The insanity of Bush.

The insanity of Bush. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 8:26:47 AM)
Last night on the News they said that 20 hospital emergency rooms nationwide are at the brink of being closed but Bush wants "Mo Money!" for rebuilding Iraq and making contractors and lobbyists rich! Who was that blonde lady on t.v. years ago who used to say, "STOP THE INSANITY!" I'm ready to hit the streets! This guy belongs in a state hospital.

mnottertail -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 8:28:45 AM)
Susan Powter (and I think she is in a nuthouse, so maybe they can send bush there). 200Bill for the war, but he is simulating a fiscal conservative by saying no to spending........Yup, he's got us all fooled..... Ron

popeye1250 -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 8:38:20 AM)
I think they said a hospital in "South Central L.A." ("GRADY?") Was going to close and that there wouldn't be an emergency room around for miles to handle all the gunshot and stabbing victims by the gangbangers gangbanging each other so this could be a good thing.

Real0ne -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 8:47:24 AM)
yah but its not only bush who is nuts if hillary is talking 2013 before we pull out the troops.

cyberdude611 -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 8:51:49 AM)
The problem with hospital ERs is illegal immigration. They walk in, get treated, and thumb their nose at the bill. Government solution? A. Some Republicans want to make them legal so they can buy insurance. B. Democrats want to have the government pay for them.

Real0ne -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 8:54:20 AM)
got a site on that? I was not aware insurance companies only sold to registyerd citizens, I though they sold to anyone with a wallet.

toservez -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 9:20:46 AM)
The problem with ERs is not illegal immigration. The problem with ERs is that is where the uninsured/poor get their healthcare which illegal immigrants are just a factor and for MOST of this country a tiny factor. Hospitals are now corporate greed run out of control just like any other corporation but are still run on the basis of serving their community. The goals do not line up. The whole medical industry, which I am in, is sucking the wealth out of this country. ER’s may or may not be profitable but having the health care industry determine what is profitable because they hand out a fifty dollar aspirin to a person who cannot afford it and calling it a loss is not reality based but greed based. Hospitals charge outrages fees on the basis of scarcity and ERs should be factored in the cost of doing business overall and not how much money they make or lose separately. I think it is disgusting to think of a hospital that would close their ER but want to retain all other functions or want a government handout.

farglebargle -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 11:28:10 AM)
"I think it is disgusting to think of a hospital that would close their ER but want to retain all other functions or want a government handout." Pro Bono Publico. Simply require that any medical provider perform, say, X hours of Pro-Bono work per Y dollars of revenue.

Stephann -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 11:59:27 AM)
Pro Bono sounds great; except that for doctors, it would mean spending a week every three months in Nebraska or Colorado on a 'working' vacation. That, of course, would also be a tax write off. The real issue, is that we refuse to assess, as a nation, an actual value to human life. "Estimates show that about 27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life." - USA Today Until we address the fact that equal access to coverage, will have to mean defining a line where the public no longer has an obligation to serve as a life support system for that final year of life. I'm certain that this 88.3 billion dollars could be put to far better use. I also wholeheartedly agree with toservez; for having the best quality health care in the world, we are pitiful in terms of access to that health care. We simply can't afford Rolls-Royce quality care for every single one of the over 300 million people living in this country. I believe that bare bones basic health care, privately managed and publicly mandated with a strong emphasis on publicly subsidized preventative medicine is the key. Stephan

popeye1250 -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 12:25:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Pro Bono sounds great; except that for doctors, it would mean spending a week every three months in Nebraska or Colorado on a 'working' vacation. That, of course, would also be a tax write off. The real issue, is that we refuse to assess, as a nation, an actual value to human life. "Estimates show that about 27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life." - USA Today Until we address the fact that equal access to coverage, will have to mean defining a line where the public no longer has an obligation to serve as a life support system for that final year of life. I'm certain that this 88.3 billion dollars could be put to far better use. I also wholeheartedly agree with toservez; for having the best quality health care in the world, we are pitiful in terms of access to that health care. We simply can't afford Rolls-Royce quality care for every single one of the over 300 million people living in this country. I believe that bare bones basic health care, privately managed and publicly mandated with a strong emphasis on publicly subsidized preventative medicine is the key. Stephan Stephann, but we can afford this? http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071116/ts_csm/apower

