Hardly a crushing legislative defeat all considered. Democrats have 70 more votes and this still only passed by 9. A legislative victory for republicans would have required a super epic F*ck up on the part of the democrats. As it happened democrats provided a merely epic F*ck up.
This probably goes without saying but you're f*cking deluded. The Republicans and their swinish corporate overlords did EVERYTHING they could to derail this, like a three year old falling limp and dragging its feet.
Damn u dumb. The dems have a 70+ majority in the house. The republicans never had the numbers to even be close to relevant. The only reason this took so long is because the Obama administration had problems convincing enough of their own dudes to vote for this piece of shit.
None of that is difficult to understand. Just concentrate really hard and it'' crystallize itself in your tiny naked dude filled mind
If you refuse to buy health insurance, you will be fined on a sliding scale that amounts to 2% of your AGI. So if you make $100,000 a year, you could be fined $2,000 for "refusing" to buy insurance.
You cannot buy a catastrophic policy any more. The "cheapest" acceptable policy will cost somewhere around $15,000 for a single person, and over $20,000 for a family. This is, for most people, more than five times the maximum possible fine - each and every year. The law makes it effectively impossible to maintain an existing catastrophic policy as they "renew" every year, and should any change be made you are then forced to buy something "acceptable" in the law (or pay the fine.)
When the "pre-existing condition" bar comes down you cannot be charged more or denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
I fully expect 20-50% premium increases immediately, and for the next three years sequentially, in all existing policies. This is precisely what the banks did in front of the CARD act becoming effective, and it will happen here as well. That is the cause of the short-term rocket shot in the health-related stocks this morning.
In addition the capital gains tax changes will do severe damage to capital formation immediately, and these changes will become especially severe starting in 2014. The market will anticipate these changes and react accordingly, although you certainly wouldn't know it today.
Karl Denninger is a sharp dude and i'd trust his analysis
The more I think about this bill the more i'm convinced it is intended to be a disaster. The big problem for the health communists has always been that most americans are happy with their care. Before you can introduce a fully nationalized system you have to change that and a great way to do it is send cost of coverage soaring.
This bill effectively makes health insurance illegal. The stuff you buy will nominally remain known as insurance coverage but they have made illegal almost all the things that make insurance insurance. The insurance companies have basically been turned into bloated and ineffective subscription based health care providers rather than insurance companies and the commies are hoping that the public disaffection brought about the increase in costs and the mandate will clear the way for a complete take over of healthcare.
the mandate will clear the way for a complete take over of healthcare.
let's hope so - the 'fee for service' model for healthcare is a straight up FAIL - in addition to being immoral & ineffective
I always find it disturbing when some business reporter starts talking about how 'hospital stocks' respond to the forces of the market.
There was a financial analyst on MSNBC the night of the vote, and it was really disconcerting the way she said, with relish, "the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies LOVE this bill, they stand to profit a great deal."
There was a financial analyst on MSNBC the night of the vote, and it was really disconcerting the way she said, with relish, "the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies LOVE this bill, they stand to profit a great deal."
the idea that these companies are elated at the passage of this bill i think is misleading. they stand to lose a great deal but of course it is not nearly as bad as it could have been if the public option had been included.
in a sense i guess they "won" by watering down the regulations but to say they "love" it is hyperbole that intends to titillate, shock, provoke etc (hence the relish). insurance companies didn;t just spend 10's of millions on vicious and misleading attack ads because of their "love" of this bill.
btw/ imho msnbc is just as bad as fox when it comes to ideologically driven "news" and outrageous personalities but that is another thread...
mandatory insurance is necessary if you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. If it is mandatory, you can't just wait until you get sick, get into a car accident, etc to buy into the system.
Still, the penalty for not buying into the system has to be sufficiently high or many people WILL wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
This is going to become a pretty key issue. The penalty for not buying in doesn't seem sufficiently high to force people to do so.
I think people (not necessarily here, but the public at large) are mistakenly assuming this fixes health care. It doesn't. This tries at least to make sure that more people have access to coverage but the trying to tamp down the costs of health care are an entire beast altogether.
