And what was the quote again?

Post #312,762 by Another Scott 8/19/09 12:22:17 PM Reply	And what was the quote again? http://mediamatters....arch/200908100007 However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion. Let the facts be heard These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades. Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,766 by beepster 8/19/09 12:38:15 PM Reply	Re: And what was the quote again? ok...please substitute the synonym "un-American" in place of unpatriotic in the aforementioned post. HTH ;-) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,768 by drook 8/19/09 12:49:17 PM Reply	Now you're just stirring the pot ... you're not that stupid Annoying, yes ... stupid, no. -- Drew
Post #312,772 by beepster 8/19/09 1:05:39 PM Reply	If we want to focus on my choice of adjectives...why certainly it was done for effect...pointing out simply that there are >valid< questions being asked by people that need to be answered prior to getting their support. Very BASIC questions. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,776 by drook 8/19/09 1:14:58 PM Reply	That's not what Pelosi was talking about She was talking about people disrupting meetings, preventing discussion from happening. They're not looking for answers. I thought that was obvious, and that you were just replaying talking points to piss people off. But I don't know, maybe you are that stupid. Yes, I've concluded that the people disrupting the meetings are not looking for answers. Several of them have been hired by the insurance industry -- through PR firms -- for specifically that purpose. They're not seeking dialogue, they're preventing it. That's what Pelosi called un-American. I haven't seen anyone refute that conclusion. Are you the one person in America who can? -- Drew
Post #312,777 by boxley 8/19/09 1:47:18 PM Reply	Oh I get it know They're not seeking dialogue, they're preventing it. That's what Pelosi called un-American. so the democratic rules that stop the repo's from ammending bills is un-American. Got it thanx, bill
Post #312,778 by drook 8/19/09 1:58:03 PM Reply	Discuss != ammend -- Drew
Post #312,780 by Another Scott 8/19/09 2:03:13 PM Reply	Eh? http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/ It was bipartisan, administration officials explained, because it contained 160 Republican amendments. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,781 by beepster 8/19/09 2:41:45 PM Reply	I don't care nor is it central to my point here. If you want to get off track and talk about it...go ahead without me. Really. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,784 by drook 8/19/09 3:11:15 PM Reply	What is your central point? The quote you opened with had nothing to do with the content of any proposal. It was entirely about what Obama does or doesn't understand, what he has or hasn't explained to the public. Since there's nothing substantive there, you must be talking about style. There may be plenty of substantive questions in the article you linked. But the part you chose to quote was all style. So that's what we're talking about. For what it's worth, I imagine you're just as frustrated right now as all the Democrats who have spent the last week refuting the "death panel" lies. It's not true, you people supported the exact same thing just last year, it represents a tiny portion of the overall proposals in any case ... Why is this the only thing you want to talk about? Interesting that in both cases the net result is one side or the other feeling that no one is listening to what they're saying. And that both cases start with an opponent of reform plans intentionally misinterpreting what a supporter has said. -- Drew
Post #312,790 by beepster 8/19/09 4:29:56 PM Reply	Re: What is your central point? "failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply wonÂt lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke." These are the questions, for those who read... 1) How do you propose to cover more for less? 2) How do you increase that coverage without expansion of service provision? 3) How do you comfort anyone by pointing to a government run system that has been widely touted as broken? The answers, so far, have been..we're going to "save money and eliminate waste". Ok, then why was first pass a $1T bill that included tax hikes? Give specifics without resorting to vilifying huge sections of the economy and workforce tied to the current provision of healthcare...which, considering its weaknesses, still does produce a pretty decent level of care and whose support is critical to the success/failure of any change. Talk about improving billing, talk about eliminating/limiting malpractice/talk about changing accounting rules re: drug patents, talk about indigent care. Proposals have shown huge increases in bureaucracy with very little to no talk about where the money is to come from EXCEPT increasing taxes on rich people. These are not Republican/Democrat questions. They are reasonable questions of a concerned/skeptical populace. And none of them have anything to do with "death panels" or any other fringe Republican talking point. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,796 by drook 8/19/09 4:52:04 PM Reply	Why not? ... without resorting to vilifying huge sections of the economy and workforce ... If the current system is a mess, and the people running things like it that way, why shouldn't we say that? ... and whose support is critical to the success/failure of any change. Why is that? The people running things, who made the current mess, don't support the change. They like it just the way it is. The only thing they support is more of the same. -- Drew
Post #312,822 by beepster 8/20/09 10:44:21 AM Reply	Re: Why not? Because the current system isn't a mess in the minds of the majority. And you don't think that doctors and pharma have to support the change? You gonna want to go to a doctor thats pissed off after it passes? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,800 by Another Scott 8/19/09 5:48:48 PM Reply	Ok.... 1) How do you propose to cover more for less? By starting from the realization that we spend a lot more than any other industrial country and do not have better outcomes to show for it. We start to implement things that have been shown, in the US and elsewhere, to provide better care for less money. 2) How do you increase that coverage without expansion of service provision? See above. It's not rocket science. Details have been given, and are easily available. 