mnottertail -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 12:30:13 PM)
Well, it is hard money and of course it is the easiest argument to wonder if we could possibly afford it.... I think if we gave up the war in Iraq, and moved a couple other things on our plate around, we could give it a hell of a shot

farglebargle -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 12:42:18 PM)
quote: We simply can't afford Rolls-Royce quality care for every single one of the over 300 million people living in this country. Why not? There are TRILLIONS of dollars available by simply enacting and enforcing regulations requiring the timely payment of properly filed claims. The providers will then have AMPLE funds to take care of their indigent patients. And then they could afford to do 120 hours a year for free.

toservez -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 1:18:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Pro Bono sounds great; except that for doctors, it would mean spending a week every three months in Nebraska or Colorado on a 'working' vacation. That, of course, would also be a tax write off. The real issue, is that we refuse to assess, as a nation, an actual value to human life. "Estimates show that about 27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life." - USA Today Until we address the fact that equal access to coverage, will have to mean defining a line where the public no longer has an obligation to serve as a life support system for that final year of life. I'm certain that this 88.3 billion dollars could be put to far better use. I also wholeheartedly agree with toservez; for having the best quality health care in the world, we are pitiful in terms of access to that health care. We simply can't afford Rolls-Royce quality care for every single one of the over 300 million people living in this country. I believe that bare bones basic health care, privately managed and publicly mandated with a strong emphasis on publicly subsidized preventative medicine is the key. Stephan Stephann, but we can afford this? http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071116/ts_csm/apower The money is already in the system it is just a question of redistributing it to be efficient and admitting that for profit does not work for everything. Not going to happen of course but the fact is a smart system would probably save the country money it spends on healthcare now. I do agree with Stephan that part of the solution is looking very hard at how and where some of the money is spent that would not be pleasant to the ears or very popular. We accept our healthcare to be based primarily on who has the money and a for profit insurance industry that takes a huge chunk out of the pie that is there to make money not about providing quality and the right healthcare. It is just a very misleading and false impression that the uninsured and the “drains” on the health care system now are illegals or from lazy people. It makes many feel better about themselves and sleep better thinking this is true but the fact is I see more and more traditional families and plenty of people who make above minimum wage destroyed financially or get no or crappy healthcare. Sure money has always equated power and privilege but when did this country openly embrace it as a way life should be and decide the values of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution were just for entertainment purposes only?

popeye1250 -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 1:30:16 PM)
toservez, an interesting look at the situation. I think we (the U.S. Taxpayers) could afford a national healthcare program but we'd have to make cuts elsewhere to afford it. And there's plenty of things that could be cut to do that but the lawyers and lobbyists in D.C. would fight it tooth and nail.

Stephann -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 2:29:55 PM)
Popeye, We can't afford not to. As it is, by cultural mandate, we grant upper level workers healthcare as part of their compensation package (how that happened, is really a long story.) For an employer, it's just another expense of doing business; not unlike the payroll tax. Once upon a time, working for a company meant having health insurance. Today, working for a company barely means having a job; my current job employs me as a 'sub-contractor' and doesn't even pay payroll tax (meaning it'll all come out of my pocket.) It's hardly a minimum wage job, either. I think the solution will be to shift a good portion of the healthcare burden onto employers. After all, the infrastructure already exists. What will make it more palatable to employers, is that they won't be expected to pay for it directly. Rather, I suspect a federal minimum wage increase should be mandated with the express purpose of using that increase to fund a privately managed (but publicly obligated) health care package of the employee's choice. It'd be similar to our existing car insurance model; you can pick any brand you want, but it has to cover xyz at a minimum. For these health care packages to qualify, they would have to include, standard, preventative healthcare for every worker and their children, and expected to be valid for up to (say) 90 days after a worker is terminated. Additionally, there could be forms of government subsidized healthcare intended for unemployed or underemployed workers; the people who obviously need it most. It would cover the least expensive types of care, but not more extensive or expensive treatments (you get what you pay for.) Someone who desired a more comprehensive plan, would be expected to pay for it accordingly. Like it or not, this is the hard facts behind ensuring everyone has decent healthcare. The current system is exactly in reverse; we expect first class service at bargain rates. Ultimately, someone's got to foot the bill. Stephan

