Public debate over 'public option' for healthcare

[BridgeTroll]

Thanks Doc...   The short debate here is but a small illustration of how it will go nationally. 

I want uni care... = I am a caring/giving person who cares deeply about my fellow man.  A few extra cents out of my pocket is but a small price to pay for sick babies to get health care.

I do not want uni care...= I am a selfish/ money grubber who does not give a rip about my fellow man.  Why the eff should I pay any money at all to those lazy bastards who refuse to work.

Who do ya think is gonna win...

[CrysG]

Medical services that are supplied by the Government, that I as the taxpayer pay for.  Yes - I am putting money as *a* reason.  The fact that it's government-controlled is the primary reason.  Because look at how phenomenally every other government-run program is doing, in brief:  

Medicare?  Broke sooner than expected.
Medicaid?  Same thing.
Social Security?  Ditto.
Fannie and Freddie?  A+
AMtrak?  Jolly.
Bailout/stimulus?  Stellar.
Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan?  Brilliant.  I blame specific people within the government though, not so much as a whole.
U.S. Post Office?  Keeps raising the price of stamps and *still* can't remain economically viable.

All mis-managed.  Grossly.  All losing money almost as fast as the Fed can print it.  And you think they're "gonna do better" with UniCare?  Delusional.

It wont happen.   Because those who want uni care do not want the debate that goes along with it.

Precisely.  And those who are opposed to it in any way, shape, or form, are the uncaring bad guys.  Hey BT - how about another fist-bump?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447686

[Doctor_K]

Yay link trading!

http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2009/may/13/emnationalized-health-care-doomed-failem/

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31173

...from the other uncaring idiots. 

[BridgeTroll]

Donald  W.  Light, PhD, MS
Professor
Primary Affil: UMDNJ-School of Osteopathic Medicine
SPH Department: Health Systems and Policy - Stratford/Camden
Units: N/A
Campus: Stratford/Camden
Building: 2250CH
Room: ...
Phone: 856.566.6296
Fax: 856.482.9000
Email: dlight@princeton.edu
Degrees/Certifications:
PhD, 1970, Brandeis University
MS, 1967, University of Chicaco Global Public Health Experience:
No Research Interests:
Uninsured; Underinsured; Immigrant Health; Comparative Healthcare Systems; Distributive Justice Issues in Health Policy Community Service/Community Research Projects:
Evaluator for an EXPORT grant to move several research teams at Columbia University towards community-based, collaborative research and towards greater interactions with community organizations in Harlem and Northern Manhattan, NY Partner: Columbia University-Mailman School of Public Health.Professional Service:
Met with United Kingdom officials on global vaccine policy

[Sigma]

You left out the unequaled management of GM and Chrysler!  Let's see  - we'll cut half the advertising and close down dealerships - that'll sell more cars!  

and yes, we are greedy, bigots, racist, homophobes. You name it, we're bored with it, get over it.

Love this article:

Every three years American hospitals turn themselves inside out preparing for the visit of inspectors from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, or JCAHO (pronounced jay-koh). A passing grade from JCAHO is indispensable. The JCAHO website explains:


Congress passes the Social Security Amendments of 1965 with a provision that hospitals accredited by JCAH are "deemed" to be in compliance with most of the Medicare Conditions of Participation for Hospitals and, thus, able to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.


In other words, hospitals either pass inspection (and get accredited) ... or Medicare reimbursement is withheld. I've worked in hospitals where, a year before the inspectors' scheduled visits, department heads would huddle together and pore over manuals crammed full of the minutiae of JCAHO's requirements. As inspection day approached, the staff had numerous mandatory in-service meetings where we heard scary stories about inspectors stopping nurses in the hall and interrogating them on almost anything pertaining to the hospital.

One day I was trying valiantly to memorize the hospital's mission statement (how that improves patient care I'll never know) while a co-worker from another department laughed at me. I asked him how he was preparing for the imminent JCAHO Inquisition.

"We're not preparing at all," he told me.

"But you'll fail!" I exclaimed.

"That's the idea," he explained. "We've learned the best way to handle these people is to just take the hit right away. That way, they move on and leave us alone to do our jobs. After a few weeks they'll send instructions as to how to fix whatever minor problem they found. We fix it, they pass us, everyone's happy. "

I was baffled. "But the hospital wants us to be in compliance with all these requirements so they can pass inspection this first go-around."

"Oh, you silly, silly nurse," he sighed. "Don't you know how the world works? I don't care how well you know the fire evacuation routes or whether your trash cans meet this year's requirement, you aren't going to pass. That's not how it works. The inspectors will keep looking until they find a reason to fail you. So our plan is take the hit and fail right away."

