# Welcome to My Country!



## swampthing (Mar 15, 2010)

We call it the USSA ( United Socialist States of America) ...pull up a chair on the porch. No sense going to work. The government is going to take care of us all...Obama, Osama whats the difference? One of them was bound to take us down.


----------



## randy806 (Feb 10, 2006)

Yes we are now commies :roll:

Funny how some people seem to think this is the first and only government run social program this country has ever seen.
Not saying I agree with this plan,but I'm also willing to see how it works out over time,there are a few points in it that may,over time,actually help the working guy and small business owners,time will tell.

I understand a lot of peoples hesitation ,but I also think a large number of people are against it simply because it's obama and the democrats,they could give a crap about whether something maybe good,no matter what the issue,they will be against it simply on stupid *** political lines,narrow minded people that actually do more harm to this country than help it (like most politicians in DC)


----------



## swampthing (Mar 15, 2010)

I'm very open minded....thats why I don't like many politicians....The average person wants small government and low taxes....both parties have done nothing but expand the government and spend money. They work for us, we need to fire them all!


----------



## swampthing (Mar 15, 2010)

randy806 said:


> Yes we are now commies :roll:
> 
> Funny how some people seem to think this is the first and only government run social program this country has ever seen.
> Not saying I agree with this plan,but I'm also willing to see how it works out over time,there are a few points in it that may,over time,actually help the working guy and small business owners,time will tell.
> ...


And by the way. Since Oboma took over, the government has taken control of nearly 50% of the economy. Socialist...roll your frickin eyes, but get used to it....No wait never mind, Palosi will invent a new word so blind people like you will swallow it like a candie coated cat turd!!!!!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

randy806 said:


> Not saying I agree with this plan,but I'm also willing to see how it works out over time,


I bet you were one of those people that said the same thing about Obama. :roll:

I mean, hey, all his campaign promises have come true, right? He brought transparency to the gov't, stopped the rhetoric, worked in a nice, bi-partisan manner. Didnt he?


----------



## randy806 (Feb 10, 2006)

I'm not blind at all,this could well turn out to be a pile of crap,but with that being said if it means that down the road I could get medical insurance for myself and my employees with out paying an arm and leg like I am now then I say lets try something. 
Have you really looked at it? there are a couple things in it that MAY be a benefit for the average person .

As far as the government taking control of the economy,well if they didn't stick there fingers in what would have been the alternative? I would have liked to seen all the wall street idiots go down the drain, but then we would have really went into an economic tailspin that would have made the last couple of years seem prosperous,if that happened how many would be blaming that on obama?

I would prefer the Federal government to back way the hell up,stay out of the individual states business,but the fact of the matter is the federal government has been creeping in steadily for the last number of decades,hell how many years did the republicans control Washington,and in that time what did they do to lessen big government? so the whole obama is turning us into commies is what the rightwing republicans want everyone to think is happening only because of the current administration,when it has really been going on with both parties for a while.

I never once mentioned you or pointed to you in my previous post,so when you call me blind and insinuate that I will swallow what ever they feed me, just comes across as an insult because I don't agree with you.

I'm actually quite conservative,in the true sense ,not what the current version of what the hard right has everyone thinking conservative means,I'm not a commie or socialist,did my time in the service,just want the country to move forward instead of the political bullcrap that's keeps us from moving forward.


----------



## randy806 (Feb 10, 2006)

barebackjack said:


> randy806 said:
> 
> 
> > Not saying I agree with this plan,but I'm also willing to see how it works out over time,
> ...


Has there ever been a politician that came through on most(if any) campaign promises? are you saying you actually believe some of them ?
and you think I'm blind.
I haven't really believed any of their promises since I voted for Reagan.


----------



## pre-war (Mar 24, 2010)

randy806 said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > randy806 said:
> ...


Are you referring to Ron Reagan who secretly sold weapons to foreign countries to fund the contra's in central america? He didn't tell anyone about it? Why'd you vote for him....he really didn't keep promises.


----------



## randy806 (Feb 10, 2006)

And that's why I said "haven't believed since" ,pretty much got a clue then.


