# Irony in the healthcare debate



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

*Meet Kenneth Gladney*, 38, of St. Louis.










He recently disrupted a town hall meeting to complain about health care reform, and later got in a fight with some union members outside, and, in the process, got hurt.

Now Mr. Gladney is looking for donations to cover the cost of treating his injuries.

*Why?*

Because _he has no health insurance._

Ahh the joys of Schadenfreude.

Karma is dish best served ice cold to those who are overtly deserving.

Mr. Gladney ... just so you know... You don't get to whine about lack of health care immediately after protesting health care. Enjoy the medical bills.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/10/gladney-uninsured/


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

If not for the actions of others he had no need for health care Ryan a choice he made and one he should be able to make. Spin it any way you want but the debate is not about health care reform. The debate raging across the country is that the Gov offered options from the Dem's is not about the reform people want. It is about a shifting of control and who pays for the health care we are receiving and will receive in the future.

If you would be paying attention a overwhelming majority of people, even those who are protesting the Dem plan want reform. Not Gov take over!!!!!!

You and your ilk have tried to make it seem as if the programs offered will lower costs, improve availability to all at a lower cost, and give Mercedes service at a Yugo price!!!!!!!!!!

Not true, and the people understand this is not true! Dorgan got an earful yesterday regarding this very point. Reform is wanted, but not a Gov take over of the HC industry because people know that the Gov cannot and does not provide efficient delivery of services on programs like this!!!!!!!!


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

The irony here is really no irony at all. It's more like a spin in which Ryan has decided that Mr. Gladney shoudn't have the right to choose not to have health insurance. In full liberal colors he finds it ironic that a person has chosen to make a bad life decision. The real irony here is Ryan and the other liberals make bad decisions all the time but condemn this guy for making one.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

swift said:


> The irony here is really no irony at all. It's more like a spin in which Ryan has decided that Mr. Gladney shoudn't have the right to choose not to have health insurance. In full liberal colors he finds it ironic that a person has chosen to make a bad life decision. The real irony here is Ryan and the other liberals make bad decisions all the time but condemn this guy for making one.


 :beer: well put!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The only irony I see is Obama thugs who want free health care beat a man who wanted to take care of himself. I guess the irony is these caring people didn't care about anyone but themselves. They were willing to physically damage someone for their financial gain. Nice guys.

Thanks for exposing these thugs Ryan.



> Ahh the joys of Schadenfreude.


Schadenfreude is pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. Why would you find joy in this mans misfortune?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

swift said:


> The irony here is really no irony at all. It's more like a spin in which Ryan has decided that Mr. Gladney shoudn't have the right to choose not to have health insurance. In full liberal colors he finds it ironic that a person has chosen to make a bad life decision. The real irony here is Ryan and the other liberals make bad decisions all the time but condemn this guy for making one.


rofl

right.

talk about spin. Who is spinning who?

The irony is this guy did have health insurance. He lost his job recently and now has none. He has no affordable options to buy insurance and stay on a plan. He now gets injured, has no insurance, and has to ask for donations. Nevermind that your taxes ultimately paid for any "injuries" he sustained, as he went to an ER for taxpayer funded medical care. And nevermind that he is faking it all for his 15 minutes of fame.... no don't worry about that! :thumb:

But go with your theory if the truth doesn't work out for ya!

That "bad life decision" you say I am trumpeting... was made by a conservative pawn calling himself a conservative. He said "


> "I was attacked for something I believe in,"


Don't you think Swift, that if he _*really*_ believed in keeping the status quo, he should be paying for his hospital bills himself? Hmm? Talk about irony! :lol:

No Swift ultimately....the _real_ irony is that Gladney is allowing himself to be used against his own self interest and he doesn't even get it... you know... sorta like a LOT of commenters on this board 8)

But go with your theory. It is great entertainment.

.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> Don't you think Swift, that if he really believed in keeping the status quo, he should be paying for his hospital bills himself? Hmm? Talk about irony!


No where in this "article" does it say he is not going to pay his bill. Just like a liberal to assume since he doesn't have insurance and went to the ER he will default on his bill. He is making every attempt, by asking for donations, to pay his own way. Unlike the entitlists that think everyone else should pay their way.



> He has no affordable options to buy insurance and stay on a plan. He now gets injured, has no insurance, and has to ask for donations.


I'm sure he will get his bills paid from the union thugs that assaulted him.

For me the real irony is the Dems and the Unions are all for Obamacare. And they are exempt from it. Ryan you need to pull your head out and look around once in awhile.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One thing that I want to know is why is this guy uninsured? By the looks of it he is a young man and just wanted the cash instead of the insurance. He made the decision. How many others of the 47 million they are saying that are uninsured are like this?

I still don' t believe this 47 million number because it changes every debate or week.

Like I have stated.....what is the make up of the 47 million people with out insurance? You also see how they don't use % to talk about uninsured because the % is only about 15% of the population. Which many are covered under parents plans and they just don't know it. I was covered until the age of 25. I thought my coverage ran out after I graduated college. So I bought a policy. My mom informed me after the fact that I did not need to do that. So how many others who after they graduate are still covered but don't know it so they report they have no coverage in these so called studies.

Again more questions and no answers from the people pushing the health care reform.

Who are the uninsured or what is the demographic make up of the uninsured?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ryan I think the problem here and the reason we are debating this is the fact that we see the man in the wheelchair as the victim and you see the two thugs as the victims. Simply a perspective problem. 