3) How do you comfort anyone by pointing to a government run system that has been widely touted as broken? It's widely touted that .... That doesn't mean it's true. I would ask these people who say that government systems are broken, therefore we shouldn't let the government mess with it: We've tried tinkering with the health care system, letting the private sector control costs through competition, and cover everyone through competition for workers. It hasn't worked. Health insurance and health care costs are rising much faster than general inflation, outcomes are worse than in countries that spend far less, too many people lose coverage when they need it most, too many people can't get coverage due to unfair policies by the insurance companies. Folks that advocated letting the economy run itself and keeping the government out of health insurance have been running the show for most of the last 30 years. They strangled the middle class, they blew up the federal debt with little to show for it (Where's the bullet trains? Where's the flying cars? Where's the highly educated workforce that isn't saddled with huge debts? Where's the comfortable, secure retirement?) nearly drove the economy off a cliff, they said "No!" to providing health insurance to poor kids, "No!" to raising the minimum wage, "No!" to preventing the US auto industry from imploding over a few weeks, and so forth. They had more than enough time to prove the worth of their ideas. They lost the election. It's time for them to get out of the way and let the country try a new approach - one based on evidence rather than fear and tired old slogans. If you're worried about comforting people who are worried about their health coverage, I would think that you wouldn't help spread talking points of those who will use any lie to try to score political points. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,808 by boxley 8/19/09 8:30:37 PM Reply	30 years my ass the only time the repo's ran the show exclusively was shrub 2 first term ist 2 years and it was a fucking disaster. Guess what, the dems are running the show exclusively and I predict the same result
Post #312,809 by Another Scott 8/19/09 8:34:13 PM Reply	Ronnie took office in January 1981. HTH.
Post #312,811 by boxley 8/19/09 9:28:01 PM Reply	with a democratic led house and senate which stayed that way except for 2000-2002. legislation is the business of the senate and congress, the executive carries out the legislation so bzzzt, try it again
Post #312,813 by Another Scott 8/19/09 9:46:16 PM Reply	The sea changed when Ronnie came in. It's not just the number of people on each side of the aisle. When Ronnie won, the whole debate changed. He convinced the political establishment that cutting taxes, greatly expanding the military, "getting government out of the way", etc., etc. was the way to go. That mindset continued under Clinton, with only slight modification. It was only when W made a mess of Iraq, of New Orleans, of the budget, etc., and when the economy imploded and all that his party-mates could offer was more of the same, only then did enough of the conventional wisdom change for the foundation for a future not built on Reaganomics to get a toe-hold. Compare major legislation in the 95th Congress (1977-1978) - http://en.wikipedia....Major_legislation - with that from the 109th (2005-2006)- http://en.wikipedia....Major_legislation - to see how much has changed. E.g. Clean Water Act versus Terri Schiavo.... The ship of state turns slowly. But it's turning. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,815 by boxley 8/20/09 8:32:12 AM Reply	So you are talking in a macro sense where reagan took over from an economy in shambles, a foreign policy that was useless. Turned it around. Clinton tried to carry that forward and bush payed lip service to it then destroyed it. I will agree with that. Lets see what this sea change brings. thanx, bill
Post #312,824 by beepster 8/20/09 11:57:47 AM Reply	On #2 Details given? Models provided? Really? http://www.cnn.com/2...ortage/index.html "The Massachusetts Medical Society reported that the average wait time for a new patient looking for a primary care doctor ranged from 36 to 50 days, with almost half of internal medicine physicians closing their doors entirely to new patients. And when you consider that Massachusetts already has the highest concentration of doctors nationwide, wait times will likely be worse in other, less physician-abundant parts of the country, should universal coverage be enacted federally." Legitimate concerns. Not being addressed in the D talking points and giving rise to the strength of the argument around rationing. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,825 by boxley 8/20/09 12:04:29 PM Reply	dont confuse the issue with facts
Post #312,829 by beepster 8/20/09 12:47:26 PM Reply	Just think there are very many rational people with fairly basic (and rational) concerns that are being portrayed as irrational, misinformed and sometimes worse. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,826 by drook 8/20/09 12:30:22 PM Reply	So we don't have enough doctors? Your argument is: 1) We don't have enough doctors now, based on the wait times to get accepted as a patient, plus the number of doctors not taking any new patients. 2) If we enact universal coverage, there will be even more people wanting access to a doctor, so wait times will get even longer. 3) Therefore universal coverage would require rationing the limited physician resources among an expanded customer base. Well sure, I suppose so. But I would argue that by simply denying healthcare altogether, you've already rationed it. Can you point me to the opponents of healthcare reform who are proposing, as an alternative, that we increase the number of available physicians? And a way to pay for them? -- Drew
Post #312,831 by boxley 8/20/09 12:50:16 PM Reply	Sure offer free medical school for a term of public health sevice. Allow PA's RN's to do a lot of primary care. Remove certain drugs from requiring a prescription. Pharmacists are very well trained on councilling effects with patients. Public health entities are a lot better at managing larger patient loads that private single practices with more support. examples http://www.nhchc.org...directory/AK.html http://www.nhchc.org...directory/NC.html http://www.nhchc.org...directory/FL.html some of these organizations also treat under or non insured people I have used the one in NC and AK when I had no health insurance. Professional and skilled folks. We need to increase their funding to accept more patients who are uninsured. They are a public/private partnership that has established a financial model that can be extended to the larger population that have lost their insurance. These folks use a front loaded funding base as well as filing claims to those entities that cover some of their patients. If I had health insurance I would still use them because they are efficient take something that works and grow it instead of pretending that the government can run a health insurance plan thanx, bill
Post #312,832 by beepster 8/20/09 12:51:56 PM Reply	Excuse me, but the point is that these concerns are NOT BEING ADDRESSED. So why do you then go ask me to find people addressing them? They aren't being denied. They are getting care in the more expensive emergency centers. So getting them coverage is supposed to save money. How, if we need to add expense to expand the area of coverage they are not receiving (primary) to offset the coverage they are (urgent care). Where's the savings? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,838 by jake123 8/20/09 1:05:27 PM Reply	That's all well and good but somehow Everybody Else does what you're saying won't work, does it for less, and gets better outcomes. What is so esp. incompetent about Americans that they can't do it too?