toservez -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 2:52:58 PM)
quote: We can't afford not to. As it is, by cultural mandate, we grant upper level workers healthcare as part of their compensation package (how that happened, is really a long story.) For an employer, it's just another expense of doing business; not unlike the payroll tax. Once upon a time, working for a company meant having health insurance. Today, working for a company barely means having a job; my current job employs me as a 'sub-contractor' and doesn't even pay payroll tax (meaning it'll all come out of my pocket.) It's hardly a minimum wage job, either. I think the solution will be to shift a good portion of the healthcare burden onto employers. That is not accurate. The burden of the costs of the healthcare system has always been and still is on employers and the costs have gone so high over the past couple of decades that the employers have gone no more. Is there greed on their level of course, but when premiums increase exponentially higher then average inflation year in and year out which means employers cannot pass it along to their own customers then their burden has become too much. To this day outside of retires, employers pay for the major majority who have insurance and pay a majority of the premium of those employees. Most of the increase in employees paying parts of the premium or not offering up health insurance to employees is historically because the burden became too high not because they saw a chance to squeeze a few dollars. Again there are of course greedy employers who design ways to not pay employees insurance but it is ignorance to think that they all do it out of greed because it is well documented that the price of health care for an employee as a percent was and is now is far different. Employers historically are not opposed to paying health insurance to their workers. They just in the present time can no longer want or can pay what the insurance industry is sticking them up for. The problem is if no one controls the costs, and currently the healthcare industry there is no one really involved that has a reason to, then no system will be an answer.

Stephann -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 3:11:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: toservez quote: We can't afford not to. As it is, by cultural mandate, we grant upper level workers healthcare as part of their compensation package (how that happened, is really a long story.) For an employer, it's just another expense of doing business; not unlike the payroll tax. Once upon a time, working for a company meant having health insurance. Today, working for a company barely means having a job; my current job employs me as a 'sub-contractor' and doesn't even pay payroll tax (meaning it'll all come out of my pocket.) It's hardly a minimum wage job, either. I think the solution will be to shift a good portion of the healthcare burden onto employers. That is not accurate. The burden of the costs of the healthcare system has always been and still is on employers and the costs have gone so high over the past couple of decades that the employers have gone no more. Is there greed on their level of course, but when premiums increase exponentially higher then average inflation year in and year out which means employers cannot pass it along to their own customers then their burden has become too much. To this day outside of retires, employers pay for the major majority who have insurance and pay a majority of the premium of those employees. Most of the increase in employees paying parts of the premium or not offering up health insurance to employees is historically because the burden became too high not because they saw a chance to squeeze a few dollars. Again there are of course greedy employers who design ways to not pay employees insurance but it is ignorance to think that they all do it out of greed because it is well documented that the price of health care for an employee as a percent was and is now is far different. Employers historically are not opposed to paying health insurance to their workers. They just in the present time can no longer want or can pay what the insurance industry is sticking them up for. The problem is if no one controls the costs, and currently the healthcare industry there is no one really involved that has a reason to, then no system will be an answer. My apologies if I didn't state my position clearly enough. I was suggesting not that the cost of health insurance be simply another payroll tax. I was saying the burden of administration of health care should fall on employers. This is why I suggested a federal minimum wage increase; essentially saying that those who aren't receiving adequate health care, would in fact be those earning minimum wage. Thus a federal increase in the amount that workers are required to receive will, understandably and eventually, drive up the costs of goods and services, and temporarily increase inflation. But the trade off is that the workers who are not receiving adequate health insurance will be 'given' insurance (the cost of the wage increase offset by the cost of the insurance.) Obviously, it's just one way of saying "we need to federally require health care for all of our citizens." I strongly oppose an expansion of the medicare, medicaid programs, or SSI; we don't need another federally instituted failure. In saying we need to require health care, we're saying someone needs to pay for it. Nobody likes to dig in their pockets, but something this large (and indeed, something that every American would be taking advantage of) every American needs to pay for what they take out of the pot. Stephan

