Another GOP Flip-Flop on Health Care

[Polk]

Dec 10, 2009 Dems still have a majority and are still blaming Boooooshhhh Fox News, Sarah Palin and Republicans.

Yeah, they're doing great in the majority, this is gonna last a real long time

Seems you're ignorant of the fact it takes sixty votes to move anything through the Senate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

After months and months of complaining about the length of the bill:
Republicans Attack Size of House Health Care Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Poe speaks to chamber on health care reform - Monday, August 24, 2009 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com

Republicans are now bitching that the health care bill is not long enough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj58vKN1m3g

"And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do. But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?"

Number of pages is another smoke screen.

This is about big government control.

It has been documented that the United States has the best healthcare in the world, as judged by life expectancy.

You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't make claims that were just so obviously false. You claim that Americans have the longest life expectancy in the world, and yet, not only are we not first, we're not in the top 10, top 20, or top 40. We're 50th, sitting right below Portugal and right above Albania.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Here are the solutions to any complaints:

Short and Sweet: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.

Health care is going to become better if we reduce the quality of health insurance to that which would be seen in a third world country (which is exactly what the GOP proposal for sale across state lines does) and if we place caps on damages that can be collected in event of malpractice, even though previous caps have not been effective at reducing cost and that eliminating malpractice all together would only represent two percent of total health care costs.

If only you were bright enough to ask how the 'life expectancy' stat was calculated, "you'd be taken a lot more seriously ..."

Once the deaths due to auto accidents and homicides are removed, the United States has the greatest life expectancy.

 

[Polk]

Number of pages is another smoke screen.

This is about big government control.

It has been documented that the United States has the best healthcare in the world, as judged by life expectancy.

You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't make claims that were just so obviously false. You claim that Americans have the longest life expectancy in the world, and yet, not only are we not first, we're not in the top 10, top 20, or top 40. We're 50th, sitting right below Portugal and right above Albania.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Here are the solutions to any complaints:

Short and Sweet: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.

Health care is going to become better if we reduce the quality of health insurance to that which would be seen in a third world country (which is exactly what the GOP proposal for sale across state lines does) and if we place caps on damages that can be collected in event of malpractice, even though previous caps have not been effective at reducing cost and that eliminating malpractice all together would only represent two percent of total health care costs.

If only you were bright enough to ask how the 'life expectancy' stat was calculated, "you'd be taken a lot more seriously ..."

Once the deaths due to auto accidents and homicides are removed, the United States has the greatest life expectancy.

I would ask for a source, but I won't hold my breath. Looking for one myself, it seems to be a common meme floating around the right-wing blogosphere, but there isn't a reliable source for the claim.

 

[PoliticalChic]

After months and months of complaining about the length of the bill:
Republicans Attack Size of House Health Care Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Poe speaks to chamber on health care reform - Monday, August 24, 2009 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com

Republicans are now bitching that the health care bill is not long enough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj58vKN1m3g

"And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do. But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?"

Number of pages is another smoke screen.

This is about big government control.

It has been documented that the United States has the best healthcare in the world, as judged by life expectancy.

You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't make claims that were just so obviously false. You claim that Americans have the longest life expectancy in the world, and yet, not only are we not first, we're not in the top 10, top 20, or top 40. We're 50th, sitting right below Portugal and right above Albania.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Here are the solutions to any complaints:

Short and Sweet: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.

Health care is going to become better if we reduce the quality of health insurance to that which would be seen in a third world country (which is exactly what the GOP proposal for sale across state lines does) and if we place caps on damages that can be collected in event of malpractice, even though previous caps have not been effective at reducing cost and that eliminating malpractice all together would only represent two percent of total health care costs.

"You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if ..." you were to do less bloviating and a bit more documenting of whatever points you think you are making.

"Health care is going to become better if we reduce the quality of health insurance to that which would be seen in a third world country (which is exactly what the GOP proposal for sale across state lines does).."
Can I extrapolate this to mean that our auto insurance is the same as seen "which would be seen in a third world country ..."?


"...if we place caps on damages that can be collected in event of malpractice, ..."