Forget the obese - people need to raise questions about excessive testing and if we really want to get down to it, we also need to ask how much end of life care is really justifiable. Bring back the death panels!
I agree the end-of-life thing, however uncomfortable a conversation, is pretty serious. Not sure about the testing thing; more often than not I've had to talk my doctors into running tests that they would just as soon have preferred to defer.
But you're wrong to ignore the obesity thing. I don't have to give you the US obesity numbers, nor do I have to remind you that obesity is a risk factor for, like, *all* medical ailments.
I think people (not necessarily here, but the public at large) are mistakenly assuming this fixes health care.
I stopped into my neighborhood gas station this morning to find the clerk discussing Health Care with a customer. The clerk stated that now everyone would be required to purchase health insurance and the customer said "Don't believe that Media BS, health care is now free for everyone".
The willful ignorance at work in this country is repulsive and shameful.
I am reminded of Grant's quote at Appomattox regarding the last bunch of State's Rights wingnuts:
"I felt anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though the cause was?one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.[/b]"
mandatory insurance is necessary if you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. If it is mandatory, you can't just wait until you get sick, get into a car accident, etc to buy into the system.
Still, the penalty for not buying into the system has to be sufficiently high or many people WILL wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
This is going to become a pretty key issue. The penalty for not buying in doesn't seem sufficiently high to force people to do so.
I think people (not necessarily here, but the public at large) are mistakenly assuming this fixes health care. It doesn't. This tries at least to make sure that more people have access to coverage but the trying to tamp down the costs of health care are an entire beast altogether.
Forget the obese - people need to raise questions about excessive testing and if we really want to get down to it, we also need to ask how much end of life care is really justifiable. Bring back the death panels!
I agree the end-of-life thing, however uncomfortable a conversation, is pretty serious. Not sure about the testing thing; more often than not I've had to talk my doctors into running tests that they would just as soon have preferred to defer.
But you're wrong to ignore the obesity thing. I don't have to give you the US obesity numbers, nor do I have to remind you that obesity is a risk factor for, like, *all* medical ailments.
I think that the AMA even addressed the issue of excessive testing and it's out of control costs recently. The problem originates with the astronomical malpractice settlements and the need for doctors to cover their ass.
Years ago I had a problem with my right inner ear and there was basically a one-in-a-million chance it was caused by a tumor. My doctor ordered a CAT scan of my head. An hour before getting the scan I talked to another doctor who was the world's leading authority on my condition. He said that he would not have ordered the scan but that I might as well go through with it (I would have been charged either way). He also pointed out that if there was even the slightest abnormality of any kind, the faintest shadow etc, that they would want to operate (on my brain) to check it out. He sited this as a undesired side-effect of excessive testing and one reason he would not have ordered the test.
The obesity issue is a major factor in the cost of health care in the U.S., one I fear will only get worse now that this has passed. Years ago I ended up talking to one of the top health insurance execs in an airport bar and he said that this country would have had had public health care years ago if it wasn't for the out of control obesity here. He said the type 2 diabetes cost alone has pushed the overall cost of health care beyond a level that can be spread around affordably.
mandatory insurance is necessary if you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. If it is mandatory, you can't just wait until you get sick, get into a car accident, etc to buy into the system.
Still, the penalty for not buying into the system has to be sufficiently high or many people WILL wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
This is going to become a pretty key issue. The penalty for not buying in doesn't seem sufficiently high to force people to do so.
I think people (not necessarily here, but the public at large) are mistakenly assuming this fixes health care. It doesn't. This tries at least to make sure that more people have access to coverage but the trying to tamp down the costs of health care are an entire beast altogether.
Forget the obese - people need to raise questions about excessive testing and if we really want to get down to it, we also need to ask how much end of life care is really justifiable. Bring back the death panels!
I agree the end-of-life thing, however uncomfortable a conversation, is pretty serious. Not sure about the testing thing; more often than not I've had to talk my doctors into running tests that they would just as soon have preferred to defer.
But you're wrong to ignore the obesity thing. I don't have to give you the US obesity numbers, nor do I have to remind you that obesity is a risk factor for, like, *all* medical ailments.
