fails, but it exists nevertheless. Dominance, true, but if faith in the leaders fail then action can be taken besides at general elections. So blame the Republicans as they certainly have earned condemnation but don't think that Democrats will surrender control because a better way may be had.

 

[soundforbjt]

And you won the election, right?

Most of my life has been dealing with health care. I see what works and what does not. Know who knows more about healthcare than Congress and the President? Want to find out how things really are and what needs to happen?

Get a bunch of nurses together and give them coffee and bullshit with for an hour or two. You'll learn more truth than from either party.

The ASA isn't even about healthcare. It's about insurance, and while we need that there has been no systematic examination of our current state of medical care without partisan entanglements.

You lost, your program was not what was needed and though some good things came out of it, it wasn't 100%, but maybe 1% of very real issues, which are far more complex than going to Mars.

So if you are so smart, explain in some detail what health care is, what makes the US different from other nations in that regard (and I mean how care is impacted, not insurance).

What do patients and providers need? What are some functional changes which may improve things? No, passing a law doesn't do anything. I mean on the ground right now in the docs office things.

You have a lot of opinions backing you perspective. Show us what you know which justifies your opinions of people like me and the medical community as a whole. Going to show tables and graphs? That shows you don't know what people and the system as it is works and what can be done.

My bet is that you have no expertise or real hands on experience, but you do have a lot of opinions on that which you haven't a clue.

Prove me wrong.

I've seen you make this claim before that you have some answers on healthcare that no one in government "sees" , yet I never recall any explanation of what you think would improve it. Care to share your ideas?

 

[ivwshane]

And you won the election, right?

Most of my life has been dealing with health care. I see what works and what does not. Know who knows more about healthcare than Congress and the President? Want to find out how things really are and what needs to happen?

Get a bunch of nurses together and give them coffee and bullshit with for an hour or two. You'll learn more truth than from either party.

The ASA isn't even about healthcare. It's about insurance, and while we need that there has been no systematic examination of our current state of medical care without partisan entanglements.

You lost, your program was not what was needed and though some good things came out of it, it wasn't 100%, but maybe 1% of very real issues, which are far more complex than going to Mars.

So if you are so smart, explain in some detail what health care is, what makes the US different from other nations in that regard (and I mean how care is impacted, not insurance).

What do patients and providers need? What are some functional changes which may improve things? No, passing a law doesn't do anything. I mean on the ground right now in the docs office things.

You have a lot of opinions backing you perspective. Show us what you know which justifies your opinions of people like me and the medical community as a whole. Going to show tables and graphs? That shows you don't know what people and the system as it is works and what can be done.

My bet is that you have no expertise or real hands on experience, but you do have a lot of opinions on that which you haven't a clue.

Prove me wrong.

I didn't run for president so no I didn't lose the election. The candidate I supported lost but the effects on me will be marginal.

The rest of your post means nothing to me because I live in reality and I understand who did win the election and what their complete control of government means. That is to say, your failure to understand what the repercussions of your actions and people like you did are what has given us what will surely be something that doesn't address any of your concerns. So enjoy the results of your actions because it certainly sounds like you'll be affected by it more than me.

Good luck, hopefully you don't lose your job!

 

[brycejones]

I for one am looking forward to a Republican plan that will lower prices, cover the same or more people, and cost less for the federal government and the states all while offering better coverage.

I honestly don't care what you call it if it meets these goals. However my expectations are very low. The sad reality is the GOP spent most of the last 8 years just throwing a fit instead of trying to improve the ACA (I know you know this already ).

Very few people thought the ACA was perfect, but it was GOP obstructionism that prevented any improvements being made to it.

 

[fskimospy]

There are a great many nations which have a system where cooperation isn't an option but by design forces it. Sometimes that fails, but it exists nevertheless. Dominance, true, but if faith in the leaders fail then action can be taken besides at general elections. So blame the Republicans as they certainly have earned condemnation but don't think that Democrats will surrender control because a better way may be had.