While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005.
Comparison of malpractice insurance rates per $1 million
Toronto Miami Tampa Bay
Orthopedic surgeon $10,485 $140,000 $72,000
Obstetrician $36,353 $191,000 $98,000
Neurosurgeon $29,233 $237,000 $121,000
Sources: Florida Orthopedic Society and Canadian Medical Protective Association. All figures in U.S. dollar amounts. U.S. figures are base amounts.
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times


Now, here is a further chance for, as our President calls it, a teaching moment.

Rather than simply mumble some bumper sticker talking point of the left, I always attempt to document in some form.

The difference between a conservative and a liberal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't make claims that were just so obviously false. You claim that Americans have the longest life expectancy in the world, and yet, not only are we not first, we're not in the top 10, top 20, or top 40. We're 50th, sitting right below Portugal and right above Albania.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html






Health care is going to become better if we reduce the quality of health insurance to that which would be seen in a third world country (which is exactly what the GOP proposal for sale across state lines does) and if we place caps on damages that can be collected in event of malpractice, even though previous caps have not been effective at reducing cost and that eliminating malpractice all together would only represent two percent of total health care costs.

If only you were bright enough to ask how the 'life expectancy' stat was calculated, "you'd be taken a lot more seriously ..."

Once the deaths due to auto accidents and homicides are removed, the United States has the greatest life expectancy.

I would ask for a source, but I won't hold my breath. Looking for one myself, it seems to be a common meme floating around the right-wing blogosphere, but there isn't a reliable source for the claim.

How could you continue to bloviate if you were to hold your breath? That would be the end of your 'claim to fame.'

a) Many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Dave Petno » Canadian Doctor Describes Canadian Socialized Medicine

b) How about the result of having food? With so much food, so many choices (tell me about it), we Americans are eating ourselves to death: obesity. Is this the fault of poor healthcare?

From a NYTimes article about ‘Sicko,’ and Cuba:
“Because they don’t have up-to-date cars, they tend to have to exercise more by walking,” he said. “And they may not have a surfeit of food, which keeps them from problems like obesity, but they’re not starving, either.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/weekinreview/27depalma.html

So, in summary, if we correct data for those events beyond what is commonly called 'healthcare,' guess where the United States ends up...

On top.

 

[Polk]

"Health care is going to become better if we reduce the quality of health insurance to that which would be seen in a third world country (which is exactly what the GOP proposal for sale across state lines does).."
Can I extrapolate this to mean that our auto insurance is the same as seen "which would be seen in a third world country ..."?

Without getting into the fundamental differences between the models for health and car insurance, there are several problems with that analogy. Even if you buy car insurance in another state, it's still required to meet the legal requirements of the state you live in. That is not the case with proposals to buy health insurance across state lines. If changes were made to require the policies to meet each state's minimum, it would eliminate the savings from being able to shop across state lines. Additionally, you can only buy car insurance from companies established in other states. In the proposal put forward by congressional Republicans, territories would count as states for the purpose of the legislation. The result is that all insurance companies would just relocate to the Northern Mariana Islands, which would count as a state for the purposes of health insurance, but companies based there are immune from most federal laws. The CBO review of the GOP proposal shows the beginning of this, with the decrease in policy prices coming as a direct result of the policies having a lower actuarial value.

"...if we place caps on damages that can be collected in event of malpractice, ..."

While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005.
Comparison of malpractice insurance rates per $1 million
Toronto Miami Tampa Bay
Orthopedic surgeon $10,485 $140,000 $72,000
Obstetrician $36,353 $191,000 $98,000
Neurosurgeon $29,233 $237,000 $121,000
Sources: Florida Orthopedic Society and Canadian Medical Protective Association. All figures in U.S. dollar amounts. U.S. figures are base amounts.
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times


Now, here is a further chance for, as our President calls it, a teaching moment.

Rather than simply mumble some bumper sticker talking point of the left, I always attempt to document in some form.

The difference between a conservative and a liberal.

Numbers which he pulled from a single study, while other studies have shown different results and the study in question has been criticized for not being representative.