I think that the AMA even addressed the issue of excessive testing and it's out of control costs recently. The problem originates with the astronomical malpractice settlements and the need for doctors to cover their ass.
Years ago I had a problem with my right inner ear and there was basically a one-in-a-million chance it was caused by a tumor. My doctor ordered a CAT scan of my head. An hour before getting the scan I talked to another doctor who was the world's leading authority on my condition. He said that he would not have ordered the scan but that I might as well go through with it (I would have been charged either way). He also pointed out that if there was even the slightest abnormality of any kind, the faintest shadow etc, that they would want to operate (on my brain) to check it out. He sited this as a undesired side-effect of excessive testing and one reason he would not have ordered the test.
The obesity issue is a major factor in the cost of health care in the U.S., one I fear will only get worse now that this has passed. Years ago I ended up talking to one of the top health insurance execs in an airport bar and he said that this country would have had had public health care years ago if it wasn't for the out of control obesity here. He said the type 2 diabetes cost alone has pushed the overall cost of health care beyond a level that can be spread around affordably.
I guess we'll find out in a few years.
Yes. Let's chase all the fat people down and exterminate them. That'll fix everything. Then we can take care of the ignorant, but since they'll be most of who's left, they'll have to shoot themselves.
I think that the AMA even addressed the issue of excessive testing and it's out of control costs recently. The problem originates with the astronomical malpractice settlements and the need for doctors to cover their ass.
Years ago I had a problem with my right inner ear and there was basically a one-in-a-million chance it was caused by a tumor. My doctor ordered a CAT scan of my head. An hour before getting the scan I talked to another doctor who was the world's leading authority on my condition. He said that he would not have ordered the scan but that I might as well go through with it (I would have been charged either way). He also pointed out that if there was even the slightest abnormality of any kind, the faintest shadow etc, that they would want to operate (on my brain) to check it out. He sited this as a undesired side-effect of excessive testing and one reason he would not have ordered the test.
Makes me think of fetal monitors during labor. That have not proven to be effective in any way. They did a big study and showed many Dr.s the same print outs from monitors and the docs only agreed 20% of the time. When showed the same print outs several months later they only agreed with their own previous reading 30% of the time. The use of the monitors has greatly increased the number of c-sections though. And if anything odd shows up on the monitor they operate because they are scared of getting a malpractice suit if they don't.
mandatory insurance is necessary if you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. If it is mandatory, you can't just wait until you get sick, get into a car accident, etc to buy into the system.
Still, the penalty for not buying into the system has to be sufficiently high or many people WILL wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
This is going to become a pretty key issue. The penalty for not buying in doesn't seem sufficiently high to force people to do so.
I think people (not necessarily here, but the public at large) are mistakenly assuming this fixes health care. It doesn't. This tries at least to make sure that more people have access to coverage but the trying to tamp down the costs of health care are an entire beast altogether.
Forget the obese - people need to raise questions about excessive testing and if we really want to get down to it, we also need to ask how much end of life care is really justifiable. Bring back the death panels!
I agree the end-of-life thing, however uncomfortable a conversation, is pretty serious. Not sure about the testing thing; more often than not I've had to talk my doctors into running tests that they would just as soon have preferred to defer.
But you're wrong to ignore the obesity thing. I don't have to give you the US obesity numbers, nor do I have to remind you that obesity is a risk factor for, like, *all* medical ailments.
I think that the AMA even addressed the issue of excessive testing and it's out of control costs recently. The problem originates with the astronomical malpractice settlements and the need for doctors to cover their ass.
Years ago I had a problem with my right inner ear and there was basically a one-in-a-million chance it was caused by a tumor. My doctor ordered a CAT scan of my head. An hour before getting the scan I talked to another doctor who was the world's leading authority on my condition. He said that he would not have ordered the scan but that I might as well go through with it (I would have been charged either way). He also pointed out that if there was even the slightest abnormality of any kind, the faintest shadow etc, that they would want to operate (on my brain) to check it out. He sited this as a undesired side-effect of excessive testing and one reason he would not have ordered the test.