----------



## swampthing (Mar 15, 2010)

Sir, kindly accept my apology. I did not mean to attack or insult you....nothing can be gained from that anyway. IF we wanted to do that we could both go to washington.....We could jack each other up and talk bad about our mommas all day so we would not have to face the real problems....Fox news and the rest would make millions talking about us talking about each other, and the American people would sit and listen to it....while nothing is getting done.......OH wait that has what has been happening for 20 years....With that thought in mind....AT least the Democrats did "something" about health care......I don't care much for what Bush and his bunch did.....As far as what would have happened and the government bailouts......I think the free market would have worked.....GM and all others would have either pulled themselves up by the boot straps or failed....Had they failed (and this is the important part).....Another company would step in to fill the void....If that company did not do things more efficiantly, they would also fail. Sounds like you run your own Business. My hat is off to you....You are the salt of the earth. maybe you are right...some good may come of this, but I hate the way it was shoved down our throats...And I fear it.....Can you name one thing that the government does well?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> Have you really looked at it? there are a couple things in it that MAY be a benefit for the average person .


If it is such a good plan why is it that they have included an exemption for themselves? The rest of us are being force to accept a plan that most don't agree with, while those that put the plan into effect are not required to use it. Sounds a bit fishy does it not?

The health insurance industry may need an overhaul, and I won't pretend that I have the answers, but the plan that "der commissar" and his minions have shoved down our throat is not it.

huntin1


----------



## swampthing (Mar 15, 2010)

huntin1 said:


> > Have you really looked at it? there are a couple things in it that MAY be a benefit for the average person .
> 
> 
> If it is such a good plan why is it that they have included an exemption for themselves? The rest of us are being force to accept a plan that most don't agree with, while those that put the plan into effect are not required to use it. Sounds a bit fishy does it not?
> ...


Amen!!!!thats what I was screaming while they were trying to pass this turd....pass one health care plan for the American people to include it's representatives.....OH wait, silly me.....I forgot...this is not a republic....the politicians are royalty...they get the red carpet plan


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Fixing the current healthcare system in this country is all fine and dandy. But, if your going to fix a problem, go after the REAL problems within the system.

This "plan" is like putting a new transmission in a vehicle with a tail light burnt out. It costs a hell of a lot more money, and doesn't fix whats really broke in the system.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

barebackjack said:


> Fixing the current healthcare system in this country is all fine and dandy. But, if your going to fix a problem, go after the REAL problems within the system.
> 
> .


i wish we would'nt have to be so "politically correct" on this site so we could mention the REAL problem :******:


----------



## swampthing (Mar 15, 2010)

bearhunter said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Fixing the current healthcare system in this country is all fine and dandy. But, if your going to fix a problem, go after the REAL problems within the system.
> ...


Define" politically correct" please....I'm an old fart who just graduated college 5 years ago....I asked several proffesors to put some light on the subject....they never could, so I helped them out.....I said "being politically correct is a new nice way of being two faced....you can use the term to get all warm and fuzzy with yourself if you spend your days telling people what they want to hear instead of what you really think" .......Personally, I got no use for PC crap. If you don't like the way I think and think I'm a a-hole.....Tell me so, hell nickname me a-hole if you want to, but it probably won't change the way I think.....My mother loved me. i could tell by all the time she spent whipping my tail when I did the things that American boys do....I know...I'm ranting....I 'll shut up.....PC my arse...god &%$#*%#...is that not the dumbest combination of 2 words ever......if it has to do with politics, howoften is it correct?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Aww come on swampthing, tell us how you really feel. :laugh:

I'm with ya, kind of brings to mind this:






huntin1


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

randy806 said:


> I'm not blind at all,this could well turn out to be a pile of crap,but with that being said if it means that down the road I could get medical insurance for myself and my employees with out paying an arm and leg like I am now then I say lets try something.
> Have you really looked at it? there are a couple things in it that MAY be a benefit for the average person .
> 
> .


You said the key word there, may. If this works out, if that works out, IF everything comes together it will if it doesn't we are in trouble. Like the old saying goes, if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

I don't have all the answers either, what I can say for sure is that had there been some of the bi-partisanship that Obama promised during his campaign we would have had tort reform and some other measures to lower pharmaceutical costs. That would have for sure lowered HC costs up front.