> Who are the uninsured or what is the demographic make up of the uninsured?


Good question Chuck. As I understand if you buy family insurance those in your family over 18 who have no record of purchasing insurance would be considered one of those uninsured by Obama's counters.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> As I understand if you buy family insurance those in your family over 18 who have no record of purchasing insurance would be considered one of those uninsured by Obama's counters.


Now if this is correct it is a very skewed number that the people that are pushing this bill are presenting. Because an 18 year old in college is covered by many "family" type plans. They are covered until they graduate college or until like my experience until they are 25. So that is a huge demographic error in the 47 million number. Or how about the people that are "uninsured" by choice. The people that tell the employer to give me the $$ you would spend on my health insurance coverage and I will find it elsewhere. Then they don't. But it is their personal choice. Again skewed numbers.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Interesting post Ron. I did not see this before I replied earlier.



Ron Gilmore said:


> If not for the actions of others he had no need for health care Ryan a choice he made and one he should be able to make.


He was the instigator. He brought this onto himself by picking the fight. Several independent witnesses have confirmed he started it. Therefore he knew full well he might get injured after a volatile meeting, he knew he didn't have healthcare, and yet he still chose to get physical.



Ron Gilmore said:


> Spin it any way you want but the debate is not about health care reform. The debate raging across the country is that the Gov offered options from the Dem's is not about the reform people want. It is about a shifting of control and who pays for the health care we are receiving and will receive in the future.


It is indeed about healthcare reform. Included in that is a government option to provide an additional option to force lower prices/costs, in order to rein in medical insurance companies and their price manipulations.

That "shifting of control" is the government taking away health care from the insurance cabal, and putting it back in the hands of doctors.



Ron Gilmore said:


> If you would be paying attention a overwhelming majority of people, even those who are protesting the Dem plan want reform. Not Gov take over!!!!!!


There are so many flavors of "people" who all have different motives of what is and isn't acceptable, that there is no concensus on what they want. Some do indeed (on both sides/all sides), want reform of some kind. Some want a specific type of limited reform, and some just want to protest anything coming from Obama. You know this to be true.

I'm completely in favor of tort reform and believe that should be first and foremost. However there also absolutely has to be a public option in the reform. No plan is change or "reform" without that. That achieves insurance reform.




Ron Gilmore said:


> You and your ilk have tried to make it seem as if the programs offered will lower costs, improve availability to all at a lower cost, and give Mercedes service at a Yugo price!!!!!!!!!!


1. It will lower costs.
2. It will improve availability at a lower cost.
3. Noone but you has said Mercedes service at Yugo prices.



Ron Gilmore said:


> people know that the Gov cannot and does not provide efficient delivery of services on programs like this!!!!!!!!


right. You mean like that government program.... what's it called again? Oh yeah... *the Veterans Administration system (VA)*

There it is, a huge and vastly important universal healthcare system-government run, single payer and* therefore socialist*-right here in these here brave and privatized United States! 

If you've served in the military, you can go to the VA. If it's within five years of your last active duty service, or you have injuries related to your service, you can go and get healthcare pretty much for free. Given how brutal service can be to the body and mind, that covers a whole hell of a lot of your fellow Americans; the equivalent of about the entire population of Ontario is treated by the VA.

How do they do, health wise, compared to those of us blessed with employer-based private health insurance?

Better.

Objectively better. 

Prove it I hear you saying... right?

ok.

Let's look at a *comparison of diabetes care published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.*



> SETTING: 5 VA medical centers and 8 commercial managed care organizations in 5 matched geographic regions.
> 
> PARTICIPANTS: 8205 diabetic patients: 1285 in the VA system and 6920 in commercial managed care.
> 
> ...


Yeah, diabetes is a huge and growing health problem... we know ... we know.. But I can still hear you muttering insults under your breath, steaming at the audacity that I might challenge those airtight lies being spread like wildfire.

What about _cancer_ Ryan? We need more proof.. MORE!

Ok.

If you're in the VA system, you're *about three times more likely to have your colon cancer discovered and treated* before it's metastatic-compared to the poor saps in private healthcare. (27% vs 77%. If colon cancer is found before it's metastatic, it's treatable. If not, you're pretty much terminal)

And so on.

But let's not facts from reputable institutes get in the way of all the fun the Repubs are having fear mongering.

Right?

Objectively, our present system is a complete and abject failure.

I think everyone can agree on that. Compared to every other industrialized nation, we spend more and get less from our healthcare system. Even for those who claim that the US is exceptional, the VA provides an example of another (and better) way to do things. Still,*I must agree with Matt Taibbi in this article*, the outcome of this debate is about as predicable as a Vikings football game.



> The reason a real health-care bill is not going to get passed is simple:
> 
> because nobody in Washington really wants it.
> 
> ...


Couldn't have said it better.

You really want to get to the bottom of where the "truth" lies? Seriously and honestly?

Ask yourself why special interests have recruited and subsidized all the brownshirts and all the big lies? You don't need deep analysis... this is affecting a cash flow amounting to hundreds of billions. The mesh of middlemen creeps feeding off the current mess will do ANYTHING to keep the status quo.

As current events show so clearly.