The obesity issue is a major factor in the cost of health care in the U.S., one I fear will only get worse now that this has passed. Years ago I ended up talking to one of the top health insurance execs in an airport bar and he said that this country would have had had public health care years ago if it wasn't for the out of control obesity here. He said the type 2 diabetes cost alone has pushed the overall cost of health care beyond a level that can be spread around affordably.
I guess we'll find out in a few years.
Yes. Let's chase all the fat people down and exterminate them. That'll fix everything. Then we can take care of the ignorant, but since they'll be most of who's left, they'll have to shoot themselves.
Don't do it, I'm sure you must have something to live for.
mandatory insurance is necessary if you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. If it is mandatory, you can't just wait until you get sick, get into a car accident, etc to buy into the system.
Still, the penalty for not buying into the system has to be sufficiently high or many people WILL wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
This is going to become a pretty key issue. The penalty for not buying in doesn't seem sufficiently high to force people to do so.
I think people (not necessarily here, but the public at large) are mistakenly assuming this fixes health care. It doesn't. This tries at least to make sure that more people have access to coverage but the trying to tamp down the costs of health care are an entire beast altogether.
Forget the obese - people need to raise questions about excessive testing and if we really want to get down to it, we also need to ask how much end of life care is really justifiable. Bring back the death panels!
I agree the end-of-life thing, however uncomfortable a conversation, is pretty serious. Not sure about the testing thing; more often than not I've had to talk my doctors into running tests that they would just as soon have preferred to defer.
But you're wrong to ignore the obesity thing. I don't have to give you the US obesity numbers, nor do I have to remind you that obesity is a risk factor for, like, *all* medical ailments.
I think that the AMA even addressed the issue of excessive testing and it's out of control costs recently. The problem originates with the astronomical malpractice settlements and the need for doctors to cover their ass.
Years ago I had a problem with my right inner ear and there was basically a one-in-a-million chance it was caused by a tumor. My doctor ordered a CAT scan of my head. An hour before getting the scan I talked to another doctor who was the world's leading authority on my condition. He said that he would not have ordered the scan but that I might as well go through with it (I would have been charged either way). He also pointed out that if there was even the slightest abnormality of any kind, the faintest shadow etc, that they would want to operate (on my brain) to check it out. He sited this as a undesired side-effect of excessive testing and one reason he would not have ordered the test.
The obesity issue is a major factor in the cost of health care in the U.S., one I fear will only get worse now that this has passed. Years ago I ended up talking to one of the top health insurance execs in an airport bar and he said that this country would have had had public health care years ago if it wasn't for the out of control obesity here. He said the type 2 diabetes cost alone has pushed the overall cost of health care beyond a level that can be spread around affordably.
I guess we'll find out in a few years.
Yes. Let's chase all the fat people down and exterminate them. That'll fix everything. Then we can take care of the ignorant, but since they'll be most of who's left, they'll have to shoot themselves.
Don't do it, I'm sure you must have something to live for.
mandatory insurance is necessary if you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. If it is mandatory, you can't just wait until you get sick, get into a car accident, etc to buy into the system.
Still, the penalty for not buying into the system has to be sufficiently high or many people WILL wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
This is going to become a pretty key issue. The penalty for not buying in doesn't seem sufficiently high to force people to do so.
I think people (not necessarily here, but the public at large) are mistakenly assuming this fixes health care. It doesn't. This tries at least to make sure that more people have access to coverage but the trying to tamp down the costs of health care are an entire beast altogether.
Forget the obese - people need to raise questions about excessive testing and if we really want to get down to it, we also need to ask how much end of life care is really justifiable. Bring back the death panels!
I agree the end-of-life thing, however uncomfortable a conversation, is pretty serious. Not sure about the testing thing; more often than not I've had to talk my doctors into running tests that they would just as soon have preferred to defer.
But you're wrong to ignore the obesity thing. I don't have to give you the US obesity numbers, nor do I have to remind you that obesity is a risk factor for, like, *all* medical ailments.
I think that the AMA even addressed the issue of excessive testing and it's out of control costs recently. The problem originates with the astronomical malpractice settlements and the need for doctors to cover their ass.