Instead we got reconciliation from pelosi, the exact thing that Obama called pig politics during his campaing.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Fixing the current healthcare system in this country is all fine and dandy. But, if your going to fix a problem, go after the REAL problems within the system.
> 
> This "plan" is like putting a new transmission in a vehicle with a tail light burnt out. It costs a hell of a lot more money, and doesn't fix whats really broke in the system.


Ok....I will state this over and over again. People complain that Health Insurance cost too much. Well Health Insurance costs so much because Health Care costs a lot hospitals need to bill out large sums to pay for its operating costs.

Insurance in a nutshell.....The how your auto insurance is calculated is based on the cost of parts, cost of labor to fix your vehicle, your driving record, claims history, age of drivers and drivers experience, etc. Your homeowners insurance premium is calculated on cost of materials to rebuild your home, where you live and frequecny of storms and natural disasters, cost of labor to rebuild your home, etc.

So with health insurance it is calculated with the cost of doctor care, hospital stays, drugs, surgical costs, age, health of a person, etc. Then we will just say with hospitals.....they have costs....ie insurance on building, insurance for malpractice, cost of running the hospital (utilities, medical employees, other employees, etc), etc. Does any of the health care bill help lower the costs for hospitals to do business?????

So how much of this bill is directed at the actual costs of health care??? Not many. Yes they are going to revamp medicare and how it pays. But many hospitals are starting to already not accept medicare for payment. hmmmm....so is this really going to help?

Not much of this bill helps lower the costs for hospitals, drug costs, medical device costs, etc. So it won't really make health insurance costs drop! And yes it is that simple.....Lower the costs of medical procedures and health insurance will lower in price.

I mean you can go into "Pools" and what not....but if the cost of medical procedures does not drop.....your "Pool" insurance costs will not drop. The older the "Pool" gets the higher the costs for that "Pool". Unless you get younger and healthier people into that "Pool". Which why would young healthy people want to join that "pool" if they can start their own "pool" with young and healthy people. It makes no sense. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I don't have all the answers either, what I can say for sure is that had there been some of the bi-partisanship that Obama promised during his campaign we would have had tort reform and some other measures to lower pharmaceutical costs. That would have for sure lowered HC costs up front.


Yep two ways to lower costs for hospitals right here..... Tort Reform to help lower malpractice insurance costs for hospitals. pharmaceuticals..... It takes something like 10 billion....yes billion to get a drug to market (testing, FDA regulations, marketing, more testing, research, etc). Then that drug has a 10 year patent on that product. So no other drugl that gets developed that does the same thing can be brought to market to cause competition.....hmmmm. Is something wrong here. Maybe make it cheaper and easier for drugs to get to market and maybe not have the patent last 10 years to promote competition. Then look at the malpractice insurance for pharma companies.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> > I don't have all the answers either, what I can say for sure is that had there been some of the bi-partisanship that Obama promised during his campaign we would have had tort reform and some other measures to lower pharmaceutical costs. That would have for sure lowered HC costs up front.
> 
> 
> Yep two ways to lower costs for hospitals right here..... Tort Reform to help lower malpractice insurance costs for hospitals. pharmaceuticals..... It takes something like 10 billion....yes billion to get a drug to market (testing, FDA regulations, marketing, more testing, research, etc). Then that drug has a 10 year patent on that product. So no other drugl that gets developed that does the same thing can be brought to market to cause competition.....hmmmm. Is something wrong here. Maybe make it cheaper and easier for drugs to get to market and maybe not have the patent last 10 years to promote competition. Then look at the malpractice insurance for pharma companies.


Chuck, we've gone over this again and again... you assume that the billions of dollars is due to government mandates, but its the cost of producing a high quality drug in America. It's called research and development, period. If you want your medicine to be the product of voodoo science, go to honduras or China and get your meds. While you're in China, pick up some (melamine-tainted) milk.

And patetns last 20 years in the U.S., not 10.

