The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[lungs]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I dont believe the Earth is 6000 years old. But I do believe God created it.

So how did humans come about?

From monkeys. Are you going anywhere with this?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So how did humans come about?

Probably something along these lines:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by lungs

From monkeys. Are you going anywhere with this?

Im just curious.

How did the monkey to man jump happen?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im just curious.

How did the monkey to man jump happen?

A dumb hairy monkey banged a less hairy, smarter monkey. Rinse and repeat and you've got yourself a human.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by lungs

A dumb hairy monkey banged a less hairy, smarter monkey. Rinse and repeat and you've got yourself a human.

And your scientific proof of this? Or is this just a belief of what happened?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And your scientific proof of this? Or is this just a belief of what happened?

Well, I'm pretty hairy. Not all that smart either. So there is evidence of monkey in my background.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

Great points you brought up, Arlie. Here's my take on a couple of your concerns.

I agree that the current medical infrastructure will not be ready on Day 1 for 40+ million new patients. I also don't think that there are 40+ million people putting off doctors visits, waiting for universal coverage to become a reality before seeing a doctor. Urban centers are probably the most ready for the new patient loads.

I would disagree here. Urban ERs are swamped and underfunded as it is right now. With a ton of people coming in with this "public insurance", it will be a nightmare for ERs. First, they have to make sure the people sign up or they don't get any money (a big issue for current uninsured people who qualify for existing programs). Next, since more people will have access to coverage who haven't had it before - chances are they won't have a family doctor setup. This means a lot of initial emergency room visits until they understand the system.

The problem is going to be more pronounced in rural areas. Since the medical industry isn't going to be nationalized (a common misconception about the current reform proposals), doctors will go to where they can make money. I think it would take two, three years at the most for the infrastructure to grow to the size needed. The infrastructure isn't going to grow until the funding is there.

Which means longer waits until the infrastructure catches up. You also have the issue of a serious lack of family practitioners. You add 40+ million people to the health insurance rolls in major cities and you will have doctors that are swamped.

Next, we will run into a funding issue. It's going to take longer to get paid by the public system (combined with more patient requests) which means some doctors won't initially accept it. So, if your company drops your coverage because it's cheaper to pay the fine (as it would be for my company I work for). Then, there's a chance my doctor won't take the new public plan because they can pick and choose patients due to demand. This will, of course, begin a new legislation process mandating that doctors take a certain number of publicly funded patients (ie, affirmative action for public health plan members).

As for the costs, I can easily see a scenario that will cause costs to go down with universal coverage. Right now, a hospital has to treat someone who comes into the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay. People that need urgent care aren't going to simply decide to wait it out. The costs are passed on to those who can pay, in the form of higher charges across the board at the hospital. ER visits are among the costliest visits. Patients declaring medical bankruptcies are a significant hit to revenues of medical professionals and instiutions. This is one example I could think of off the top of my head.

I buy this. I think some patients that weren't previously covered will now be covered. The problem is that person needs to be enrolled in the plan. Right now millions of ER patients go in uncovered even though they qualify for numerous publicly funded plans that they haven't enrolled in.

However, it will take longer to receive money from the government. Right now, private insurance companies have to atleast attempt to compete from a payment standpoint (and they take forever). Where's the impetus on the federal government to provide prompt payments to hospitals? Combine a lack of initiative with all the regulations/oversight that will be needed and funds may be a long time coming. This becomes a major issue to small, private practices.

As for the concerns about your company dropping health care for the government option, your employment and health coverage aren't guaranteed right now. A company can go out of business or restructure, and your current coverage can either change or get canceled. At least with an universal option you aren't exposed while looking for a new job or an alternative insurance offering.

I'll take the gamble that I can (like 80-90% of the country) remain employed and keep some kind of coverage. This argument becomes a question of whether you want good health care for X cost with a small chance of losing coverage for a small amount of time due to unemployment vs having worse coverage for a higher price all the time.