HHS: Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable liability awards not only increases patients’ risk but it also adds costs. The leading study estimates that limiting unreasonable awards for non-economic damages could reduce health care costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting quality of care. This would save $60-108 billion in health care costs each year. These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and permit an additional 2.4-4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance.

That “leading study” was a 1996 paper by Stanford economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark McClellan. McClellan – who is both an economist and a physician – served more recently as President Bush’s senior White House policy director for health care, and is now the head of the Food and Drug Administration.

The Kessler-McClellan study is one of the few academic studies that has ever attempted to measure the cost of “defensive medicine” attributable to lawsuits. It did so by examining the cost of treating hospitalized heart patients in states that have caps on damage awards and other restrictions on malpractice suits, and comparing them with the costs of treating similar patients in states without such limits on lawsuits.

...

However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public Health “did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs,” CBO said. And a 1999 study in the Journal of Health Economics found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits.

Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the OTA study concluded: “it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine.”

...

In 1999 a GAO study said the evidence Kessler and McClellan cited was too narrow to provide a basis for estimating overall costs of defensive medicine:

GAO: Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed.

And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.

CBO: When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.

FactCheck.org: President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Health care is going to become better if we reduce the quality of health insurance to that which would be seen in a third world country (which is exactly what the GOP proposal for sale across state lines does).."
Can I extrapolate this to mean that our auto insurance is the same as seen "which would be seen in a third world country ..."?

Without getting into the fundamental differences between the models for health and car insurance, there are several problems with that analogy. Even if you buy car insurance in another state, it's still required to meet the legal requirements of the state you live in. That is not the case with proposals to buy health insurance across state lines. If changes were made to require the policies to meet each state's minimum, it would eliminate the savings from being able to shop across state lines. Additionally, you can only buy car insurance from companies established in other states. In the proposal put forward by congressional Republicans, territories would count as states for the purpose of the legislation. The result is that all insurance companies would just relocate to the Northern Mariana Islands, which would count as a state for the purposes of health insurance, but companies based there are immune from most federal laws. The CBO review of the GOP proposal shows the beginning of this, with the decrease in policy prices coming as a direct result of the policies having a lower actuarial value.

"...if we place caps on damages that can be collected in event of malpractice, ..."

While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005.
Comparison of malpractice insurance rates per $1 million
Toronto Miami Tampa Bay
Orthopedic surgeon $10,485 $140,000 $72,000
Obstetrician $36,353 $191,000 $98,000
Neurosurgeon $29,233 $237,000 $121,000
Sources: Florida Orthopedic Society and Canadian Medical Protective Association. All figures in U.S. dollar amounts. U.S. figures are base amounts.
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times


Now, here is a further chance for, as our President calls it, a teaching moment.

Rather than simply mumble some bumper sticker talking point of the left, I always attempt to document in some form.

The difference between a conservative and a liberal.

Numbers which he pulled from a single study, while other studies have shown different results and the study in question has been criticized for not being representative.

HHS: Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable liability awards not only increases patients’ risk but it also adds costs. The leading study estimates that limiting unreasonable awards for non-economic damages could reduce health care costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting quality of care. This would save $60-108 billion in health care costs each year. These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and permit an additional 2.4-4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance.

That “leading study” was a 1996 paper by Stanford economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark McClellan. McClellan – who is both an economist and a physician – served more recently as President Bush’s senior White House policy director for health care, and is now the head of the Food and Drug Administration.

The Kessler-McClellan study is one of the few academic studies that has ever attempted to measure the cost of “defensive medicine” attributable to lawsuits. It did so by examining the cost of treating hospitalized heart patients in states that have caps on damage awards and other restrictions on malpractice suits, and comparing them with the costs of treating similar patients in states without such limits on lawsuits.

...

However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public Health “did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs,” CBO said. And a 1999 study in the Journal of Health Economics found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits.

Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the OTA study concluded: “it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine.”

...

In 1999 a GAO study said the evidence Kessler and McClellan cited was too narrow to provide a basis for estimating overall costs of defensive medicine:

GAO: Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed.