The much maligned tort reform excuse I believe is over-inflated. I've read several times that tort reform is peanuts in relation to the overall cost of health care.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

If you are talking about the litigation costs of malpractice suits, yes it is peanuts. Ever go to the doctor with a common problem only to have them do a whole bunch of tests for nothing? Thank the civil lawyers. Ever go to the doctor and have them pull out a bag of tools and supplies? That bag or package is used only once and then all the contents are tossed, whether they use one item or 10. Why, thank the civil lawyers. Back a few years ago tools were used, sterilized, and used again. They had packs of supplies that they used up, not anymore. It is all disposable now, waste waste waste. And who is paying for that? It is the overall cost of lawsuit prevention and *** covering that is out of control. This is a problem not unique to healthcare unfortunately.

Once again, I get my info from my wife, the nurse. Her friend the nurse practitioner, and my mother in law who has been in medical supplies for about 20 years.

With the exception of muslims I usually agree with most of what you say, what I don't agree with I respect. I don't know where you get your info from seabass but I think you are way off on this one.

These lawyers and pretend do-gooders will not be happy until they legislate and litigate our country to complete self destruction, while lining their own pockets. People need to wake up and see them for what they are, crooks. Just like their corporate whore counterparts.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

You know I get your point, but I don't believe it's all due to civil lawyers. I think it's also our culture and our need to know what's wrong immediately.

I also think you are dead wrong about the "re-washing" of tools. I'm a scientist and my wife is a mid-level practioner; you know how much time it takes to re-wash and re-sterilize a tool? You know, scrape the ol' blood off, disinfect it, and then autoclave it for good measure? It takes time and money. It's not just in hospitals (as you mentioned), but in laboratories (ag to medical) all over the world we are in a new phase of buying things pre-sterilized and then throwing them out.... everything is disposable. You don't make your own solutions for a simple experiment now, you buy them pre-made and guaranteed to work. My predecessors would be rolling over in their grave if they saw what looks like waste. However, time is also money and it's simply faster and safer to get out a new kit. Not to mention that autoclaving tools can be hard on them over time, but it's the only proven sure-bet method of completely sterilizing a tool. I say pre-sterilized tools are safer because, bar-none, a fresh tool out of a bag is going to be free of bugs way more often than a self-sterilized one. So, you attribute all of this to worry about law suits but I think that is only partially the blame.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Tk, I just want to mention also that I certainly agree with you that anywhere we can get some savings, we need to pursue it. The problem is multi-faceted and I think we have to find savings here and there to make this work.

It's easy to see what you mentioned as hospital waste, but let's say you are in for a simple knee surgery; do you want the surgeon to reach over for a forceps that was hand-washed/sterilized by a low-paid technician and theoretically should be clean, or do you want them to reach for the forceps from gamma-irriadiated bag that you know is clean. I think I'd choose the latter because it's our personal health at stake. So, given the opportunity, most people go the more expensive route when they are talking about themselves and their health.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck, we've gone over this again and again... you assume that the billions of dollars is due to government mandates, but its the cost of producing a high quality drug in America. It's called research and development, period. If you want your medicine to be the product of voodoo science, go to honduras or China and get your meds. While you're in China, pick up some (melamine-tainted) milk.
> 
> And patetns last 20 years in the U.S., not 10.
> 
> The much maligned tort reform excuse I believe is over-inflated. I've read several times that tort reform is peanuts in relation to the overall cost of health care.


Are you sure drugs are not 10 years. Viagria (i mention because all you see is ED ads on TV.) had a strangle hold for 10 years...then the other companies came to light....I am getting my info from my friends who are pharmacuetical salesmen...or once were.

Yes I understand the the R/D....but who mandates that? Who makes these companies do all the R/D. My friends tell me that they have to do the same tests over and over. They say it is a waste and one of the main reasons why drugs cost so much. My friends also state that it takes 10 years to get a drug to market. When sometimes it is ready in 5 but yet they have to keep doing testing. WASTE....that gets passed onto the consumer! Another reason why is because of the patent. That is why Canada's drugs cost less....they get the generic version out quicker.

