[OT] State of the Union Address

[SarasotaSabre]

amen to that Hank

 

I think it's a bad idea. I hate the idea of my tax dollars going to take care of an obese person who ate at mcdonalds four times a day for thirty years.

[Patty16]

you missed my retraction Patty16 on "nobama", so wake up and let it go.

 

"you nissed that"? let me guess, because you have chosen not to stay informed about both sides of the debate. Are you serious that you don't know of any proposals the Reps have offered? How about interstate competition for health insurance? How about tort reform? You won't hear that Reps have offered solutions because Barack Hussein Obama wants the opiated masses on the Left to think the Reps are obstructionist and have offered nothing, a continuation of the blame game. He won't even ACKNOWLEDGE what Reps have proposed, and it has been REPORTED that Reps have not been invited to sit at the table for discussion - so tell me, how can you seriously & with a straight face say they have not offered anything for reform?

 

Meaningful reform is a combination of alot of offerings, not purely ideological, not backroom deal with lobbyists, AARP, & pharma companies and not buying Senate votes (Nelson/Landrieu). If the Dems & Barack Hussein Obama were serious about meaningful reform they would consider tort reform, which is the #1 reason for out of control HC costs. Not a word about tort reform in the SOTU though, b/c the trial lawyer lobby is in bed with BHO. Oops, I forgot - I thought he promised no more "politics as usual" with lobbyists, right?

 

The mainstream media also does a damn good job of not reporting efforts by the Reps on reform proposals - they don't want Joe SixPack to know that.

 

 

Im plenty awake thanks.

 

You really dont know what youre talking about if you think tort reform is the #1 reason for out of control costs. Honestly, look it up, it contributed less than 2% to the health costs according to a study by the CBO in 2004. 2%!! several other studies have confirmed this, i dont know where you got that from but maybe YOU arent staying informed or choose selective news sources like fox or rush, no surprise there really since theyre the only ones saying tort reform is #1.

[nfreeman]

Naive much? I would bet that had Obama put forth the Republicans' health care plan (is there one?), they would have voted against it.

 

It's not about the people.

This is like saying that you would have bet that OSP would have sold the Sabres by now if they had Ovechkin and Crosby. It can't be known and it's really neither here nor there.

 

As for whether there is an alternative plan -- see BuffaninATL's post quoted below.

 

How about interstate competition for health insurance? How about tort reform?

 

Meaningful reform is a combination of alot of offerings, not purely ideological, not backroom deal with lobbyists, AARP, & pharma companies and not buying Senate votes (Nelson/Landrieu). If the Dems & Barack Hussein Obama were serious about meaningful reform they would consider tort reform, which is the #1 reason for out of control HC costs. Not a word about tort reform in the SOTU though, b/c the trial lawyer lobby is in bed with BHO. Oops, I forgot - I thought he promised no more "politics as usual" with lobbyists, right?

Tort reform is important, and I agree that it's off the table in the current proposal for purely political reasons (which is a terrible and corrupt outcome), but I don't think it's the #1 reason for the growth in HC costs. The #1 reason is that the consumer has little to no economic incentive to hold down costs. Until the consumer (i.e. the patient) has to shoulder a more meaningful portion of the costs, and thus make hard decisions about what he or she wants and what he or she can live without, costs will continue to escalate. This kind of structural reform will require a number of accompanying reforms, such as the ones you cited as well as (greatly) improved transparency, tax deductibility of HC expenses (probably), and full insurance coverage for high-cost treatment -- and it's a very long shot that it happens.

[grinreaper]

This.

 

 

It really was the only thing I commented on in your post. But you talked about his track record in his first year. If you don't think he did a good job in his first year, you should really go back a year and read this board. It was pretty dark. Layoffs and foreclosures was all we heard.

 

When everyone is comparing the economy to the Great Depression, it's a little bit bigger than just bringing some pork back to the home state. We're better off than we were a year ago. The bailouts worked and nationalize health care for everyone is a good thing. No one will convince me otherwise.

 

As to the "Typical response from the left", c'mon. That was ME, commenting on a post by YOU. I could say that "That was a typical response from the right."

 

 

So, the bailouts worked, eh? I guess they "saved" some jobs and brought the unemployment level down? More smoke and mirrors from this administration.