Years ago I had a problem with my right inner ear and there was basically a one-in-a-million chance it was caused by a tumor. My doctor ordered a CAT scan of my head. An hour before getting the scan I talked to another doctor who was the world's leading authority on my condition. He said that he would not have ordered the scan but that I might as well go through with it (I would have been charged either way). He also pointed out that if there was even the slightest abnormality of any kind, the faintest shadow etc, that they would want to operate (on my brain) to check it out. He sited this as a undesired side-effect of excessive testing and one reason he would not have ordered the test.
The obesity issue is a major factor in the cost of health care in the U.S., one I fear will only get worse now that this has passed. Years ago I ended up talking to one of the top health insurance execs in an airport bar and he said that this country would have had had public health care years ago if it wasn't for the out of control obesity here. He said the type 2 diabetes cost alone has pushed the overall cost of health care beyond a level that can be spread around affordably.
I guess we'll find out in a few years.
I wonder about the CYA excuse. After all, they get paid more for running more tests, it's not like they're doing them for free. I also have seen stats that say 5% of the doctors are responsible for 95% of malpractice cases. Maybe the medical profession isn't doing enough to get rid of bad doctors.
Health insurance execs seem like as reliable a source for honest opinions about public health care as tobacco execs are about the effects of tobacco. I've been to Germany and the US is not the only country with tons of fat people. Oops I said tons. Plus most fat Americans already have health care. I've been to Chamber of Commerce meetings and half those boys are bigguns.
mandatory insurance is necessary if you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. If it is mandatory, you can't just wait until you get sick, get into a car accident, etc to buy into the system.
Still, the penalty for not buying into the system has to be sufficiently high or many people WILL wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
This is going to become a pretty key issue. The penalty for not buying in doesn't seem sufficiently high to force people to do so.
I think people (not necessarily here, but the public at large) are mistakenly assuming this fixes health care. It doesn't. This tries at least to make sure that more people have access to coverage but the trying to tamp down the costs of health care are an entire beast altogether.
Forget the obese - people need to raise questions about excessive testing and if we really want to get down to it, we also need to ask how much end of life care is really justifiable. Bring back the death panels!
I agree the end-of-life thing, however uncomfortable a conversation, is pretty serious. Not sure about the testing thing; more often than not I've had to talk my doctors into running tests that they would just as soon have preferred to defer.
But you're wrong to ignore the obesity thing. I don't have to give you the US obesity numbers, nor do I have to remind you that obesity is a risk factor for, like, *all* medical ailments.
I think that the AMA even addressed the issue of excessive testing and it's out of control costs recently. The problem originates with the astronomical malpractice settlements and the need for doctors to cover their ass.
Years ago I had a problem with my right inner ear and there was basically a one-in-a-million chance it was caused by a tumor. My doctor ordered a CAT scan of my head. An hour before getting the scan I talked to another doctor who was the world's leading authority on my condition. He said that he would not have ordered the scan but that I might as well go through with it (I would have been charged either way). He also pointed out that if there was even the slightest abnormality of any kind, the faintest shadow etc, that they would want to operate (on my brain) to check it out. He sited this as a undesired side-effect of excessive testing and one reason he would not have ordered the test.
The obesity issue is a major factor in the cost of health care in the U.S., one I fear will only get worse now that this has passed. Years ago I ended up talking to one of the top health insurance execs in an airport bar and he said that this country would have had had public health care years ago if it wasn't for the out of control obesity here. He said the type 2 diabetes cost alone has pushed the overall cost of health care beyond a level that can be spread around affordably.
I guess we'll find out in a few years.
Yes. Let's chase all the fat people down and exterminate them. That'll fix everything. Then we can take care of the ignorant, but since they'll be most of who's left, they'll have to shoot themselves.
Don't do it, I'm sure you must have something to live for.
Pure hilarity you fascist fuckwit...
I'll bring the facts and you can bring the name-calling.
mandatory insurance is necessary if you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. If it is mandatory, you can't just wait until you get sick, get into a car accident, etc to buy into the system.
Still, the penalty for not buying into the system has to be sufficiently high or many people WILL wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
This is going to become a pretty key issue. The penalty for not buying in doesn't seem sufficiently high to force people to do so.