samboct -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 3:57:27 PM)
Just to throw out a contrarian point- The idea of insurance in health care is a dinosaur- and the comet is about to hit and the volcanoes are about to erupt. Personalized medicine is going to wipe out the concept of insurance- which is a shared risk amongst a pool. In order to calculate that risk though- insurance companies use actuarial tables which are based on statistical averages of large groups of people. However, in the new era of personalized medicine- having your genetic code available- along with a list of diseases that you are prone to, is going to make insurance untenable since the customer will have more information than the insurance company (hey, they're just bookies- a bit less honest though.) Think this is far fetched? With today's technology, a single test can read a million gene probes and takes about 2-3 hours. At 3 million gene probes, you've pretty much got it all. We still don't know what to do with it, but we'll figure it out. People who know that they have good genes and are likely not to need health care for heart, kidney or other complications- may skip insurance entirely- while the person who's got the genes that shows he/she is prediabetic, likely to get RA, and develop Alzheimers by age 55 is going to either shoot themselves, or buy as much coverage as possible. This will help bankrupt the system. I'm underwhelmed with the idea of for-profit medicine- as I am with for-profit education, penal systems and effectively justice. Certain services should be offered as a social good- not so that a corporation makes a buck. Europeans spend a fraction of what we do on health care, and have overall better medicine. And when infectious diseases pick up (due to global warming, dengue is already getting established in Florida and Texas) then denying health care to the poor will allow nasty diseases to get an increased foothold in the rest of the population- thus making our health care even more expensive. ER care is neither particularly good care- and it certainly isn't cost effective. We would save money by offering free clinic services to the poor, and paying for it with taxes. And fining Wal Mart for not offering health care to its employees (spare me the legalistic babbling)- they could offer health insurance, the family that owns that miserable company just wouldn't get $18B a year, they'd get $8B instead. Boo, hoo. Sam

Stephann -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 4:07:31 PM)
Hi Sam, You're a little right. Genetic mapping will help determine if coverage for genetic diseases will be necessary. By the time it's commercially viable, though, gene therapy will have cures for these diseases. Someone's going to have to pay for that therapy as well. It'd be a much more difficult sell to suggest that there's a gene for gunshot wounds, AIDS, or a blown kneecap. As medical technology advances, markets open up, they don't close. In fact, as medicine becomes more and more specialized, it will be the insurance companies who will play (electronic, perhaps) matchmaker. As doctors increase their reliance upon insurance companies for customers, their services will eventually become on par with that of your local fast food fry-cook. This is happening already to a degree, when a visit to your doctor will really mean a visit to a Nurse Practitioner. Stephan

Lumus -> RE: The insanity of Bush. (11/16/2007 4:19:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Susan Powter (and I think she is in a nuthouse, so maybe they can send bush there). Ron You'rrrrrrrrrre..dithpickable. No, she's not in a nuthouse. She is, however [as I discovered through the pain of Googling] on MySpace pawning off "Susan's Shackles". Don't believe me? Well, I suck at making links. In fact, I have no clue how. Look her up for yourself, and remember...when you gaze into the Abyss...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125