 

As far as healthcare goes, what has been proposed is an avenue to single-payer nationalized health care rationing. Under their plan, private insurance companies would have to enroll individuals regardless of preconditions. The "fines" for not having insurance are very small in relation to the cost of health insurance. Why would a healthy person purchase health insurance if he knew he could always go and get it once he beame ill? So, a disproportionate amount of insured people will be unhealthy. Insurance costs will go up tremendously making the government (taxpayer subsidized) option more attractive. The government, once in control of all healthcare then gets to set doctor reimbursement, etc. In order to keep costs down they will drive healthcare providers out of the business and in turn cause healthcare to be rationed. It will then be us going to Canada to get treated sooner! But, I guess, no one will convince you otherwise.

[Patty16]

So, the bailouts worked, eh? I guess they "saved" some jobs and brought the unemployment level down? More smoke and mirrors from this administration.

 

As far as healthcare goes, what has been proposed is an avenue to single-payer nationalized health care rationing. Under their plan, private insurance companies would have to enroll individuals regardless of preconditions. The "fines" for not having insurance are very small in relation to the cost of health insurance. Why would a healthy person purchase health insurance if he knew he could always go and get it once he beame ill? So, a disproportionate amount of insured people will be unhealthy. Insurance costs will go up tremendously making the government (taxpayer subsidized) option more attractive. The government, once in control of all healthcare then gets to set doctor reimbursement, etc. In order to keep costs down they will drive healthcare providers out of the business and in turn cause healthcare to be rationed. It will then be us going to Canada to get treated sooner! But, I guess, no one will convince you otherwise.

 

 

Either way, the system now is broken. We can throw around buzz works like rationing, ( you think its not rationed now??????) or socialist.... but the reality is that we do not have the best healthcare system right now. we rank very low for things like infant mortality, countries in the carribbean beat us on that. There are points to be made for and against any system, but it has to change somehow someway. We pay the most for healthcare of any industrialized country but get crap results.

[SwampD]

So, the bailouts worked, eh? I guess they "saved" some jobs and brought the unemployment level down? More smoke and mirrors from this administration.

 

As far as healthcare goes, what has been proposed is an avenue to single-payer nationalized health care rationing. Under their plan, private insurance companies would have to enroll individuals regardless of preconditions. The "fines" for not having insurance are very small in relation to the cost of health insurance. Why would a healthy person purchase health insurance if he knew he could always go and get it once he beame ill? So, a disproportionate amount of insured people will be unhealthy. Insurance costs will go up tremendously making the government (taxpayer subsidized) option more attractive. The government, once in control of all healthcare then gets to set doctor reimbursement, etc. In order to keep costs down they will drive healthcare providers out of the business and in turn cause healthcare to be rationed. It will then be us going to Canada to get treated sooner! But, I guess, no one will convince you otherwise.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Keeping health coverage private sure keeps the price down. I won't even go into the life expectancy thing.

[SarasotaSabre]

go back to sleep. I work in healthcare & my brother is an attorney practicing medical defense malpractice, so I am plenty aware of the cost & burden of junk lawsuits & defensive medicine being practiced in this country. Whether tort reform is the #1 or #5 driver of costs is a moot point. Tort reform is a real issue which needs to be addressed and I just wish our Commander in Chief (or any President, for that matter) would show courage & leadership by taking on tort reform. Sadly BHO will not because he is bed with the trial lawyer lobby. Sad but true.

 

The bigger issue is his empty promise (one of many) to rid DC of "politics as usual"....remember his campaign promises, specifically the one about lobbyists having access to the WH & driving policy? Please man up and be honest in this debate.

 

BTW, I don't selectively get my news from certain sources. Another example of someone on this Board who disagrees with me and then proceeds to make false assumptions. Nice try.

 

Im plenty awake thanks.

 

You really dont know what youre talking about if you think tort reform is the #1 reason for out of control costs. Honestly, look it up, it contributed less than 2% to the health costs according to a study by the CBO in 2004. 2%!! several other studies have confirmed this, i dont know where you got that from but maybe YOU arent staying informed or choose selective news sources like fox or rush, no surprise there really since theyre the only ones saying tort reform is #1.

[Eleven]

Yeah, I guess you're right. Keeping health coverage private sure keeps the price down. I won't even go into the life expectancy thing.

 

Is that graph net of a 93-point pace? And can you put the team logos on there? It will make it easier to follow.

[SarasotaSabre]

very well-stated, NFreeman....

 

This is like saying that you would have bet that OSP would have sold the Sabres by now if they had Ovechkin and Crosby. It can't be known and it's really neither here nor there.