I think people (not necessarily here, but the public at large) are mistakenly assuming this fixes health care. It doesn't. This tries at least to make sure that more people have access to coverage but the trying to tamp down the costs of health care are an entire beast altogether.
Forget the obese - people need to raise questions about excessive testing and if we really want to get down to it, we also need to ask how much end of life care is really justifiable. Bring back the death panels!
I agree the end-of-life thing, however uncomfortable a conversation, is pretty serious. Not sure about the testing thing; more often than not I've had to talk my doctors into running tests that they would just as soon have preferred to defer.
But you're wrong to ignore the obesity thing. I don't have to give you the US obesity numbers, nor do I have to remind you that obesity is a risk factor for, like, *all* medical ailments.
I think that the AMA even addressed the issue of excessive testing and it's out of control costs recently. The problem originates with the astronomical malpractice settlements and the need for doctors to cover their ass.
Years ago I had a problem with my right inner ear and there was basically a one-in-a-million chance it was caused by a tumor. My doctor ordered a CAT scan of my head. An hour before getting the scan I talked to another doctor who was the world's leading authority on my condition. He said that he would not have ordered the scan but that I might as well go through with it (I would have been charged either way). He also pointed out that if there was even the slightest abnormality of any kind, the faintest shadow etc, that they would want to operate (on my brain) to check it out. He sited this as a undesired side-effect of excessive testing and one reason he would not have ordered the test.
The obesity issue is a major factor in the cost of health care in the U.S., one I fear will only get worse now that this has passed. Years ago I ended up talking to one of the top health insurance execs in an airport bar and he said that this country would have had had public health care years ago if it wasn't for the out of control obesity here. He said the type 2 diabetes cost alone has pushed the overall cost of health care beyond a level that can be spread around affordably.
I guess we'll find out in a few years.
Yes. Let's chase all the fat people down and exterminate them. That'll fix everything. Then we can take care of the ignorant, but since they'll be most of who's left, they'll have to shoot themselves.
Don't do it, I'm sure you must have something to live for.
Pure hilarity you fascist fuckwit...
I'll bring the facts and you can bring the name-calling.
I don't hang out in too many airport bars but I do have friends that are doctors and they all agree that a good percentage of the tests they recommend are unecessary and strictly a CYA move to avoid malpractice suits.
Doesn't it suck when medical consensus and facts get in the way of a good insult?
I think the insults may have been out of line, but your 'facts,' started with, "i'm talking to a guy in an airport bar...' I mean, come on with the righteous truthiness nonsense. That is tough to take seriously...
Comments
Damn u dumb. The dems have a 70+ majority in the house. The republicans never had the numbers to even be close to relevant. The only reason this took so long is because the Obama administration had problems convincing enough of their own dudes to vote for this piece of shit.
None of that is difficult to understand. Just concentrate really hard and it'' crystallize itself in your tiny naked dude filled mind
Karl Denninger is a sharp dude and i'd trust his analysis
The more I think about this bill the more i'm convinced it is intended to be a disaster. The big problem for the health communists has always been that most americans are happy with their care. Before you can introduce a fully nationalized system you have to change that and a great way to do it is send cost of coverage soaring.
This bill effectively makes health insurance illegal. The stuff you buy will nominally remain known as insurance coverage but they have made illegal almost all the things that make insurance insurance. The insurance companies have basically been turned into bloated and ineffective subscription based health care providers rather than insurance companies and the commies are hoping that the public disaffection brought about the increase in costs and the mandate will clear the way for a complete take over of healthcare.
What if that kid was born with severe health problems?
let's hope so - the 'fee for service' model for healthcare is a straight up FAIL - in addition to being immoral & ineffective
I always find it disturbing when some business reporter starts talking about how 'hospital stocks' respond to the forces of the market.
KEEP IT MOVIN'
There was a financial analyst on MSNBC the night of the vote, and it was really disconcerting the way she said, with relish, "the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies LOVE this bill, they stand to profit a great deal."