Follow the Money.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

swift said:


> > Don't you think Swift, that if he really believed in keeping the status quo, he should be paying for his hospital bills himself? Hmm? Talk about irony!
> 
> 
> No where in this "article" does it say he is not going to pay his bill. Just like a liberal to assume since he doesn't have insurance and went to the ER he will default on his bill. He is making every attempt, by asking for donations, to pay his own way. Unlike the entitlists that think everyone else should pay their way.
> ...


ummm.... Isn't he himself by definition now an "entitlist" now that he is asking for a handout? He is not paying for his own way when he has his hand out. I never said anything about him defaulting... I merely pointed out the irony of his (and now your) own statements.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> One thing that I want to know is why is this guy uninsured? By the looks of it he is a young man and just wanted the cash instead of the insurance. He made the decision. How many others of the 47 million they are saying that are uninsured are like this?
> 
> I still don' t believe this 47 million number because it changes every debate or week.
> 
> ...


Chuck

I'm not certain why he is not insured. But I will share this story of a very close friend of mine. We talk often and I know what he is going thru. He recently lost his job, and for the first time ever, has to take out his own health insurance. He qualified for COBRA care (I'm assuming we all know what that is).. however upon getting his first letter, he told me he gasped when he read that his monthly premium was $656. As he put it... "Imagine if you suddenly were required to add a $656 dollar item to your monthly budget, when you just found out you were being paid $450 a week unemployment, and you still had to cover the cost of your rent/mortgage, gas for your car, and food on your table, amongst all your other monthly bills. He did say that thankfully due to the Obama bill that covered part of his premium, that he now has to only pay $225, and that was the difference for him being able to afford it vs not having health coverage.

That "number" of uninsured that you don't believe is true.



> The "47 million uninsured" figure is from the *2006 U.S. Census Bureau* report. In 2007, the Census Bureau reported that the number *actually declined* somewhat, to 45.7 million people under 65 (the age of Medicare eligibility).
> Ever since health coverage became a major issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, we've received periodic questions from readers who wonder whether a large percentage of the uninsured are non-citizens or illegal immigrants. They're not. According to the *nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation*, 79 percent of the uninsured are native or naturalized U.S. citizens. The remaining 21 percent accounts for both legal and illegal immigrants.
> Kaiser does acknowledge that non-citizens are more likely to be uninsured than citizens, because they are often restricted from public coverage and "are more likely to have low-wage jobs and work for firms that do not offer coverage." (Around 60 percent of Americans have insurance through their employers.) According to the Census Bureau, 43.8 percent of non-citizens are uninsured, versus only 12.7 percent of native-born citizens and 17.6 percent of naturalized citizens. But saying that non-citizens are more likely to be uninsured is not the same as saying that most of the uninsured are non-citizens.
> 
> ...


Sources:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/uninsured-us-citizens/

Kaiser Family Foundation. "*The Uninsured: A Primer.*" Oct. 2008.

Carmen DeNavas-Walt et. al. "*Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007.*" United States Census Bureau. Aug. 2008.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> wonder whether a large percentage of the uninsured are non-citizens or illegal immigrants. *They're not*. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 79 percent of the uninsured are native or naturalized U.S. citizens. The remaining 21 percent accounts for *both legal and illegal immigrants. *


Someone will have to explain this one to me. First they say illegal immigrants are not counted (see bold), then they say the remaining 21 percent accounts for both legal and illegal immigrants (again see bold). In the same paragraph the deny and confirm it, or am I reading something wrong.

I think what they are saying is that they are not a large part. However, as they word it one could be mislead to think they are not counted. They answered the question but a little nebulous. I think the illegals make up a large part of it. I would say 25% would be a large part. It doesn't have to be the major portion of it to be large, and important. Ya, nonpartisan my behind.

Edit: I just googled the Kaiser Family Foundation. Look for yourself and ask yourself if they have a very liberal agenda or not.
Like the wonderful FOX news always says. We report, you decide.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Ryan I think the problem here and the reason we are debating this is the fact that we see the man in the wheelchair as the victim and you see the two thugs as the victims. Simply a perspective problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't let the fact that at first he denied needing medical care and initially refused treatment get in the way of your conclusions...

And don't let the fact that he only appeared in that wheelchair when he was being put up as a pawn during the SEIU demonstrations (and was with his attorney team) the following day...

Andddd... of course don't let the fact that according to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, there was another injured person (shoulder separation) who contends that Gladney attacked him in an unprovoked fashion shortly before the cameras started rolling.

Last but certainly not least, let's not forget that Kenneth Gladley admitted on the scene that he was being paid by the Republican Party to sell American flags. Apparently the GOP does not provide its employee shills with any healthcare benefits. 8)

I for one hope the deadbeat Mr. Gladney stops trying to mooch off of hardworking Americans and pays for his health care the honorable way - by declaring bankruptcy... just like Swift alluded to. :lol:

Really though... I pity Mr Gladley. He is an ignorant, brainwashed man, out of work and willing to do anything for a job. He is even willing to work for a pittance without any healthcare benefit. Sounds like he is perfectly qualified to go work full time for the GOP Party in 2012.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > wonder whether a large percentage of the uninsured are non-citizens or illegal immigrants. *They're not*. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 79 percent of the uninsured are native or naturalized U.S. citizens. The remaining 21 percent accounts for *both legal and illegal immigrants. *
> 
> 
> Someone will have to explain this one to me. First they say illegal immigrants are not counted (see bold), then they say the remaining 21 percent accounts for both legal and illegal immigrants (again see bold). In the same paragraph the deny and confirm it, or am I reading something wrong.