 

As for whether there is an alternative plan -- see BuffaninATL's post quoted below.

 

 

Tort reform is important, and I agree that it's off the table in the current proposal for purely political reasons (which is a terrible and corrupt outcome), but I don't think it's the #1 reason for the growth in HC costs. The #1 reason is that the consumer has little to no economic incentive to hold down costs. Until the consumer (i.e. the patient) has to shoulder a more meaningful portion of the costs, and thus make hard decisions about what he or she wants and what he or she can live without, costs will continue to escalate. This kind of structural reform will require a number of accompanying reforms, such as the ones you cited as well as (greatly) improved transparency, tax deductibility of HC expenses (probably), and full insurance coverage for high-cost treatment -- and it's a very long shot that it happens.

[Patty16]

go back to sleep. I work in healthcare & my brother is an attorney practicing medical defense malpractice, so I am plenty aware of the cost & burden of junk lawsuits & defensive medicine being practiced in this country. Whether tort reform is the #1 or #5 driver of costs is a moot point. Tort reform is a real issue which needs to be addressed and I just wish our Commander in Chief (or any President, for that matter) would show courage & leadership by taking on tort reform. Sadly BHO will not because he is bed with the trial lawyer lobby. Sad but true.

 

The bigger issue is his empty promise (one of many) to rid DC of "politics as usual"....remember his campaign promises, specifically the one about lobbyists having access to the WH & driving policy? Please man up and be honest in this debate.

 

BTW, I don't selectively get my news from certain sources. Another example of someone on this Board who disagrees with me and then proceeds to make false assumptions. Nice try.

 

 

well maybe others wouldnt make assumptions if you didnt make a giant deal out of Tort reform being #1 reason health care costs are out of control. No one has said that anywhere, other than some opinion people on talk radio. I also work as an atty practicing med mal defense. go figure

[SwampD]

Is that graph net of a 93-point pace? And can you put the team logos on there? It will make it easier to follow.

I'll color code it and put little flags for you.

[grinreaper]

Yeah, I guess you're right. Keeping health coverage private sure keeps the price down. I won't even go into the life expectancy thing.

 

 

It's all in the way it's reported. Would you want to get seriously ill and have to be treated in the UK or Canada? Why do people who can afford it come to the US when they get seriously ill? We have the best healthcare in the world. It is expensive though. We can make it less expensive with tort reform and portability. I don't want rationing and that goes hand-in-hand with universal healthcare. I don't want the government running anything that it doesn't have to do. It fails so miserably in nearly everything it attempts. I want it to put policies in place that will make private sector healthcare more affordable without rationing.

[SwampD]

It's all in the way it's reported. Would you want to get seriously ill and have to be treated in the UK or Canada? Why do people who can afford it come to the US when they get seriously ill? We have the best healthcare in the world. It is expensive though. We can make it less expensive with tort reform and portability. I don't want rationing and that goes hand-in-hand with universal healthcare. I don't want the government running anything that it doesn't have to do. It fails so miserably in nearly everything it attempts. I want it to put policies in place that will make private sector healthcare more affordable without rationing.

I just find it funny that people are so afraid to give up control to "the government" but they have no problem giving up control to "the corporation", which cares even less about us.

[Eric in Akron]

I just find it funny that people are so afraid to give up control to "the government" but they have no problem giving up control to "the corporation", which cares even less about us.

But by giving control to "the corporation" you have opened it up for competition, free market, and employ-ability, which results in tax revenue (income tax) versus a government expense.

[SDS]

well maybe others wouldnt make assumptions if you didnt make a giant deal out of Tort reform being #1 reason health care costs are out of control. No one has said that anywhere, other than some opinion people on talk radio. I also work as an atty practicing med mal defense. go figure

 

I think the OB/GYNs in MD pay something like $100,000 - $150,000 per year in insurance. Something tells me that plays a part in the cost of the services they offer...

 

Think about that for a moment. I mean really think about that price tag to be insured.

[SDS]

SDS, come on. Do you like a filter that makes "homosexual" a naughty word? For someone who fiercely protects his message board from trolls and takes great pride in quality (thank you), this is really an embarrassment.

 

Bisexual

 

Trisexual

 

Metrosexual

 

Larry Quinn

 

Perhaps you could back off for a moment?

 

Like I said, I uploaded a standard file. I did NOT go through all 250 items, but I have said several times that it will be changed. I apologize if the language used in alternative lifestyles is cramping the board's ability to discuss hockey, but it isn't on the top of my list right now.