But at least agree there is waste in ours practices in the medical industry. In which costs rise or what is basic costs....now how much of the HC bill was directed at this??? NONE. So a way to cut the cost of HC which in turn cuts the cost of insurance was taken care of....NONE. Then the unnecessary tests that are done to cover the back side of hospitals for the fear of litigation.....TORT REFORM....not even touched. How about the sharing of these tests....ie one hospital being able to take a test done from another hospital and they don't have to retest because of fear of litigation....not in this bill. So with the drugs, medical wasting of equipment, and tort reform..... Three direct ways to cut actual medical costs....was not in this bill!

Please tell me where in this HC bill did it directly cut the costs of actual medical procedures, cost of medical devices, drug costs, operating costs of hospitals, etc. Because I did not find one. They talk about how they will pay for procedures and what not. But that is just cutting funding to hospitals. So now hospitals will have a shortage of $$$ and will be running in the Red because they still have to pay drug companies, employees, medical device companies, etc. With hospitals and clinics running in the red could lead to more legislation, loss of jobs, facilities closing down, etc.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> Are you sure drugs are not 10 years.


I'm pretty sure it's always been 20 years. Could be wrong.



> My friends tell me that they have to do the same tests over and over. They say it is a waste and one of the main reasons why drugs cost so much. My friends also state that it takes 10 years to get a drug to market. When sometimes it is ready in 5 but yet they have to keep doing testing. WASTE....that gets passed onto the consumer!


I just don't see that as waste. How do you know it's waste? Because your friend said so? The company (and your buddy) has an obvious vested interest in getting the drug to market as fast as possible, sure... that' doesn't mean they are right. Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I want to make darn sure I'm not giving my kids, my wife, or myself anything but exactly what we need when we get meds. Again, i'm sure you're right that there is some waste here. I'm just not willing to give a blanket statement that says all this testing is a waste.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> So now hospitals will have a shortage of $$$ and will be running in the Red because they still have to pay drug companies, employees, medical device companies, etc. With hospitals and clinics running in the red could lead to more legislation, loss of jobs, facilities closing down, etc.


By the way, most hospital related stocks rose after the healthcare bill was passed. Hospitals are destined to get more business with a new batch of now-insured patients darkening their doors. If I were to choose a new profession, I'd pick something in healthcare.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...health-care-stocks-close-up-after-overhaul-ok


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I have been told some drugs have finished the required testing and have to wait to be brought to market because of the time line. I have also been told they the drug has passed tests and has to go to another testing facility to be retested for the same tests. Yes there is waste. I understand that these people have vested interest to get the drug to the public. But some drugs are kept on hold. Some cancer drugs were ready for market years before they were brought to market because of FDA rules.

Now I agree that i want all the testing done before I get it. I want the product to be perfect. But when drugs get held back because of goverment red tape (which many do) it is pure BS.

Another place where I get my info is a friend is an actuary for a health insurance company. She tells me of all the waste in actual health care. But insurance companies have to charge because they have to pay for it. She tells me of all the the waste in procedures, drug costs, etc. She tells me about how tort reform would have been huge in cutting costs for hospitals. She crunches the numbers yearly. Medical costs keep rising and insurance companies have to charge.

Again when people talk about health insurance companies making huge profits (they do) they really don't understand why they make huge profits. The simple fact is people don't use their insurance. Here is a fine example. I pay $5000 a year in Health Insurance..... I have not gone to the doctor in over 10 years. So that is pure profit. How many people are in this same boat...... millions!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> By the way, most hospital related stocks rose after the healthcare bill was passed. Hospitals are destined to get more business with a new batch of now-insured patients darkening their doors. If I were to choose a new profession, I'd pick something in healthcare.
> 
> http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market ... verhaul-ok


Here is a little fact I got from people who work for Mayo Clinic. They told me that Mayo will run in the red or go bankrupt in 10 years if they keep accepting Medicare and Medicad patients. With 1 in 3 people covered by medicare and medicad in this nation how will this bode for hospitals?

Yes I agree that some new patients will go into the hospital and they will be insured. But it will be a drop in the bucket. How many of the uninsured in the nation are healthy and just don't purchase insurance so they won't go to the hospitals?