I'll give it a swing.

They said *large* percentage.

21 percent when compared to the whole is not a large percentage. That is where they are differentiating.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The future will tell us how reliable the thinkprogress.org is. I'm sort of thinking they push a lot of bull droppings, but time will tell.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I'll give it a swing.
> 
> They said large percentage.
> 
> 21 percent when compared to the whole is not a large percentage. That is where they are differentiating.


Yes, I seen that and edited, but left my original statement also. I do disagree that 21 percent isn't a large percentage. Again, it's all perspective. How would you like your taxes to jump by 215 overnight? Looks different doesn't it. After all 21% of 47 million is nearly 10 million. I say if they are here illegally and get hurt take a flying astronautical so and so at a motivated pastry (a flying *&^% at a rolling donut).


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > I'll give it a swing.
> >
> > They said large percentage.
> >
> ...


Yep I saw that our replies crossed in the vast interweb 

Don't get me wrong. I'm against giving illegals medical care. I don't drink from that kool aid flavor.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan,

I also never said that I didn't believe these types of stories are not out there. So please don't twist my words.

Your story is the one of people that need the help. Like if you get laid off with unemployment benefits from the Goverment should also add in health care assistance so you don't lose coverage. That is where I see this bill needs to cover people. But there is programs that can help like it did with COBRA and the assistance your friend got to help pay for it.

The assistant programs are needed but not a public or federal insurance program. You see in your example he can get coverage and assistance. So why do we need to have a "PUBLIC" Option because there are already programs out there. Maybe just add more to the assistance part.

Now with the 47 million number.

Now with the illegals......Lets say out of that 10 million number and 1/2 are illegal that is 5 million of the 47 million. Take that out. Now the number is down to 42 million. Now take out the example I have with kids in college. Then take out the people who opt not to have insurance. That 47 million number is shrinking fast.

One of the main reason why I don't believe that number is because it keeps changing. With out hard data saying who or what makes up that 47 million number. I am not convinced it is the correct number.

Like I have stated over and over. Reform is needed. Not an overhaul. Take baby steps.....see if little changes can right the ship. Instead of going crazy and spend, spend, spend and ruin everything and have to start from scratch again.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Ryan, the biggest problem I believe is that what they are proposing is poor at best. The majority of people want something done about health care costs, but not just anything. If this is such a great bill, then why do they exempt themselves from it? I would say they have no confidence in it themselves, but really don't care about you or me and only their own power and money. Have you really read the bill? If so, do you have any problems with it? So far I haven't heard any from you. I believe everyone should be questioning some of the items in this bill. Speaking of them being exempt, they should have the same Social Security we all do for retirement also. Look how well they have taken care of that being that they are exempt from that also. I highly doubt you or I will ever see a penny of it. I don't care what party they are from, none of them can be trusted to do what's best for us when all they care about is what's best for them. No needs to give then any more control than they already have.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Don't get me wrong. I'm against giving illegals medical care. I don't drink from that kool aid flavor.


Hey, that's enough reason for me to celebrate. I think I'll pop a Cherry Coke.  
Like others have mentioned we have a thousand miles of road ahead of us before we go over any health care cliff. There is no need to put the petal to the metal and shoot right over without looking. 
I think there are some very bad things in this bill. I also think it's those very bad things that Obama wants. I think his big rush on passing this bill is so that we do put the petal to the metal and shoot over that cliff without seeing all the warning signs along the road. 
It's absolutely horrendous that our government has grabbed so much control over business in the past six months. The health care would give them 1/6 of our economy all by itself. That's way to much power for people that can not be trusted, democrat or republican. They are all despicable sucking at different ends of the same trough. 
As you assured me let me also assure you that I don't want to turn my back on the truly needy. I hope your friend finds a job, stays healthy, and gets back on his feet. I have friends facing much the same situation. North Dakota is somewhat insulated from these things, but not entirely. The downturn of the economy took longer to get here, but it's here. 
Obama is not going to get this bill past. His dishonesty with the American people is to evident for even the most inept. No one can truthfully say this will not add to the deficit. If it didn't a lot of older folks are going to die a lot younger. That and many other aspects of rationing will need to be applied.
If we are already writing rules for insurance companies then we can expand on that aspect. The health industry pretty much has you over a barrel when you have things like cancer. Take some of their control away. If they make two billion instead of 20 billion a year, oh well.

If it comes down to an individuals right to live and a companies right to make a profit I'm sorry, but I am on the side of the individual. That's my big problem with government control of health care. Socialism respects the social group, and not the individual. That even applies to the social groups of the animal kingdom and is no different with socialistic governments.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

R y a n said:


> Interesting post Ron. I did not see this before I replied earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


SPAM........ :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That last post reminded me I forgot to address:


> 1. It will lower costs.
> 2. It will improve availability at a lower cost.
> 3. Noone but you has said Mercedes service at Yugo prices.


1. Lower costs? You mean like me paying $20 for a good hammer and the Pentagon paying $500 for the same hammer? You bet and I have some swamp land for sale.

2. So we get hamburger instead of steak and were supposed to be happy because it's readily available and cheaper? Ugly women try to convince men to follow that train of thought too.

