Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rotten johnny
Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
|
|
that BVB guy looks like he is from hell and quite possible satan himself.....i'll say a prayer that he doesn't get injured and come to with lois looking down at him....rj
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
bvb posts some funny shite.
|
|
rotten johnny
Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
|
|
i have a friend..bad-ass alpine climber , that had some serious health issues which seem to be gone..he has insurance and it covered things but he still had to fork out lots of his own savings in addition to monitoring the insurance companies screw ups along the way....he said he learned the ropes of scrutinizing these screw ups on line which were denial of payments and turned out to be simple clerical errors...he said any ordinary dumb-ass in this situation wouldn't know how to keep track of what the insurance companies were screwing up and would be f*#ked....and this is suppose to be the best system in the world?
|
|
Josh Nash
Social climber
riverbank ca
|
|
here's a snow man
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Norton is forming a new Tea Party!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"Thats OK. It's a suck ass bill, catering to the insurance companies."
Tru dat, Rox. Wouldn't be a heartbreaker, not one bit.
"The Dems will start over, after the Repugs get their asses kicked in November, and they won't have a bill so laden with pork (by the repugs) that the insurance companies are pulling for."
You're a lot more optimistic than I am. This issue will probably be dead for a long, long time- two efforts in twenty years at reform that completely fail and implode? It will be a long, long time before a future POTUS forgets the political pain of those kinds of failures.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I agree with part of your take, apogee. This bill is, indeed, awful, and I doubt that the Democrats will have a bigger majority in congress after this November. Where we part company is this: real change can happen, but the Democrats need to include the Republicans in the process.
As to Norton's comments re Medicare Part D -- thoroughly agree, Norton. I particularly liked your quote that it's the most irresponsible bill since the '60's. I've often said (and even here a few times) that Republicans make lousy Democrats. The Republican addition to the Great Society was, if anything, even worse than the original.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Rokjox,
I respectfully disagree with your statement "We got a lot of people dying on the streets now, and that will increase too." The problem isn't so much the quality of health care, but who pays for it. Health care is available for non-elective procedures without prepayment -- not everywhere, to be sure, but close enough. Taking advantage of that care, however, can leave the patient and family hopelessly insolvent. That's the rub, because the bill deters people from getting the care they need.
The "health care reform" congress (or should I say, part of congress) grappled with had nothing to do with cutting costs. It was simply how do we shift costs. Even this Republican agrees that we need to shift some costs if we want people to take appropriate advantage of the medical care available. That's really a small part of our problem, though. Our real problem is a practical legal inability to contract for anything but the very best care, cost be damned.
Even without an M.D. I think I'm perfectly capable of understanding the differing efficacies of different medications and procedures, and making a choice based on how much it costs me. Current tort law, at least in California, does not allow my doctor, health care financer, and me to do this. My only choice is the amount of my deductible and co-pay, and whether I'll accept generic substitutes for brand-name, but otherwise chemically identical, medications.
Congress had a chance to do something about this, but the plaintiff's bar exercised the control it paid for in the Democratic party and killed any such ideas, much as the other interests dependent on maintaining the status quo did to Democrats and Republicans generally. The result was a bill that was worse than the status quo. I hope fattrad is right. This bill deserves to die, and those who confected it deserve to lose their leadership roles.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"...but the Democrats need to include the Republicans in the process."
John, the Repubs had every opportunity to be a part of the process, and every single one of them dragged their feet throughout the entire process, threw up roadblock after roadblock, and silently & implicitly (if not directly) supported the hyperbolic efforts to distract and blur the issue into a teabagging frenzy.
The fact is that a majority of Americans would like to see some kind of nationally-operated healthcare system- there are clear, unequivocal stats to back that up. While the Dems did a horrific job (as usual) of dealing with this issue, the Reps were every bit as destructive x10.
'Reps being part of the process' meant going against the majority of public opinion, and would certainly have resulted in status quo: just the way they have left it for decades.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
"Even without an M.D. I think I'm perfectly capable of understanding the differing efficacies of different medications and procedures,"
Respectfully I have to say, No, you are not, neither am I. Being informed is good and will get us a long way but, as I was married to an MD for 18 yrs I know that there just IS some Sh!t that they know that it's unlikely for the rest of us to comprehend in the offhand manner necesary.
There is reason for specialists. How do you feel about some of the software that makes, everyone, a legal expert John? Should just anyone design a bridge? Not that those bay bridge guys are, exactly, on top of it. Can you identify a conodont? Can I write a legal brief?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
You know, John, as I thought about it more, it seems to me that the healthcare/coverage reform issue was a great magnification of the weaknesses of both parties: the Dems inability to build a solid consensus and take action; the Reps tendency to use fear and hyperbole as a political tactic; and both party's complete and utter subservience to special interests (esp. the insurance industry) and preference towards partisanship.
