Meet The Press: GOP Whacko on Health Care.

[sealybobo]

gawd, I laughed so hard (thank you Mitch McConnell), and if it is true that laughter is the best medicine, I say allow more time on network televison and media for GOP voices.

----

On today's Meet The Press, Senator Mitch McConnell (leader of GOP), was asked about what a few experts said about the US having the 'best' medical care. The Senator replied that there are more experts and that the American public believes we have the best system.

...and in other news the American public thinks Coke is better than Pepsi.

---

When confronted with the facts that there are millions of Americans who are uninsured, the comedic voice of the GOP mentioned millions get medical care...they are just uninsured.

All the GOP leadership has to offer is an argument that (in Mitch's words) we only need to repair 'access and cost' in order to fix our broken system. WTF, what is there besides 'access and cost' when it comes to an insurance plan?

Sometimes I think the corporate media can change the publics opinion on things.

And sometimes I think if they don't like our opinion, they tell us what are opinion is. Example, I don't believe 51% of Americans are anti choice on abortion.

 

[American Horse]

And which of those will be resolved by the current plans being discussed?

honestly nobody can say. why? because the plans have not been through the whole process yet. If I were to bet I'd say a compromise is in the making. damn democracy!

I recommend that you look at the results that Massachusetts is getting from the Democrat-like healthcare plan.....<SNIP>

It takes three weeks longer to see a medical specialist in Boston than in any other metropolitan area in the country, according to a study by Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, a physician recruiting and consulting company based in Texas.
More than 95 percent of the Bay State&#8217;s population is insured, as state law requires residents to get coverage and prove they have it. The Merritt, Hawkins researchers note health insurance &#8220;doesn&#8217;t guarantee a quick visit to the doctor.&#8221;
The average wait time for an appointment with a doctor in many specialty areas is 50 days, according to the study, with the state&#8217;s expansion of subsidized health insurance serving as the main catalyst driving up demand for care.
Wait Times Signal Problem with Massachusetts â&#8364;&#732;Modelâ&#8364;&#8482; - by Whitney Stewart - Health Care News

These problems, seem to me at least, to be the obvious consequence of not taking into account "incentives": More people are seeking medical services because incentives to seek them have increased (it already seems to be paid for by the system), while there are probably fewer doctors available - they can move out of the system without moving very far; Mass is a small state - to provide services because there is less financial incentive to practice medicine there. Under the current system, the doctors who are willing to practice there will likely be from India or elsewhere who can find a "better" paying job because of the increased demand for services and will move in to fill that demand; thus even medical professional jobs will have been effectively "exported".

 

[PoliticalChic]

When confronted with the facts that there are millions of Americans who are uninsured, the comedic voice of the GOP mentioned millions get medical care...they are just uninsured.

All the GOP leadership has to offer is an argument that (in Mitch's words) we only need to repair 'access and cost' in order to fix our broken system. WTF, what is there besides 'access and cost' when it comes to an insurance plan?

So what if some people are uninsured?

We already have entitlements in place for those people. you have heard of SCHIP and medicare/medicaid haven't you?

Do you realize that the number of "uninsured" now up to 50 million by the current political count includes people who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicare/medicaid but have not enrolled?

Do you realize that a large portion of the "uninsured" are not American citizens?

Do you realize that many "uninsured" make over 75K a year and could afford at least basic health insurance if they chose to buy it?

When you boil it all down there are probably 8-10 million people in this country that are actually uninsured.

So about 3%

yeah it's a fucking crisis worthy of multi-trillion dollar government programs.........NOT.

Excellent, succinct disposal of the bogus "50 million uninsured" fabrication. I guess is depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

“…when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.”
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)”
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

 

[Bern80]

When confronted with the facts that there are millions of Americans who are uninsured, the comedic voice of the GOP mentioned millions get medical care...they are just uninsured.