3. Oh, yes, Obama has insinuated that many times and so have his minions. Not to that extreme, but they have said better service at lower prices. I think the Mercedes/Yugo comment Ron made was hyperbole to help those who have a hard time understanding.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Longshot said:


> Ryan, the biggest problem I believe is that what they are proposing is poor at best. The majority of people want something done about health care costs, but not just anything. If this is such a great bill, then why do they exempt themselves from it? I would say they have no confidence in it themselves, but really don't care about you or me and only their own power and money. Have you really read the bill? If so, do you have any problems with it? So far I haven't heard any from you. I believe everyone should be questioning some of the items in this bill. Speaking of them being exempt, they should have the same Social Security we all do for retirement also. Look how well they have taken care of that being that they are exempt from that also. I highly doubt you or I will ever see a penny of it. I don't care what party they are from, none of them can be trusted to do what's best for us when all they care about is what's best for them. No needs to give then any more control than they already have.


Longshot

I gotta tell ya. I am as angry and cynical as you with this whole mess. Both sides of the Congressional aisle are full of Bull scat. This has nothing to do with the political leanings of any citizen. I'm pizzed off at the entire bunch of double talking politicians too... no matter what their stripe.

I think that they absolutely SHOULD make themselves a part of it. Without having personal skin in the game, they won't work hard enough to make sure the plan is comprehensive, bullet proof and achieves the objectives they set out to fix. This legislation is HUGE... comparable to when they first set up Social Security or Medicare.

Yes I have read large portions of the bill. On the one hand I'm angered by some of the intentional legalese and obscure references to other bills, amendments and policy. On the other hand, when you look at the bill you quickly come to realize that this issue is extremely complex, obtuse, and far reaching. You don't just change 80 years of policy overnight with 100 pages of corrections.

This is a complete, fundamental shift from the "old way" of doing medical business. Lots of folks have a huge monetary stake into keeping their pockets and coffers rich with the status quo. They are scared of change, because it might change how their cash cow gives milk. Change is scary. Let's face it.

I have a LOT of problems with how they have approached explaining the bill, and some of the verbage in the document. However it is a HUGE piece of legislation. The Medical cabal is a HUGE industry. Sure we'd like to get it done right. All of us want to ensure it gets done right. But we can't do it piecemeal. The votes are now in Congress to get it passed, if the Dems stick together. This scares the bejeezus out of the Industry. They realize that we are finally close to being pizzed off enough to do something. Now they just want to water down the effect of that underswell of citizen anger.

Here is a list of things I want in a perfect healthcare bill.

1. Tort reform is absolutely a deal breaker for the American people. We all recognize it. Let's start attacking those who won's support the reform. Stories like Plainsman's XRay story are all too everyday common. We need to reduce costs by helping doctors feel like they don't need so many extra tests and/or opinions to make decisions.

2. Better/Stronger accountability of doctors overcharging the system. We have an epidemic of Dr's who implicity or explicitly have staffs that code procedures, tests, etc in fraudulent ways. It causes the system to become grossly over expensive. By mandating set costs for certain basic routine procedures, the plan can ensure that we rein in these "extras" that are routinely charged to the public.

3. A strong public option is a necessity. We need something that will bring down costs. The medical insurance industry hasn't done it on their own, and they won't start now. Health Insurance is a huge industry, and their corporate lobby are working hard to prevent change. Why is that? Don't they want what is best for your health care? Small companies can't compete with larger companies who can negotiate substantial discounts on group coverage. This has the effect of costing small business more. There is simply no reason that in this day and age, Insurance companies can't charge that same low rate to smaller companies. None. A health insurance company exist as a "for-profit" entity is in direct opposition to their stated reason for being. Profits, not client needs come first. Take the drive to be profitable out of the equation and the needs of We the People become primary.

4. The Food & Drug Administration needs to be restructured from the ground up. A concerted effort must be made by both the President and Congress to give the FDA the authority to do the job they have been assigned. This agency lacks the authority to institute mandatory food and drug recalls, place price caps on pharmaceuticals and issue guidance on complementary medicine such as the use of supplements. Price caps NEED to be setup for the top 50 common medicines.

5. We need to cover the uninsured. They are killing our Emergency Rooms, driving them out of business in many large metro areas. How do we solve this? We should create a program whereby people can have undergraduate and post-graduate medical degrees paid for by the government (similar to the military) if they agree to work in a government clinic for 10 years after graduation. This could work for the 45 million uninsured and poor. It would provide cheap basic preventative medical care that consumes a bulk of the time/services of Emergency Rooms. It would free up ER's to be ER's.

If all of these are enacted you will see real substantive change.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Some good ideas Ryan, but I think you missed the mark on some. For example the insurance companies. From another thread:



> Strange Bedfellows? Industry Groups Join In Effort to Push Health Care Reform
> Healthy Economy Now -- a group that includes the pharmaceutical industry, doctors, union interests, business interests and advocacy groups -- is spending millions to pressure members of Congress to get on board with health care reform.


http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=72950

The insurance companies could make millions more with this plan if they play the game right. Just think if the government pays for another 47 million people. They could reduce their premiums and still increase their profit considerably. Perhaps by as much as 50% or more, I don't know. However, it's not going to kill the insurance companies of any of the medical industry, it's simply going to make insurance mandatory. More money for them in the end. It gives them a direct pipeline into our pocket through taxation. Just think the rich will be getting out taxes now also. All under the scam of caring about us. Now we are really talking ironic.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> 3. A strong public option is a necessity. We need something that will bring down costs. The medical insurance industry hasn't done it on their own, and they won't start now. Health Insurance is a huge industry, and their corporate lobby are working hard to prevent change. Why is that? Don't they want what is best for your health care? Small companies can't compete with larger companies who can negotiate substantial discounts on group coverage. This has the effect of costing small business more. There is simply no reason that in this day and age, Insurance companies can't charge that same low rate to smaller companies. None. A health insurance company exist as a "for-profit" entity is in direct opposition to their stated reason for being. Profits, not client needs come first. Take the drive to be profitable out of the equation and the needs of We the People become primary.