I would bet a #3 Camalot that if a few Repubs had stepped forward with a willingness to act more on public opinion, utilizing the Reps well-known ability to assemble an agenda and enact it, along with a much-needed, long-missing effort towards fiscal responsibility, they could easily have become a effective part of the process. I would go so far as to say keystone part of the process: they could easily steer the bill and direction confidently, knowing the Dems would be accommodating them left and right (as they usually do).
Didn't work out that way, though, did it. Both parties reverted to their well-known, tried-and-dead behaviors, and once again...the public lost.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
apogee,
The Republicans threw up roadblocks precisely because they were locked out of the process. Amendments that might have made a bill more attractive to non-Democrats never made it to the floor for a vote. This whole bill has been an exercise in trying to sidestep the deliberative process.
You might want to contrast the procedural games played here with, say, that of welfare reform, or even Medicare. Those actions had significant support from both parties because the congressional leaders (in one case repulbicans, in the other Democrats) took the time to craft a bill using input -- and having features -- from both sides.
The Democrats, in my opinion, wanted to use this as their own "wedge issue." It would be poetic justice if the bill died in "conference" when the only party at the conference is the Democrats. They have no one else to blame.
Polls saying that a majority want anything I find meaningless because those polls never seem to include the price tag for the goods or services required. Show me a poll that asks its respondents what they want -- and how they (not someone else) will pay for it, and I may believe otherwise.
If anything kills this bill, it will be how we pay for it. The House won't tolerate a "luxury tax" because such a tax won't raise enough revenue unless it hits the very generous health plans affecting much of organized labor. The Senate and Administration don't want to raise income taxes because doing so also won't raise enough revenue without taxing middle class taxpayers that Obama promised he would not tax addditionally.
John
Edit:
P.S. Sorry, jaybro, I somehow overlooked your post. You're right in a sense. My clients don't know what I know. If they did, they're wasting their money on me. They nonetheless know enough to know whether they want to pay me to proceed with a particular matter. I always tell my clients what I think a particular strategy will cost for two reasons. First is self-protection. If they can't pay me, I'll be working for free, so I'd rather know up front. Second, is that a legal strategy the client can't afford is an inappropriate legal strategy.
The problems come when there is a "bare bones" legal strategy that might help the client, but might not be as effective as all-out legal "war." My E & O carrier says I should never take those cases, because I'd get sued for purporting to represent the client, but not litigating the case is if I were Cravath representing IBM in its antitrust case. This leaves me and my clients with only two choices: Pay for the Rolls Royce, or go it alone without counsel. IMHO, that choice, reflecting the state of tort liability for professionals, does clients and counsel both great harm.
By the way, I actually encourage my clients to use prepackaged software for routine transactions, because it saves them money and lets me use my specialized expertise for areas where it's really needed (and, of course, for which I can charge a premium with a clear conscience).
J
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
I will read the posts and rejoin the discussion
oh boy! can't wait!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
bvb, you are killing me..........
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"The Republicans threw up roadblocks precisely because they were locked out of the process."
John, I just don't buy that, any more than I bought the Dems making the same cries back when Shrub & Congress enacted their agenda. What both periods have in common is strong partisanship more interested in power preservation & special interest that acting on the will of the people. In either case, a party that demonstrated genuine willingness to work together rather than clear heel dragging could have had plenty of influence- this is especially true of the Repubs, who are a hell of a lot better at direct action than the Dems.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
bvb, you are killing me
better me than unaffordable health care, norton!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Lois, you are reacting again...this time like a victim.
Jess sayin'.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Floggings will continue until morale improves...
Edit: Despite LEB's question in the next post, I have nothing much to add to the debate on health care in the US that I haven't already said, often several times.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Conceit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aside from its common usage, signifying "excessive pride" (i.e. the conception of Self, the excessive pride as a result of having an inflated conception of self-worth),
see also: Fattrad
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
sometimes, a person with whom you have never had an substantive interaction comes around and launches some pretty heavy duty nasty stuff - not once or twice but over and over and over again......kind of like a perseveration. Now, you are talking some "scarey" stuff. Now you are talking about someone who has no rational basis for the intense negativity they are directing at you. It is not like you ever had debates with them on line about issues. It's not like you did anything to provoke them. You just happen to show up in their long range rifle scope and they have one finger on the trigger.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!