Post #312,840 by drook 8/20/09 1:16:55 PM Reply	Addressing != asking Opponents of the Democratic plans keep shouting "No!" at the top of their lungs. To hear them talk, when they bother to make a coherent point (which may happen more than half the time, but it doesn't make the news) we have the best possible system in the world. Except, you know, don't let more people into it because there isn't enough of it to go around as it is. My question is, if the current system is already stretched beyond capacity, where were all these screaming people last year? Where were the organized protests against the inadequacies of the system last year? If people are quiet when a Republican proposes something, but scream in protest when a Democrat proposes the same thing, do you see why I might suspect that their concern isn't with the substance of the issue but with party politics? That's why Barney Frank's response was so dead-on. He called the woman out as someone who wasn't experiencing the same reality as him, and who wasn't interested in an honest debate. She, like everyone else who didn't speak up until the Democrats started pushing reform, didn't have any credibility. That's why yes, it does matter who is asking the questions. It's not worth the effort to debate policy with someone who is focused on ideology. -- Drew
Post #312,874 by beepster 8/20/09 9:58:23 PM Reply	So instead its better to just think everyone is that way...and not address any substantive issues. Okee dokee. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #312,828 by Another Scott 8/20/09 12:41:54 PM Reply	I'll play, for a while... #1 - Dr. Pho is a physician in NH, not MA. It's not clear that he has any special insight on MA's system. #2 - He doesn't say where he gets the 36 to 50 days number from, other than it's from the MMA. He doesn't say what it was before MA required everyone to have insurance. He provides no context. In my looking around the MMA site, I see this: http://www.massmed.o...m&ContentID=30997 The Society strongly supported the enactment of the Health Reform Law (Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006) and its full implementation. If it were a disaster for physicians and patients, I wouldn't think that the MMA would support it. The MA system is a work in progress and is being tweaked over time. IOW, it's being addressed by concrete proposals. Similarly with the federal bills. E.g. the ACP summary of HR3200 (13 page .PDF) - http://www.acponline...ss/hr3200_faq.pdf 10. How will AmericaÂs Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200) help primary care? AmericaÂs Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200) provides for an additional 5 percent increase, beginning in 2011, for designated evaluation and management services by general internists and other primary care physicians. The primary care bonus is increased to 10 percent for designated services in Health Professional Shortage Areas. H.R. 3200 also would increase Medicaid payments for primary care to be equivalent to Medicare. Although ACP continues to believe that a larger primary care bonus is needed-ACP has asked for at least 10 percent in all areas of the country Â 15 percent in health professional shortage areas. Even so, ACP believes that the recognition of the need to increase payments for primary care is an important step forward. The bill has extensive provisions to increase the supply and improve the training of primary care physicians. AmericaÂs Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200) includes the following additional provisions to support primary care: [...] #3 - He links, apparently approvingly, to someone who says they don't have insurance by choice. http://www.kevinmd.c...-want-health.html It makes me suspicious of anything he presents. I don't feel like spending more time on his comments. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,818 by Another Scott 8/20/09 9:46:46 AM Reply	On "limiting malpractice". It's a red herring - it won't cut costs. http://washingtonind...health-care-costs The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, donÂt believe thatÂs true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge costÂ both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole. ÂItÂs really just a distraction,Â said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of ÂThe Medical Malpractice Myth.Â ÂIf you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe weÂd be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So weÂre not talking about real money. ItÂs small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.Â HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #312,774 by folkert 8/19/09 1:10:24 PM Reply	Re: And what was the quote again? Whoa... So... let me get THIS straight. Now you are changing the meaning Dissension was unpatriotic. But the quoted article said nothing about dissenting/opposing views being unpatriotic: Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American So we change that sentence to say: Drowning out opposing views is simply unpatriotic. DROWNING OUT OPPOSING VIEWS is unpatriotic! So... explain your side again? Please, I'm a bit confused.

Welcome to IWETHEY!