Ryan by doing 1, 2, 4 the costs will go down. Like i have mentioned time and time again. An insurance companies business model is every dollar taken in is spent. The concept of "every dollar that comes in goes out".....Now the dollar spent is on everything from profit to care.

If people really want to "open up" and "Create competition"....they need to change state laws and guide lines. Look at the article I think you posted awhile back about the lady in Oregon that the insurance company will pay for the drug that will end her life but not the "experimental" drug that could prolong it. You know why....it is because of the state laws enacted in Oregon. Also those state laws make it hard for other companies to do business so they decide not to work in that state.

There are over 60 health insurance companies in the United States. That is plenty of competition. But some play in one state and others don't because of laws and guidelines differ from state to state.

All I see the public option is creating less competition and driving other insurance companies out or just being a giant money pit that will be paid for by tax dollars. I see no good out of a public option. There are better ways to "create" competition.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> 4. The Food & Drug Administration needs to be restructured from the ground up. A concerted effort must be made by both the President and Congress to give the FDA the authority to do the job they have been assigned. This agency lacks the authority to institute mandatory food and drug recalls, place price caps on pharmaceuticals and issue guidance on complementary medicine such as the use of supplements. Price caps NEED to be setup for the top 50 common medicines.


Now on this issue......do you know it takes $10 billion to bring a drug to market. That is correct....billion. So a drug company is in the hole $10 billion before it can sell one pill. What goes into that amount.....testing, trials, research, etc. The sad thing is that the FDA makes it hard in the name of "protecting" the consumer. I agree that some of the guidelines are ok. But take a look at different drugs out there. Again they can't use the research from others. Even if the new pill is for the exact same thing. So that part needs to be looked at.

Also the 10 year period that a pill can corner the market. Here is an example....look at the little blue pill viagra. People heard it came out years ago. It was the only drug of that type on the market. The 10 year time period expired and now you can't turn on the TV with out seeing an ED ad. Get rid of that 10 year period. More pills more competition.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Question or two.

Why is it that Obama won't answer when asked if he and his family will be using the fantastic new health plan?

If this health plan is so damn good why has congress written an exemption for themselves into it? If it is so great, they should have to be enrolled too, shouldn't they?

Just things that I can't seem to find an answer to. Can't quite figure out why the people touting this plan refuse to take part in it. If it's good enough for the rest of us it should be good enough for them too.

huntin1


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan.....

You also brought up in your post one huge problem with this bill IMO....
It is hundreds and hundreds of pages long. In my mind that seem like they are biting off more than they can chew. That is also why people are not getting straight answers at town hall meetings because I firmly believe that the Congressmen and women don't have a clue as to what is all in the bill. So that is why people are getting angry.

I mean people have questions and are not getting answers. So that in turn creates fear, distrust, Skepticism, worry, panic, etc.

Look at the questions that come up on this website over the past week...
1. How will it get paid? (many things are getting looked at but not one decisive answer on how it will be paid for.)
2. Why are the Congressmen and women exempt?
3. What is the demographic make up of the 47 million uninsured?
4. How will it lower the costs?
5. Will the coverages be as good as in private sector?
6. How will it be cost effective and same coverage?
7. Are illegals covered?
8. Will the health care be rationed?
ETC... 
see these are all questions asked and there has not be a clearcut answer yet.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

and as we saw once before, there is nothing stopping a committee from adding 300 pages to the bill at 3:00 a.m. and taking a vote at noon the same day......sound familiar?? why yes, yes it does.....it was the 787 bil stimulus package! :******: :******:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> > 4. The Food & Drug Administration needs to be restructured from the ground up. A concerted effort must be made by both the President and Congress to give the FDA the authority to do the job they have been assigned. This agency lacks the authority to institute mandatory food and drug recalls, place price caps on pharmaceuticals and issue guidance on complementary medicine such as the use of supplements. Price caps NEED to be setup for the top 50 common medicines.
> 
> 
> Now on this issue......do you know it takes $10 billion to bring a drug to market. That is correct....billion. So a drug company is in the hole $10 billion before it can sell one pill. What goes into that amount.....testing, trials, research, etc. The sad thing is that the FDA makes it hard in the name of "protecting" the consumer. I agree that some of the guidelines are ok. But take a look at different drugs out there. Again they can't use the research from others. Even if the new pill is for the exact same thing. So that part needs to be looked at.
> ...


Chuck, I've seen you quote the above time and time again. But I think you answered your own question. No company is going to invest in the R and D to bring a pill to the market unless they know they can have that ten year period to make their profits. If you can make a better pill, you will also get the 10 year period. I don't see this as the problem you make it out to be.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> Ryan.....
> 
> You also brought up in your post one huge problem with this bill IMO....
> It is hundreds and hundreds of pages long. In my mind that seem like they are biting off more than they can chew. That is also why people are not getting straight answers at town hall meetings because I firmly believe that the Congressmen and women don't have a clue as to what is all in the bill. So that is why people are getting angry.
> ...