All the GOP leadership has to offer is an argument that (in Mitch's words) we only need to repair 'access and cost' in order to fix our broken system. WTF, what is there besides 'access and cost' when it comes to an insurance plan?

So what if some people are uninsured?

We already have entitlements in place for those people. you have heard of SCHIP and medicare/medicaid haven't you?

Do you realize that the number of "uninsured" now up to 50 million by the current political count includes people who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicare/medicaid but have not enrolled?

Do you realize that a large portion of the "uninsured" are not American citizens?

Do you realize that many "uninsured" make over 75K a year and could afford at least basic health insurance if they chose to buy it?

When you boil it all down there are probably 8-10 million people in this country that are actually uninsured.

So about 3%

yeah it's a fucking crisis worthy of multi-trillion dollar government programs.........NOT.

Excellent, succinct disposal of the bogus "50 million uninsured" fabrication. I guess is depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

“…when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.”
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)”
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

So now that that is laid to rest, the question becomes, is everyone else that is insured still paying too much?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what if some people are uninsured?

We already have entitlements in place for those people. you have heard of SCHIP and medicare/medicaid haven't you?

Do you realize that the number of "uninsured" now up to 50 million by the current political count includes people who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicare/medicaid but have not enrolled?

Do you realize that a large portion of the "uninsured" are not American citizens?

Do you realize that many "uninsured" make over 75K a year and could afford at least basic health insurance if they chose to buy it?

When you boil it all down there are probably 8-10 million people in this country that are actually uninsured.

So about 3%

yeah it's a fucking crisis worthy of multi-trillion dollar government programs.........NOT.

Excellent, succinct disposal of the bogus "50 million uninsured" fabrication. I guess is depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

&#8220;&#8230;when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.&#8221;
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

&#8220;Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small &#8212; perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)&#8221;
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

So now that that is laid to rest, the question becomes, is everyone else that is insured still paying too much?

I'm not exactly certain how firmly your tongue is place in your cheek, but allow me to make a comment on costs.

A TV ad by Health Care for America Now asks, "What if we stripped away the 13 billion dollar insurance company profits?" Our answer: It wouldn't make much of a difference. The ad fails to mention that the figure represents six-tenths of 1 percent of all health care spending. And profits wouldn't necessarily be eliminated or reduced by the creation of a public insurance option.
The HCAN ad features a graphic that shows a monthly premium bill rising to more than $600. But that's double the average monthly bill for a family with employer-sponsored coverage.
But the average monthly payment for workers with employer-sponsored coverage is a more modest $280 for a family policy.
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan


Here's a little quiz: what about all of the money that the healthcare CEO's get?
Answer: CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what if some people are uninsured?

We already have entitlements in place for those people. you have heard of SCHIP and medicare/medicaid haven't you?

Do you realize that the number of "uninsured" now up to 50 million by the current political count includes people who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicare/medicaid but have not enrolled?

Do you realize that a large portion of the "uninsured" are not American citizens?

Do you realize that many "uninsured" make over 75K a year and could afford at least basic health insurance if they chose to buy it?

When you boil it all down there are probably 8-10 million people in this country that are actually uninsured.

So about 3%

yeah it's a fucking crisis worthy of multi-trillion dollar government programs.........NOT.

Excellent, succinct disposal of the bogus "50 million uninsured" fabrication. I guess is depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

“…when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.”
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)”
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

So now that that is laid to rest, the question becomes, is everyone else that is insured still paying too much?

How much is too much?

My insurance is very reasonable because i choose to pay the first $1250 in costs. that basically takes care of my annual physical and related tests and then some.

i would rather use insurance for the big stuff and not the routine.

Just think how much car insurance would be if it covered oil changes, brakes, tune ups and tires.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Excellent, succinct disposal of the bogus "50 million uninsured" fabrication. I guess is depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

“…when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.”
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)”
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

So now that that is laid to rest, the question becomes, is everyone else that is insured still paying too much?

How much is too much?