[SwampD]

But by giving control to "the corporation" you have opened it up for competition, free market, and employ-ability, which results in tax revenue (income tax) versus a government expense.

Competition - Still waiting for that to bring down my car insurance in NJ.

 

Free Market - Companies offering less services for more money to raise profit margins,.. ok.

 

Employ-ability - If someone is working for the government or a company, I don't think they're going to care as long as their checks clear.

 

Tax rev/gov't expense - I don't care who I pay my money to as long as I get what I pay for. (as someone who has to deal with insurance companies often, I don't always get what I pay for now).

 

 

 

I told you I couldn't be convinced. And on a side note. If you were a corporation and were planning on building a plant that makes,...say,...windsheild wipers, would you build it in the US where you have to provide insurance or in Canada where you don't?

 

If you want to talk about employ-ability, we already are losing jobs over this issue.

[SarasotaSabre]

well, well - small world after all. Again, I wasn't trying to make a "giant deal" out of tort reform, and I did not (incorrectly) list it as the #1 reason from a source like talk radio. I think it is significant enough, though, that it continues to be conspicuous in its absence from the discussions around reform....talk about low hanging fruit - geez !

 

well maybe others wouldnt make assumptions if you didnt make a giant deal out of Tort reform being #1 reason health care costs are out of control. No one has said that anywhere, other than some opinion people on talk radio. I also work as an atty practicing med mal defense. go figure

[SarasotaSabre]

exactly - not to mention the tons of unnecessary tests/exams ordered by doctors to cover their as****

 

I think the OB/GYNs in MD pay something like $100,000 - $150,000 per year in insurance. Something tells me that plays a part in the cost of the services they offer...

 

Think about that for a moment. I mean really think about that price tag to be insured.

[shrader]

Constantly pointing the finger at Bush for the problems we face, frustrates me. Reagan never said look what I inherited from Carter, he just dealt with it and took action.

 

I don't pay the least bit attention to politics, but this thread has caught me for some reason. Anyway, for your point above, I wonder how much of an impact following up a two term president (Bush) vs. a one term president (Carter) factors into that perception.

[Patty16]

well, well - small world after all. Again, I wasn't trying to make a "giant deal" out of tort reform, and I did not (incorrectly) list it as the #1 reason from a source like talk radio. I think it is significant enough, though, that it continues to be conspicuous in its absence from the discussions around reform....talk about low hanging fruit - geez !

 

 

Then my apologies, its just such a small portion of costs, 1.5-1.8% thats why no big deal. Besides, try to convince Dems to do it with their support from lawyers is like trying to get Reps to sign onto any kind of health reform when they get money from companies it directly affects.

Something has to give bc our system blows.

[Eric in Akron]

I don't pay the least bit attention to politics, but this thread has caught me for some reason. Anyway, for your point above, I wonder how much of an impact following up a two term president (Bush) vs. a one term president (Carter) factors into that perception.

 

I'm not sure but there is definitely more pure hatred from both sides right now. All I know is that it ain't pretty.

[SarasotaSabre]

agreed, 100%... :thumbsup:

 

Then my apologies, its just such a small portion of costs, 1.5-1.8% thats why no big deal. Besides, try to convince Dems to do it with their support from lawyers is like trying to get Reps to sign onto any kind of health reform when they get money from companies it directly affects.

Something has to give bc our system blows.

[grinreaper]

Then my apologies, its just such a small portion of costs, 1.5-1.8% thats why no big deal. Besides, try to convince Dems to do it with their support from lawyers is like trying to get Reps to sign onto any kind of health reform when they get money from companies it directly affects.

Something has to give bc our system blows.

 

If I recall correctly Harry Reid was recently asked about tort reform and he emphatically stated that it was a drop in the bucket and that only $54,000,000,000 could be saved. Like picking up a penny off the street, I guess.

[wjag]

9/11?

 

 

Maybe they sincerely thought his plan was a bad idea (as a substantial majority of the population now does)?

 

I stand by my statement. Bush in his first year came into office with a roaring economy and a budget surplus. Sure 9/11 happened and it was unlike anything a new president has had to deal with.

 

Do you really think his first year equates to Obama's where we have a budget deficit, banks in ruins, fighting two wars, massive job losses, a dropping stock market (albeit it recovered), 10% unemployment, ...... Really think they compare?