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

I think people have figured out that Obama is trying to get everything he wants before they figure him out.

Why rebuild the engine when it only needs a tuneup. I agree that the health system needs some tweaking but not like it is being proposed.

Why not slow down. I saw somewhere that the majority of people are happy with their coverage as is.

Why won't the administration put more effort getting people back to work instead of trying to figure out how charge more taxes to try and fund these programs. Drop taxes on those willing to put money into new/old companies that hire people.

People working equals people/business being able to afford health insurance.

I am self employed and my insurance is $216. a month and I am almost 59 years old. Less than most new car payments that the gov is trying to get everyone involved in.

No business is to big to go belly up. That is what the bankrupcy system is for. Smaller viable companies would have bought up a lot of these companies (or parts of) and we would be pulling out at light speed from this downturn.

Don't tell me that this is a Bush mess, He started it but our dear leader could have done the right thing and turned it around but no he had to lead us deeper and deeper. :******:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck, I've seen you quote the above time and time again. But I think you answered your own question. No company is going to invest in the R and D to bring a pill to the market unless they know they can have that ten year period to make their profits. If you can make a better pill, you will also get the 10 year period. I don't see this as the problem you make it out to be.


Sea bass.....what I mean is make the guidelines and laws for bringing a drug to market cost less. ie....less R & D, not so many trials, cut out the red tape that these companies have to jump through, let them use other research findings, etc.

I agree that they will want to make their money back and then some. But you can cut a Patent down to 5 years instead of 10. Also one that some of these companies are doing is finding a generic version during R & D but will not be able to bring it to market until the 10 year period is up.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> > Chuck, I've seen you quote the above time and time again. But I think you answered your own question. No company is going to invest in the R and D to bring a pill to the market unless they know they can have that ten year period to make their profits. If you can make a better pill, you will also get the 10 year period. I don't see this as the problem you make it out to be.
> 
> 
> Sea bass.....what I mean is make the guidelines and laws for bringing a drug to market cost less. ie....less R & D, not so many trials, cut out the red tape that these companies have to jump through, let them use other research findings, etc.
> ...


okay, but the six billion you are quoting is by far going to R and D, not the gov-mandated trials at the end. While I agree the process needs to be streamlined, I don't like the idea of loosening up the strigency of how safe our meds are (which is what i imagine would happen if we wanted to "cheapen" the system).

How do you know you can cut the patent down to five years instead of 10? What stats are you using to derive this? How much are you "allowing" the companies to make then?

Do you know how simple it is for a company to make a "generic" version of a pill once the original pill is out in the market? It seems hardly fair to me that the copycat company can utilize all the R and D of the first company and then simply underprice them with a generic version. After all, they can sell it much more cheaply since they didn't spend $$ in R and D.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Do you know how simple it is for a company to make a "generic" version of a pill once the original pill is out in the market? It seems hardly fair to me that the copycat company can utilize all the R and D of the first company and then simply underprice them with a generic version. After all, they can sell it much more cheaply since they didn't spend $$ in R and D.


I agree with you on that seabass. I don't want to hurt the companies, or interfere to much with the free market system, but something is wrong. When people travel to Canada to buy their prescription medicine when it is made here in the United States we are being taken advantage of. Find that flaw and correct it would be a start.



> I don't like the idea of loosening up the strigency of how safe our meds are (which is what i imagine would happen if we wanted to "cheapen" the system).


Me either, but seabass you and I both know the researchers often milk that system for all it's worth before giving it up.  One place they can cut the time involved is for terminal patients who want the medicine. Another place they can shorten up the time involved with testing is when it has been proven save in another country by it's use for many years. For example (I don't remember the exact number), but about 70 children per day, or per week, were stung by scorpions in April, in Tuscon Arizona. Mexico for years has been using a safe anti venom that greatly reduces the trauma the child goes through for the next couple of days. Here in the United States they still have not released that drug, and I read about this five years ago.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> okay, but the six billion you are quoting is by far going to R and D, not the gov-mandated trials at the end. While I agree the process needs to be streamlined, I don't like the idea of loosening up the strigency of how safe our meds are (which is what i imagine would happen if we wanted to "cheapen" the system


I don't want to "cheapen" or cut corners to bring a drug to market. But friends of mine tell me that the majority of the billions spent on not only R&D but the trials. I think it is something where a trial needs to be out for 5 years or so. I am not 100% sure but it is something like that.

I also agree that the generic should not come out and under cut the people who put in the time. But many companies own the patent on both the generic and the original.

But look at it this way. You have two companies doing research on a drug to cure something. One gets it to market and patents it. The other company a day later could be ready with the same type of drug but is out of luck for 10 years because they did not patent it first. See the flaw.



> How do you know you can cut the patent down to five years instead of 10? What stats are you using to derive this? How much are you "allowing" the companies to make then?


I have no stats because you can't do it.....this is one thing to look at to bring down costs.....more competition between drug companies. This way one can't corner the market for 10 years......Look at Phiser and Viagra....they made a killing for those 10 years. Now like I mentioned before you can't open your email account or turn on the TV without seeing some other ED ad.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> But look at it this way. You have two companies doing research on a drug to cure something. One gets it to market and patents it. The other company a day later could be ready with the same type of drug but is out of luck for 10 years because they did not patent it first. See the flaw.


No I don't. That's how the free market works. It's a race to the finish line.