My insurance is very reasonable because i choose to pay the first $1250 in costs. that basically takes care of my annual physical and related tests and then some.

i would rather use insurance for the big stuff and not the routine.

Just think how much car insurance would be if it covered oil changes, brakes, tune ups and tires.

Since you accept a high deductible, wouldn't a Health Savings Account be to your benefit:
"A health savings account (HSA), is a tax-advantaged medical savings account available to taxpayers in the United States who are enrolled in a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). The funds contributed to the account are not subject to federal income tax at the time of deposit. Unlike a flexible spending account (FSA), funds roll over and accumulate year over year if not spent. HSAs are owned by the individual, which differentiates them from the company-owned Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) that is an alternate tax-deductible source of funds paired with HDHPs. Funds may be used to pay for qualified medical expenses at any time without federal tax liability. Withdrawals for non-medical expenses are treated very similarly to those in an IRA in that they may provide tax advantages if taken after retirement age, and they incur penalties if taken earlier. These accounts are a component of consumer driven health care."
Health savings account - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As "My insurance is very reasonable because i choose to pay the first $1250 in costs. that basically takes care of my annual physical and related tests and then some."

If you were to put $1500 in at the start of the calendar year, that $1500 would come off your taxable income.

That would be a savings of whatever tax you would pay on that $1500.

If you then scheduled your 'annual' physical for every 13th month, the money in the accunt would grow at 12% plus the tax savings (reduced yearly cost by 12%)

In a relatively short time , the annual cost should be paid for.

Or is my math wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So now that that is laid to rest, the question becomes, is everyone else that is insured still paying too much?

How much is too much?

My insurance is very reasonable because i choose to pay the first $1250 in costs. that basically takes care of my annual physical and related tests and then some.

i would rather use insurance for the big stuff and not the routine.

Just think how much car insurance would be if it covered oil changes, brakes, tune ups and tires.

Since you accept a high deductible, wouldn't a Health Savings Account be to your benefit:
"A health savings account (HSA), is a tax-advantaged medical savings account available to taxpayers in the United States who are enrolled in a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). The funds contributed to the account are not subject to federal income tax at the time of deposit. Unlike a flexible spending account (FSA), funds roll over and accumulate year over year if not spent. HSAs are owned by the individual, which differentiates them from the company-owned Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) that is an alternate tax-deductible source of funds paired with HDHPs. Funds may be used to pay for qualified medical expenses at any time without federal tax liability. Withdrawals for non-medical expenses are treated very similarly to those in an IRA in that they may provide tax advantages if taken after retirement age, and they incur penalties if taken earlier. These accounts are a component of consumer driven health care."
Health savings account - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As "My insurance is very reasonable because i choose to pay the first $1250 in costs. that basically takes care of my annual physical and related tests and then some."

If you were to put $1500 in at the start of the calendar year, that $1500 would come off your taxable income.

That would be a savings of whatever tax you would pay on that $1500.

If you then scheduled your 'annual' physical for every 13th month, the money in the accunt would grow at 12% plus the tax savings (reduced yearly cost by 12%)

In a relatively short time , the annual cost should be paid for.

Or is my math wrong.

Got one of those too.

But i use it more for a hedge against future costs not the routine maintenance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Perhaps you can tell us which of the three currently proposed plans in process has a plan for increasing the the number of doctors to meet the increased demand this 'change we can believe in' will bring.

I am not now nor have I ever been a believer in any nonsense like change...either the kind you can believe in or not...so go sit down.

I have no idea as there aren't any final plans yet.

Assuming you are just being sarcastic, I don't think anyone is opposed to improving the very things McConnell is referring to. It's just that dems are horseshit problem solvers. A government 'option' for insurance won't accomplish either of those things.

McConnell is not for improving anything with his obstructionist attitude. Have you seen the GOP talking points put out by Luntz and others? GOP medicine

And I'm pretty sure you do know that none of the plans out there address the issue, in economic terms, of quantity supplied, because quite frankly that should be the very first thing that is discussed and there hasn't been so much of a peep about it.