The tortured, bureaucratic JCAHO logic was so outrageous that I asked him to elaborate.

"It's simple," he replied. "These inspectors love their gigs. If JCAHO inspectors start actually passing hospitals on the first visit, they're out of work. So they write up huge binders full of ridiculous standards that no one, least of all overworked health care workers, could be expected to remember. Then they hang around until they catch you using the wrong kind of adhesive tape.  You fail. They justify their inspections and keep their jobs.


"So we've decided to take the hit right off, he continued. "We'll get dinged for something simple and obvious. I think this year we'll let them catch us not wearing our nametags. Then they'll go away and bother you guys instead."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/republicans_should_just_take_t.html

[Doctor_K]

14 years?  Consecutively?  Bush was only in office for 8.  Clinton 8 before that.  

Republican Congress from '94 til '06?  That's 12.  

But there were plenty of Democrats to fight back with, to prevent all sorts of said soft suction incompetence.

And republicans have nothing to do with Europe's failing NHSs.  I fail to see the point.  

[CrysG]

Yay link trading!

http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2009/may/13/emnationalized-health-care-doomed-failem/ Already addressed in my link.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html Made me laugh...wow a conservative think tank vs. a Medical doctor who lived in England.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31173Made me laugh more....see above.

...from the other uncaring idiots. 

[Sigma]

14 years?  Consecutively?  Bush was only in office for 8.  Clinton 8 before that.  

Republican Congress from '94 til '06?  That's 12.  

But there were plenty of Democrats to fight back with, to prevent all sorts of said soft suction incompetence.

And republicans have nothing to do with Europe's failing NHSs.  I fail to see the point.  

Don't ya see Doc, if Stephen can go back 14 years, then he can affix blame on Republicans in power.

[CrysG]

It's so nice knowing I have better health care than Slovenia.

[Sigma]

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Interesting - but vague in their studies.  One thing I did notice though:

Responsiveness: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden. The reason these are all advanced industrial nations is that a number of the elements of responsiveness depend strongly on the availability of resources. In addition, many of these countries were the first to begin addressing the responsiveness of their health systems to people’s needs

This is why a lot of people don't want government control.  With that, you will get rationing determined by a bureaucrat.

[CrysG]

Steven,

And don't forget that they also make the decision if you get coverage to begin with.

[Sigma]

Because the people who work in the investement banking industry making decisions about whether you are going to get the surgery or not, based on a cost risk analysis isnt a beaurocrat?

So an investment banker is making healthcare decisions Stephen?  Your hate for capitalism is what's amazing.  Please don't ever refer to yourself as a "true" Republican or a Conservative again - it's disgusting.

The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.  http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10201

[CrysG]

Because the people who work in the investement banking industry making decisions about whether you are going to get the surgery or not, based on a cost risk analysis isnt a beaurocrat?

So an investment banker is making healthcare decisions Stephen?  Your hate for capitalism is what's amazing.  Please don't ever refer to yourself as a "true" Republican or a Conservative again - it's disgusting.

The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.  http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10201

Oh I love the Cato Institute. They have a wonderful book in there bookstore saying how there is really nothing to worry about with global warming and "global warming is likely to be modest".

[jtwestside]

What our healthcare system is here is one that provides excellent service for some (those who can self pay) good service for many (those who have insurance) and mediocre (at best) for those who have no money. I haven't personal bought into healthcare being a "right" so I see nothing wrong with this system. Those at the top subsidize a great deal of the medical R&D that goes on in this country and subsequently gets passed on to the other countries who can sit back and provide "free" healthcare.

What free healthcare would do is force all of the healthcare in the country to being somewhere between mediocre and good with those who want excellent left to look elsewhere. Are already doing this with "elective" surgeries such as hip replacements. If you have the money and would like to have yours done in a place without truly "sick" folks and with out the chance of contracting MRSA  you're SOL because the Democrats in congress feel that Doctors shouldn't be able to work for a profit. And that you should be forced to subsidize others healthcare even if it means possibly making yours worse. This is what healthcare for everyone will look like.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/07/hospitals-congress-medicare-biz-healthcare-cz_dw_0307healthcare.html

[Sigma]

I'm glad you brought that up CrysG - speaking of global warming:

You are for paying a middleman for the privelege of not letting you die. Carbon Offsets.
If you support this present system, you are for bloodsuckers, second handers and moochers.  Not Capitalists. Al Gore.

but let's put global warming fiasco in another thread, shall we?  I think there already is one.  Or were you "pulling a Dare" by switching topics?