I won't go into the fact that the slight rise is artificial.....just like cash for clunkers.

About picking a new profession....so would I with the baby boomers getting older it would make for more people using the hospitals.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> I have been told some drugs have finished the required testing and have to wait to be brought to market because of the time line. I have also been told they the drug has passed tests and has to go to another testing facility to be retested for the same tests. Yes there is waste. I understand that these people have vested interest to get the drug to the public. But some drugs are kept on hold. Some cancer drugs were ready for market years before they were brought to market because of FDA rules.
> 
> Now I agree that i want all the testing done before I get it. I want the product to be perfect. But when drugs get held back because of goverment red tape (which many do) it is pure BS.
> 
> ...


Of course your friend told you that! She'son the insurance side! Everyone points fingers at everyone else.

The reason they have to get re-tested is because often you need independent places to run tests to make sure everything is legit. Again, what you call waste someone in the business will just simply say thats the price of a safe drug.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> > By the way, most hospital related stocks rose after the healthcare bill was passed. Hospitals are destined to get more business with a new batch of now-insured patients darkening their doors. If I were to choose a new profession, I'd pick something in healthcare.
> >
> > http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market ... verhaul-ok
> 
> ...


How do you know its' a "drop in the bucket?" ARe you an insurance industry insider? or are you rubbing your crystal ball? 32 million americans will now have healthcare (or whatever figure you want to use), will that not help offset the babyboomer numbers?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

yes i work in the insurance industry. 30 million out of over 300 million people in the USA is only 10%. So adding 10% more to the pool will only be a drop in the bucket. Now add into the fact that out of that 30 million....how many are healthy, moderately healthy or really sick? Nobody knows those numbers. So yes a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck Smith wrote:I have been told some drugs have finished the required testing and have to wait to be brought to market because of the time line. I have also been told they the drug has passed tests and has to go to another testing facility to be retested for the same tests. Yes there is waste. I understand that these people have vested interest to get the drug to the public. But some drugs are kept on hold. Some cancer drugs were ready for market years before they were brought to market because of FDA rules.
> 
> Now I agree that i want all the testing done before I get it. I want the product to be perfect. But when drugs get held back because of goverment red tape (which many do) it is pure BS.
> 
> ...


It is funny I am telling of people who work directly with HC and see the flaws in the HC bill. Yet you still say these people are wrong. I have people from all sides telling me that this bill won't do what the people who passed it says it will do. These people work on all sides....insurance, in hospitals, in pharma, etc. All say the same thing. Some are hard core Dems, some are Reps. They say this bill is complete [email protected]#T. Is your head so far in the sand not to see some of the info I am giving you.

I mean 1 out of 3 people are insured through Medicare and Medicad. So changing the payment structure will make more hospitals not accept Medicare or Medicad because lowering what they pay will make more hospitals run in the red. So what will happen.....these people will have coverage (so not violating the law), but can't get care or only get care at selected facilities.

Some of the stuff in the bill is good....ie keeping kids on until 26, not being able to be denied insurance for pre- existing, etc. But the rest won't do a damn thing to lower the actual problem.....medical costs! If medical costs keep rising...so will insurance....period!


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

I read all your posts and neither of you talked about letting the insurance companies start locking horns on cost. Somehow some have managed to get areas that other companies can't sell in. Competition between the companies would drive down the prices. The people would weed out the bad ones in good time. Not a gov subsidized healthcare plan. Gov. subsidies only temporally inflate things until they either run out of funding or are forced to raise more money by raising taxes to an even higher level. In other words somebody will pay. Nothing is free. Some of all the things you both have mentioned would be a great help. But the bipartisan politics that our dear leader didn't want to allow caused the whole mess to be exactly that a "mess"!


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

That's definiately part of the solution.