> I have no stats because you can't do it.....this is one thing to look at to bring down costs.....more competition between drug companies. This way one can't corner the market for 10 years......Look at Phiser and Viagra....they made a killing for those 10 years. Now like I mentioned before you can't open your email account or turn on the TV without seeing some other ED ad.


I think I'm just repeating myself... but...of course Phizer and Viagra made a killing. They spent money on R and D and made a product that no one else has before... shouldn't they make the money? Shouldn't they recoup what they've invested and reap a profit?

I think if we shorten the timeline to five years, you are decreasing the incentive to produce high quality drugs.

Again, things can be streamlined for sure.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> No I don't. That's how the free market works. It's a race to the finish line.





> but...of course Phizer and Viagra made a killing. They spent money on R and D and made a product that no one else has before... shouldn't they make the money? Shouldn't they recoup what they've invested and reap a profit?


Seabass you are starting to sound like a conservative. :beer: 

I agree 100% that a company should reap the benefits. But if people want cheaper medicine they have to change and streamline the process. They need to make a shorter window for a company to reap the benefits. Look at it like this....that company can charge what every they want for that drug. It could $1 - $1000 a pill to make up the cost and rake in profit in those 10 years because they have no competition. If people need that pill they will pay for it or the insurance company will pay for it. In turn higher premiums.

You see it is like price fixing which our nation has many rules against in other industries and professions. That drug company can set a price and stick to it because no other competition.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Seabass you are starting to sound like a conservative.


Ya, I was sitting here with a big smile thinking the same thing. I think there are a lot more people who are more conservative than we think. It's like that joke about the girl coming home talking to her father and complaining that she had an A in a class, and her friend that parties all the time got an F, but the teacher averaged it and gave everyone a C. She complained that she worked hard and her friend didn't work at all and it wasn't fair. Her father said welcome to the conservative world. What appears to be separating us today is not so much that attitude as gay marriage, abortion, and the role of government in our lives.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is my biggest problem with the purposed bill is that they all are wanting a public option. I firmly believe it will be the biggest mistake in the history of the USA if this Public option is formed. This article was posted in a different thread but hits the nail on the head so well.



> http://online.wsj.com/article/.....46168.html
> The Truth About Health Insurance
> Only nine states have the costly rules that Obama wants to impose nationwide.
> 
> ...


To make the current system affordable....include tax credits, assistance programs for people laid off or people who can't afford it, tax credits for employers who offer coverage, etc. Instead of dumping billions of $$$ into a public option.

Some of the highlighted things in that article is what I have been talking about all along that people tell me won't happen. Hmmm....I guess a few others in the country agree with my thinking.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

You know I have been a bit busy and forgot about this thread. Ryan again spins away a couple of very important points. First in regards to the person in St Louis, he was there doing a job selling products as you said. Witnesses according to you claim he started the fight. Recent articles concerning this have clearly stated he entered into a verbal discourse that became argumentative but it was not he who started the physical altercation. It was the Union thugs sent their to disrupt anyone who was not supportive of the HC plan. So I say again, he would not have needed the insurance if not for the actions of the thugs!!!!!

Lowering of costs, it is a myth that the Gov will lower costs, the Gov with Medicare to lower its costs, cuts payments to providers. That does not equate to lower costs or increases in services. What it will do is reduce service delivery.

Clinics and hospitals cannot and will stay open if they cannot be profitable. To do this with the costs cuts and increased demand for services just what will happen? We already have a shortage of doctors, hospitals already are using CNA, and LPN's to do services that RN's normally would do and in many cases should do. So staff cuts or wage freezes will occur as payroll is much easier to trim than building overhead costs.

Lets simply look around the state of MN and ND! How many branch clinics have closed recently? Most because services provided at them vs in Fargo or Bismarck are paid at a lower rate. That rate is set by Medicare, private insurance follows Medicare in many cases on what they deem reasonable and customary. So you have a captive market as a health provider. You are not making enough money to remain profitable and you really cannot raise your charges as a bulk of your business is Medicare driven. So you make your customers come to a place where you get paid more. Their costs increase because of travel, but the Gov program is costing them again only many do not get that!

Then there is the example of the VA you gave, well Ryan, just where do the cancer, and heart patients get treatment in Fargo? It is not the VA! They farm out that service to Merit Care or Inovis depending on the choice of the patient.

Next is getting approved for VA benefits, that is a whole subject upon itself. I happen to have Desert Storm vets, and our current vets living in my neighborhood. People I can call friends, people I have a beer with,bbq's etc... Most of them have lingering issues from skin disorders, hearing loss, etc... Some have mental stress issues as well. None of them are happy with the VA! Some are lucky in that they have private insurance that is covering them. Others do not!

There is more Ryan, but it is late and I need some sleep. I will say that you have some good ideas and as others pointed out need some tweaking, but at least you are thinking about the issue. Most of us are as well. Without a doubt, I agree with what I hear and see regarding polls. Which is that we as US citizens truly want reform, but flat out reject the plan and ideas that the Dem Congress has presented. Which is not the same as being against HC reform as it is being portrayed.

Oh and by the way did you like the planted questionnaires Nobama has had at his so called Town meetings???? What a joke to call them Town Hall meetings when you have pre approved questioners and questions!!!!!

Then the biggest plant!!!! The so called doctor in TX who was brought in and given a front row seat. Hell she does not hold a license!!!!!!!!


----------