And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.

CBO: When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.

FactCheck.org: President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits

1. I appreciate your adding documentation.

2. Please correct the first quote, as it is yours, not mine.

3. "Despite the push for tort reform, the facts don't warrant what Public Citizen, a nonpartisan research group, calls the "politically charged hysteria surrounding medical malpractice litigation.''

The number of U.S. malpractice payments in 2008 was the lowest since creation of the federal National Practitioner Data Bank, which has tracked payments since 1990. And the average payment — about $326,000 — was the smallest in a decade.

While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

So my conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!

But, as you know, tort reform is a political question as the trial lawyers are a major contributor to the Democratic party.
BTW, I heard on the news that the healthcare bill will increase lawsuits as it now allows employees to sue their employers if the employer provides healthcare.


The Congressional Budget Office - in an analysis that projects a nearly10-fold increase in savings over its findings last year - said tort reform would cut costs by limiting the use of diagnostic tests and other services health care providers and doctors use to reduce exposure to lawsuits.
Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit - Washington Times

4. Would one be led to believe that your lack of comment on the following means that you find them unassailable?

3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mere malarkey, political chic, with no forseeable basis in the future. Please try again, and use real situations and numbers that correlate to reality, hmmm?

 

[Polk]

2. Please correct the first quote, as it is yours, not mine.

I quoted what you posted. The format of my quote inside your quote is the method of your choosing. The difference is clear to those following the discussion.

3. "Despite the push for tort reform, the facts don't warrant what Public Citizen, a nonpartisan research group, calls the "politically charged hysteria surrounding medical malpractice litigation.''

The number of U.S. malpractice payments in 2008 was the lowest since creation of the federal National Practitioner Data Bank, which has tracked payments since 1990. And the average payment — about $326,000 — was the smallest in a decade.

While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

So my conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!

But, as you know, tort reform is a political question as the trial lawyers are a major contributor to the Democratic party.
BTW, I heard on the news that the healthcare bill will increase lawsuits as it now allows employees to sue their employers if the employer provides healthcare.


The Congressional Budget Office - in an analysis that projects a nearly10-fold increase in savings over its findings last year - said tort reform would cut costs by limiting the use of diagnostic tests and other services health care providers and doctors use to reduce exposure to lawsuits.
Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit - Washington Times

You keep quoting that nine percent number even though it's already been shown to not be accurate.

4. Would one be led to believe that your lack of comment on the following means that you find them unassailable?

3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.

#3 is simply another variant on the "allow people to purchase across state lines" argument.
I don't have a particular objection to #4 or #5 (which could alternatively been look at as removing the tax preference given to individuals who receive insurance from their employer, two sides of the same coin).
#6 is more of the state lines and tort reform crap, unless you're adding getting rid of Medicare. If that's the case, I'd say best of luck selling that lemon to the public.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dec 10, 2009 Dems still have a majority and are still blaming Boooooshhhh Fox News, Sarah Palin and Republicans.

Yeah, they're doing great in the majority, this is gonna last a real long time

Seems you're ignorant of the fact it takes sixty votes to move anything through the Senate.

And? The GOP is filibuster ObamaCare? Yeah? I must have missed it. Link it up for me, Bro

 

[code1211]

After months and months of complaining about the length of the bill:
Republicans Attack Size of House Health Care Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Poe speaks to chamber on health care reform - Monday, August 24, 2009 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com

Republicans are now bitching that the health care bill is not long enough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj58vKN1m3g

"And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do. But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?"

Number of pages is another smoke screen.

This is about big government control.

It has been documented that the United States has the best healthcare in the world, as judged by life expectancy.

You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't make claims that were just so obviously false. You claim that Americans have the longest life expectancy in the world, and yet, not only are we not first, we're not in the top 10, top 20, or top 40. We're 50th, sitting right below Portugal and right above Albania.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Here are the solutions to any complaints:

Short and Sweet: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.