The dems at repubs are at polar opposites with this thing, I don't think bi-partisanship could have happened! I hope, along with the rest of you, that this is as Obama puts it the "first step." I think it will be honed down into a better deal in time.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I read all your posts and neither of you talked about letting the insurance companies start locking horns on cost. Somehow some have managed to get areas that other companies can't sell in. Competition between the companies would drive down the prices. The people would weed out the bad ones in good time. Not a gov subsidized healthcare plan. Gov. subsidies only temporally inflate things until they either run out of funding or are forced to raise more money by raising taxes to an even higher level. In other words somebody will pay. Nothing is free. Some of all the things you both have mentioned would be a great help. But the bipartisan politics that our dear leader didn't want to allow caused the whole mess to be exactly that a "mess"!


I agree 100%.

Shine....I have talked about this in other posts. The problem is individual states. You get different "basic" coverage from one state to the next. In MN "basic" coverage is different than in NC. When one state makes an insurance company cover more it will cost more in that state. This will make insurance companies not do business in that state.

What this bill needed to do is say.....all states basic policies need to cover XYZ. Then if *you* want coverage for ABC *you as a client* would *elect to purchase* these coverages for more cost *to you as a client because you chose too*. (the bold is to show that the person is in charge of their own coverage...not the goverment.) This would have created competition. But like I have stated in other threads.....it was not done.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> That's definiately part of the solution.
> 
> The dems at repubs are at polar opposites with this thing, I don't think bi-partisanship could have happened! I hope, along with the rest of you, that this is as Obama puts it the "first step." I think it will be honed down into a better deal in time.


I think they just rushed to push this bill through....just like some of the other bills. I think that if the Dems in power (i am not blaming the president) did not rush to push this through by cutting deals and what not....it could have been more bi-partisan. But when some of that started to happen people go pi$$ed and then they took the US against THEM stance. Which I blame both sides. Now all you see on the news is.... Wait until NOV elections...BS. The Rep that say this are just as much a part of the problem.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

seabass said:


> Tk, I just want to mention also that I certainly agree with you that anywhere we can get some savings, we need to pursue it. The problem is multi-faceted and I think we have to find savings here and there to make this work.
> 
> It's easy to see what you mentioned as hospital waste, but let's say you are in for a simple knee surgery; do you want the surgeon to reach over for a forceps that was hand-washed/sterilized by a low-paid technician and theoretically should be clean, or do you want them to reach for the forceps from gamma-irriadiated bag that you know is clean. I think I'd choose the latter because it's our personal health at stake. So, given the opportunity, most people go the more expensive route when they are talking about themselves and their health.


I agree on that but why all the waste? Putting logical restrictions on civil suits is a guaranteed savings. DC has no trouble opening up other markets to foreign competition why not FDA approved pharmaceuticals? Once again, guaranteed savings. The biggest thing that I have a problem with the bill itself (leaving the process out) is the "doughnut hole" in prescriptions. Instead of having the government fund or give tax breaks to certain brackets or seniors why not open the approved market up to competition and generic brands. Then everyone wins.

Did I mention I hate civil lawyers? :bop:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> I also think you are dead wrong about the "re-washing" of tools. I'm a scientist and my wife is a mid-level practioner; you know how much time it takes to re-wash and re-sterilize a tool?


I used that as an example because I figured most people have seen this. Re-washing may not be the best way but having one protective bag of tools, using two of them, and then tossing them all is mind boggling as well.

The biggest waste that goes into tort reform is probably all the overhead that goes into all the documentation and personell just to cover rear ends from lawsuits. It is just stupid and more litigation is not the answer. 


> You know I get your point, but I don't believe it's all due to civil lawyers. I think it's also our culture and our need to know what's wrong immediately.


It is also our culture of finding someone else to blame for every thing. Throw in some grease ball lawyers promising huge money for the "victim" and of course themselves and you get the crap show we have now.

The other thing that never gets discussed is the fact that there are times where lawsuits are necessary, but they are often times dismissed as frivilous. I should mention that I have been sued (car accident)and it sucks. The suit was tossed(suit was filed 3-4 years after the accident), it was BS from the word go, the person that attempted to sue me completely lied in her deposition. My attorney got her to contradict herself and it was done. Was there any perjury charges brought on her? no. Yet another problem with the system. So basically in our tort system there are absolutely repercussions for breaking the criminal laws :shake: It is far too easy and far too lucrative for the ambulance chasers.


----------