It hasn't caught on big yet.
the idea that these companies are elated at the passage of this bill i think is misleading. they stand to lose a great deal but of course it is not nearly as bad as it could have been if the public option had been included.
in a sense i guess they "won" by watering down the regulations but to say they "love" it is hyperbole that intends to titillate, shock, provoke etc (hence the relish). insurance companies didn;t just spend 10's of millions on vicious and misleading attack ads because of their "love" of this bill.
btw/ imho msnbc is just as bad as fox when it comes to ideologically driven "news" and outrageous personalities but that is another thread...
I agree the end-of-life thing, however uncomfortable a conversation, is pretty serious. Not sure about the testing thing; more often than not I've had to talk my doctors into running tests that they would just as soon have preferred to defer.
But you're wrong to ignore the obesity thing. I don't have to give you the US obesity numbers, nor do I have to remind you that obesity is a risk factor for, like, *all* medical ailments.
I stopped into my neighborhood gas station this morning to find the clerk discussing Health Care with a customer. The clerk stated that now everyone would be required to purchase health insurance and the customer said "Don't believe that Media BS, health care is now free for everyone".
SMH
I am reminded of Grant's quote at Appomattox regarding the last bunch of State's Rights wingnuts:
"I felt anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though the cause was?one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.[/b]"
There's a couple who stop by here who just might.
I think that the AMA even addressed the issue of excessive testing and it's out of control costs recently. The problem originates with the astronomical malpractice settlements and the need for doctors to cover their ass.
Years ago I had a problem with my right inner ear and there was basically a one-in-a-million chance it was caused by a tumor. My doctor ordered a CAT scan of my head. An hour before getting the scan I talked to another doctor who was the world's leading authority on my condition. He said that he would not have ordered the scan but that I might as well go through with it (I would have been charged either way). He also pointed out that if there was even the slightest abnormality of any kind, the faintest shadow etc, that they would want to operate (on my brain) to check it out. He sited this as a undesired side-effect of excessive testing and one reason he would not have ordered the test.
The obesity issue is a major factor in the cost of health care in the U.S., one I fear will only get worse now that this has passed. Years ago I ended up talking to one of the top health insurance execs in an airport bar and he said that this country would have had had public health care years ago if it wasn't for the out of control obesity here. He said the type 2 diabetes cost alone has pushed the overall cost of health care beyond a level that can be spread around affordably.
I guess we'll find out in a few years.
classic.
Yes. Let's chase all the fat people down and exterminate them. That'll fix everything. Then we can take care of the ignorant, but since they'll be most of who's left, they'll have to shoot themselves.
Makes me think of fetal monitors during labor. That have not proven to be effective in any way. They did a big study and showed many Dr.s the same print outs from monitors and the docs only agreed 20% of the time. When showed the same print outs several months later they only agreed with their own previous reading 30% of the time. The use of the monitors has greatly increased the number of c-sections though. And if anything odd shows up on the monitor they operate because they are scared of getting a malpractice suit if they don't.
Don't do it, I'm sure you must have something to live for.
Pure hilarity you fascist fuckwit...
I wonder about the CYA excuse. After all, they get paid more for running more tests, it's not like they're doing them for free. I also have seen stats that say 5% of the doctors are responsible for 95% of malpractice cases. Maybe the medical profession isn't doing enough to get rid of bad doctors.
Health insurance execs seem like as reliable a source for honest opinions about public health care as tobacco execs are about the effects of tobacco. I've been to Germany and the US is not the only country with tons of fat people. Oops I said tons. Plus most fat Americans already have health care. I've been to Chamber of Commerce meetings and half those boys are bigguns.
I'll bring the facts and you can bring the name-calling.
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Q0Q5...lient=firefox-a
F*ck you, and this place.
Really?
This is what makes our country great!
Doesn't it suck when medical consensus and facts get in the way of a good insult?
Tort reform needs to happen sooner than later.
I think the insults may have been out of line, but your 'facts,' started with, "i'm talking to a guy in an airport bar...' I mean, come on with the righteous truthiness nonsense. That is tough to take seriously...
I don't understand why f16 is so bent out of shape....there already have been laws passed to help fight obesity and I anticipate more in the future.