Health care is going to become better if we reduce the quality of health insurance to that which would be seen in a third world country (which is exactly what the GOP proposal for sale across state lines does) and if we place caps on damages that can be collected in event of malpractice, even though previous caps have not been effective at reducing cost and that eliminating malpractice all together would only represent two percent of total health care costs.

I've wondered about the outcome numbers on Health Care that put the USA so far down lists. I heard in passing on a radio discussion about the relative number of automobiles, miles driven per day per person, fast food restaurants, prevalance of odd manufactured things like asbestos, relatively shorter life spans of illegals, availability of guns and the willingness to use them on people and exposure to various chemicals from lawn fertilizers to air fresheners that the USA tends to cloud the air with while Albania may refrain.

The outcomes are quite probably skewed by the lifestyle differences. It defies logic to think that there are 49 countries in the world with more advanced medical care than the USA. It defies logic to think that there is one with better care.

I admit to not knowing anything on the topic except what I see locally in my own city and the cities in which I've lived, but seriously, what makes most cities distinct is the football stadium and the hospital in that city. These two structures are like the Cathedrals of old Europe.

Our hospitals are pretty nice.

 

[Christopher]

After months and months of complaining about the length of the bill:
Republicans Attack Size of House Health Care Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Poe speaks to chamber on health care reform - Monday, August 24, 2009 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com

Republicans are now bitching that the health care bill is not long enough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj58vKN1m3g

"And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do. But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?"

Your first link shows what John Boehner said, the second link shows what Congressman Poe said, and the youtube video shows what Mike Enzi said. Perhaps you could explain how what Enzi said applies to the entire GOP's position. How about even a majority of the GOP?

 

[uscitizen]

Republicans are just whiney asses.
Plenty of evidence here on this board to prove that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans are just whiney asses.
Plenty of evidence here on this board to prove that.

Look at you!

Up to two whole sentences!

Getting to be the big boy.

(A better post might be one where you quote all the "whiney asses.")

 

[Sarah G]

After months and months of complaining about the length of the bill:
Republicans Attack Size of House Health Care Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Poe speaks to chamber on health care reform - Monday, August 24, 2009 - Copyright 2007 Ourtribune.com

Republicans are now bitching that the health care bill is not long enough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj58vKN1m3g

"And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do. But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?"

That guy is such a stupid person. He starts talking and my eyes glaze over..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sarah, the GOP simply refuses to get it. And that is, they lost, and health care reform is going to pass. Period.

 

[edthecynic]

Number of pages is another smoke screen.

This is about big government control.

It has been documented that the United States has the best healthcare in the world, as judged by life expectancy.

You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't make claims that were just so obviously false. You claim that Americans have the longest life expectancy in the world, and yet, not only are we not first, we're not in the top 10, top 20, or top 40. We're 50th, sitting right below Portugal and right above Albania.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Here are the solutions to any complaints:

Short and Sweet: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.

Health care is going to become better if we reduce the quality of health insurance to that which would be seen in a third world country (which is exactly what the GOP proposal for sale across state lines does) and if we place caps on damages that can be collected in event of malpractice, even though previous caps have not been effective at reducing cost and that eliminating malpractice all together would only represent two percent of total health care costs.

If only you were bright enough to ask how the 'life expectancy' stat was calculated, "you'd be taken a lot more seriously ..."

Once the deaths due to auto accidents and homicides are removed, the United States has the greatest life expectancy.

Oh that's brilliant. No other country has cars or murders. BRILLIANT!

In reality, when people are in a car accident they are taken to a hospital and given medical care, same thing if they are shot or stabbed or clubbed, etc., so accidents and murders are not independent of medical care after all!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Dems are still in the majority and the Marxists, Fascists and Old School Socialists are still fighting it out.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also, when we win it back, we're going to roll it back and hand it back to the People.

No more Bush and Delays. We're cutting taxes, cutting spending and handing it back to the States and the People.

We're going to go through the entire Federal Gubbamint and you can kiss the Dept of Education, Tenn Valley Authority Adios!

 

[JakeStarkey]

EdtheCynic, you can now see the groveling, grubbing, frantic nature of the loony fringe (exemplified by politicalchic and CF). Murders and cars? Ohy, my.