I'm not aware of any of these nations. There are parliamentary systems but those not only don't require cooperation but the party in power actually exercises TOTAL control over the government, unlike here. I actually think that's a feature, not a bug, as split sovereignty is a horrible idea, but it's there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've seen you make this claim before that you have some answers on healthcare that no one in government "sees" , yet I never recall any explanation of what you think would improve it. Care to share your ideas?

I've gone into painful detail too many times so I'll do an abbreviated version.

Health care revolves around one person, the patient and treating ailments, then maintaining health. That's it. The patient matters and all other considerations are secondary.

It's a simple premise which has absolutely no simple solutions, but there are ways we can go about making radical changes in "business as usual". Foremost is doing away with the idea of "cost containment" being most important. Yes costs are a major factor, however what has been missing in the discussion is how the patient does. If we improve the process in specific ways we can provide a more immediate and better treatment which automatically decreases costs. Yes investment will be needed but the rewards in health improvement and processes offsets that.

1) Remove politicians as much as possible. Do this by tasking professional associations in all aspects related to care to select those known for ability and high standards of ethics. This would be many providers, actuaries, IT people, public health advocates. No politicians.

2) Task this independent group who works full time and is compensated and funded, to make an apolitical assessment of the current situation.

3) Develop competing scenarios and test them. Refine as needed and see what really happens in the test "market"

4) Work to build a dynamic system which is not weighed down by bureaucracy. This needs to be reform based on merit.

5) Present all findings to Congress and the public concurrently. No closed door meetings.

6) Let Congress debate but not discard or add without the Body replying first in a most public way.

7) Implement and modify as optimal care dictates.

I'll tackle one facet of care which can make broad beneficial improvements.

Here is how things are. We do not have a unified health care system and addressing this is a major concern. We are a large and disparate population with many needs, not all alike. One size fits all makes no sense. But we can provide some unification. Let's have a "Mednet", which would be online records of every patient, accessed by providers by multiple biometric measures. Get some of the snoops and people in academia to come up with an encryption standard higher than what we currently use. Some marvelous minds out there. Use them.

So what? Why is this a big thing? Here's a "secret". The most important thing for providers to do their jobs properly is a complete and up to date medical history. This cannot be overemphasized.

A real world everyday example. A patient comes to an ER and presents with symptoms which are not easily determined initially. Due to location, hours or whatever the medical history is incomplete or inaccurate. You cannot depend a patient for accuracy. So patient gets a test. $. Test inclusive. Patient admitted for observation and further testing $$$. Patient treated and the process completed. $$$$$

Or.

Patient presents at ER. Full accurate medical history comes up. Oh had that test. Oh takes this med. Oh this problem was recognized and therapy adjustments need to be made.

Which is better for all parties involved? The second. Fewer resources needed of all kinds to get it right.

Doesn't happen much, right? Every. Single. Day, and too often.

But something not so obvious. Currently the data collection we have is limited by spotty knowledge and lack of infrastructure.

Put this in place and great stuff happens. We even have a model for illustrative purposes, VAERS.

That is a vaccination reporting system which exists because of vaxxer ignorance for the most part, but it is a wonderful thing to have in any case. We can analyse and know things. We can discover what we never knew existed, because it provides knowledge and knowledge is power to make positive change.

So strip personally identifiable information from profiles and datamine therapies to determine what works and when and vice versa. See if something works, but at times not then dig further for causation. Whoa, it looks like some meds provide benefit that wasn't even guessed at. We have concrete evidence we would have missed.

It happens all the time already but at a snail's pace.

Better outcomes
Lower costs overall
New therapies, improvement in current treatments and becoming aware of things for good or ill we havent even thought about.

One tiny facet of care and see what it can bring.

Usually someone comes in with Republican this or Democrat that and how trying to do such things is a fantasy, shut up and do what my overlords tell you.

Can't get into all that. This is too serious for the ignorant to run.