There hasn't? How do you know?

Before you go criticizing the right for stating the obvious perhaps you should inquire with the dems, the people that want this passed so badly, why they have yet to even identify the obvious.

The Dems are putting set on forth a bill. Would the GOP only do as much.

hogwash is on your tongue

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Perhaps you can tell us which of the three currently proposed plans in process has a plan for increasing the the number of doctors to meet the increased demand this 'change we can believe in' will bring.

I am not now nor have I ever been a believer in any nonsense like change...either the kind you can believe in or not...so go sit down.

I have no idea as there aren't any final plans yet.

The Republicans actually have a plan,

...

Who will control the system? Doctors and patients, or politicians and regulators? That's the crux of this year's health-care debate. The Republican proposal makes the choice clear.

Choice? Yeah right...another talking points memo? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well to his credit, Obama said he would bring both greater inefficiencies and hand kids suffering from asthma a breatalyzer.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And which of those will be resolved by the current plans being discussed?

honestly nobody can say. why? because the plans have not been through the whole process yet. If I were to bet I'd say a compromise is in the making. damn democracy!

I recommend that you look at the results that Massachusetts is getting from the Democrat-like healthcare plan.

Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.
The Massachusetts plan incorporates a system of middle-class subsidies called Commonwealth Care to help pay for insurance for families with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four) and also expanded eligibility for Medicaid.
The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a "global budget," which is a euphemism for rationing.
Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy


It takes three weeks longer to see a medical specialist in Boston than in any other metropolitan area in the country, according to a study by Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, a physician recruiting and consulting company based in Texas.
More than 95 percent of the Bay State’s population is insured, as state law requires residents to get coverage and prove they have it. The Merritt, Hawkins researchers note health insurance “doesn’t guarantee a quick visit to the doctor.”
The average wait time for an appointment with a doctor in many specialty areas is 50 days, according to the study, with the state’s expansion of subsidized health insurance serving as the main catalyst driving up demand for care.
Wait Times Signal Problem with Massachusetts ‘Model’ - by Whitney Stewart - Health Care News

Disingenuous...disingenuous alert!

The Massachusetts health care plan was initiated in two stages. The rational criticisms of it are valid and the ills of teh system are fixable. You are nothing but a nitwit obstructionist with the voice of a perrenial naysayer

 

[PoliticalChic]

honestly nobody can say. why? because the plans have not been through the whole process yet. If I were to bet I'd say a compromise is in the making. damn democracy!

I recommend that you look at the results that Massachusetts is getting from the Democrat-like healthcare plan.

Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.
The Massachusetts plan incorporates a system of middle-class subsidies called Commonwealth Care to help pay for insurance for families with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four) and also expanded eligibility for Medicaid.
The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a "global budget," which is a euphemism for rationing.
Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy


It takes three weeks longer to see a medical specialist in Boston than in any other metropolitan area in the country, according to a study by Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, a physician recruiting and consulting company based in Texas.
More than 95 percent of the Bay State’s population is insured, as state law requires residents to get coverage and prove they have it. The Merritt, Hawkins researchers note health insurance “doesn’t guarantee a quick visit to the doctor.”
The average wait time for an appointment with a doctor in many specialty areas is 50 days, according to the study, with the state’s expansion of subsidized health insurance serving as the main catalyst driving up demand for care.
Wait Times Signal Problem with Massachusetts ‘Model’ - by Whitney Stewart - Health Care News

Disingenuous...disingenuous alert!

The Massachusetts health care plan was initiated in two stages. The rational criticisms of it are valid and the ills of teh system are fixable. You are nothing but a nitwit obstructionist with the voice of a perrenial naysayer

Safe to say you weren’t a finalist in the Scripts Howard Spelling Bee. Were you the one who made the sign for these folks?

 

[Bern80]

...

Who will control the system? Doctors and patients, or politicians and regulators? That's the crux of this year's health-care debate. The Republican proposal makes the choice clear.

Choice? Yeah right...another talking points memo? WTF is wrong with you?

Please explain what you believe to be untrue about that statement. Take a lesson on what not to do from you buddy bobo. If you're gonna say everyone else wrong, at least back it up with something other shit as moronic as accussing people of using talking points.

 

[Bern80]

honestly nobody can say. why? because the plans have not been through the whole process yet. If I were to bet I'd say a compromise is in the making. damn democracy!

I recommend that you look at the results that Massachusetts is getting from the Democrat-like healthcare plan.

Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.
The Massachusetts plan incorporates a system of middle-class subsidies called Commonwealth Care to help pay for insurance for families with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four) and also expanded eligibility for Medicaid.
The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a "global budget," which is a euphemism for rationing.
Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy


It takes three weeks longer to see a medical specialist in Boston than in any other metropolitan area in the country, according to a study by Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, a physician recruiting and consulting company based in Texas.
More than 95 percent of the Bay State’s population is insured, as state law requires residents to get coverage and prove they have it. The Merritt, Hawkins researchers note health insurance “doesn’t guarantee a quick visit to the doctor.”
The average wait time for an appointment with a doctor in many specialty areas is 50 days, according to the study, with the state’s expansion of subsidized health insurance serving as the main catalyst driving up demand for care.
Wait Times Signal Problem with Massachusetts ‘Model’ - by Whitney Stewart - Health Care News

Disingenuous...disingenuous alert!

The Massachusetts health care plan was initiated in two stages. The rational criticisms of it are valid and the ills of teh system are fixable. You are nothing but a nitwit obstructionist with the voice of a perrenial naysayer

So it's not true that their system (a system Obama wishes to emulate for the entire country) has very serious problems? Please explain. Hemoraging money isn't a 'minor' problem.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I recommend that you look at the results that Massachusetts is getting from the Democrat-like healthcare plan.

Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.
The Massachusetts plan incorporates a system of middle-class subsidies called Commonwealth Care to help pay for insurance for families with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four) and also expanded eligibility for Medicaid.
The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a "global budget," which is a euphemism for rationing.
Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy


It takes three weeks longer to see a medical specialist in Boston than in any other metropolitan area in the country, according to a study by Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, a physician recruiting and consulting company based in Texas.
More than 95 percent of the Bay State’s population is insured, as state law requires residents to get coverage and prove they have it. The Merritt, Hawkins researchers note health insurance “doesn’t guarantee a quick visit to the doctor.”
The average wait time for an appointment with a doctor in many specialty areas is 50 days, according to the study, with the state’s expansion of subsidized health insurance serving as the main catalyst driving up demand for care.
Wait Times Signal Problem with Massachusetts ‘Model’ - by Whitney Stewart - Health Care News

Disingenuous...disingenuous alert!

The Massachusetts health care plan was initiated in two stages. The rational criticisms of it are valid and the ills of teh system are fixable. You are nothing but a nitwit obstructionist with the voice of a perrenial naysayer

Safe to say you weren’t a finalist in the Scripts Howard Spelling Bee. Were you the one who made the sign for these folks?

I am not a ms. speller. I am a lazy intellectual.

 

[Bern80]

McConnell is not for improving anything with his obstructionist attitude. Have you seen the GOP talking points put out by Luntz and others? GOP medicine

So because he's trying to keep this pile of shit currently in the works from being passed that means he doesn't want to see the system change. I assume you somehow know that he disapproves of the Republican option outlined on page 2.

And no I'm not really a talking points guy. I just have brain in my skull.

There hasn't? How do you know?

Because the dems (as usual) don't have the first fucking clue on how to do it. Perhaps you can point out the section for us in any of the three bills that will see how create more doctors. You're not so naive as to bet money I'm wrong on this are you?

The Dems are putting set on forth a bill. Would the GOP only do as much.

hogwash is on your tongue

See page 2 of this thread captain obtuse.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

Who will control the system? Doctors and patients, or politicians and regulators? That's the crux of this year's health-care debate. The Republican proposal makes the choice clear.

Choice? Yeah right...another talking points memo? WTF is wrong with you?

Please explain what you believe to be untrue about that statement. Take a lesson on what not to do from you buddy bobo. If you're gonna say everyone else wrong, at least back it up with something other shit as moronic as accussing people of using talking points.

any asshole (take you for example) can take quotes out of context and argue the merit of their validity, but to string 'em all together and make a coherent and rational argument...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I recommend that you look at the results that Massachusetts is getting from the Democrat-like healthcare plan.

Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.
The Massachusetts plan incorporates a system of middle-class subsidies called Commonwealth Care to help pay for insurance for families with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four) and also expanded eligibility for Medicaid.
The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a "global budget," which is a euphemism for rationing.
Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy


It takes three weeks longer to see a medical specialist in Boston than in any other metropolitan area in the country, according to a study by Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, a physician recruiting and consulting company based in Texas.
More than 95 percent of the Bay State’s population is insured, as state law requires residents to get coverage and prove they have it. The Merritt, Hawkins researchers note health insurance “doesn’t guarantee a quick visit to the doctor.”
The average wait time for an appointment with a doctor in many specialty areas is 50 days, according to the study, with the state’s expansion of subsidized health insurance serving as the main catalyst driving up demand for care.
Wait Times Signal Problem with Massachusetts ‘Model’ - by Whitney Stewart - Health Care News

Disingenuous...disingenuous alert!

The Massachusetts health care plan was initiated in two stages. The rational criticisms of it are valid and the ills of teh system are fixable. You are nothing but a nitwit obstructionist with the voice of a perrenial naysayer

So it's not true that their system (a system Obama wishes to emulate for the entire country) has very serious problems? Please explain. Hemoraging money isn't a 'minor' problem.

I am from Massachusetts. I am talking about the stages. The reason there is hemorrhaging is that the state under Governor Romney (GOP), chose to delay the payment parts of the plan.

Single payer will rule one day. Get on board or stay out in the cold. Your choice asswipe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...

Who will control the system? Doctors and patients, or politicians and regulators? That's the crux of this year's health-care debate. The Republican proposal makes the choice clear.

Choice? Yeah right...another talking points memo? WTF is wrong with you?

Please explain what you believe to be untrue about that statement. Take a lesson on what not to do from you buddy bobo. If you're gonna say everyone else wrong, at least back it up with something other shit as moronic as accussing people of using talking points.

any asshole (take you for example) can take quotes out of context and argue the merit of their validity, but to string 'em all together and make a coherent and rational argument...

I'm not certain that this point is cogent for the post re: who will control the system, but it is clear that the Democrat bills put control in the hands of politicians, not doctors.

1. " In March, President Obama appointed Dr. David Blumenthal to head the system of computer-guided medical care as the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Just days later, Dr. Blumenthal settled a debate on whether the system will control doctors' treatment decisions. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 9, 2009), Dr. Blumenthal stressed that the real importance of computers is to deliver "embedded clinical decision support," a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do. Dr. Blumenthal's latest article corrects CNN's Elizabeth Cohen and FactCheck.org's Lori Robertson, who insisted incorrectly that nothing in the stimulus legislation indicated "the government is going to tell your doctor what to do."
Defend Your Health Care

2. In the 1965 Medicare bill, section 1801: "And when Medicare was enacted, Section 1801 of the original law specifically prohibited any bureaucratic interference with the practice of medicine. Today not one word of that protection still applies. The federal government owns the health-care industry lock, stock, and barrel.
The new program you support will eventually include all sorts of powers and privileges you can't even imagine right now."
The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government

3. On the news this afternoon, it was reported that not one Democrat would agree to the language of section 1801 in the current bills.