Again, I just don't see a situation where currently employed person with quality coverage benefits from this new bill. And, that's 75+% of US adults right now. At the end of the day, all 75% will suffer in some way for a benefit that no one can really quantify.

It's basically like me telling you that if you give me $10, there's a 20% chance I give you $12 back and an 80% chance I give you $6 back. However, the guy who gives me nothing has a 60% chance of getting $4 back. Right now, a lot of us giving up the $10 aren't really excited about entering into this arrangement.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Ever thought about how you are communicating at this very second?

Not really sure of this statement. Please expand.

[BrianD]

Can we keep the science vs religion argument out of this thread? We've had it in plenty of other places already.

[Flasch186]

Id like to point out that this thread is an example of how the debate on health care, on here and in the town halls, gets mutated into all sorts of other things that have nothing to so with health care or it's bill at all.

[CamEdwards]

Interesting poll from Gallup, where they interviewed 1,000 hairless bipedal monkeys about the healthcare town halls:

Poll: Health care views take sympathetic tilt - USATODAY.com

In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say the sometimes heated protests at sessions held by members of Congress have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views; 21% say they are less sympathetic.

Independents by 2-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.

I'm actually surprised by this... especially the independents.

[tarcone]

Im just curious how people can run down other peoples beliefs. This isnt Science vs. Religion. Its called respecting other peoples beliefs.
From reading this thread, we need more of this.

This is why the Health Care town meetings get crazy. People lack the respect to listen to each other.

We will all disagree on things. Thats human nature. But we shouldnt shout people dow or put people down because they think the politicians are going to kill old people or the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

[tarcone]

Plus this thread is about Obamas presidency and his Muslim leaning s really bother me.

[BrianD]

Arles, I'm curious about your last post. Based on the few town hall meetings I've watched, it seems like the only difference between the public insurance and the private insurance is the person paying the premiums. In one case it is the individual, and the other it is the government. Both the publicly a privately insured person will show up in an ER with their BCBS (for example) insurance card. The hospital staff won't know or care who is paying the insurance premiums, they will just send their bills to the insurance company. Am I missing something?

[miked]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im just curious how people can run down other peoples beliefs. This isnt Science vs. Religion. Its called respecting other peoples beliefs.
From reading this thread, we need more of this.

This is why the Health Care town meetings get crazy. People lack the respect to listen to each other.

We will all disagree on things. Thats human nature. But we shouldnt shout people dow or put people down because they think the politicians are going to kill old people or the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

What should we do to the uninformed people who think politicians are going to set up death squads to kill old people. Talk reason to them? In case you haven't been paying attention, these people (many on Medicare) don't really want to listen and are the ones shouting down. I'm not getting into the whole creation vs. big bang thing because I have no proof on either side, so if somebody wants to think the Earth is 6000 years old (as long as they don't teach it as science in schools) that's their belief. But when a belief is patently wrong (and being stoked by doofs like Palin) you can't just sit aside and say that's their opinion. It's an opinion being presented as fact based on incorrect knowledge.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Can we keep the science vs religion argument out of this thread? We've had it in plenty of other places already.

Good grief, I hope I wasn't supposed to be representing science here.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Plus this thread is about Obamas presidency and his Muslim leaning s really bother me.

Awesome.

I didn't know we had a birther in our midst.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Awesome.

I didn't know we had a birther in our midst.

Come on now, he didn't say anything about the birth certificate. So what do they call the 'Obama is a Muslim' people?

[KWhit]

A muslie?

[tarcone]

Did I say he was a Muslim? Or did I say he leaned that way? ah yes, post what others want to hear.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Plus this thread is about Obamas presidency and his Muslim leaning s really bother me.

*shaking my head*

fail.

EPIC MOTHERFUCKING FAIL

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Did I say he was a Muslim? Or did I say he leaned that way? ah yes, post what others want to hear.

How does he lean that way?

Seriously.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by KWhit

How does he lean that way?

Seriously.

Because he doesn't advocate bombing every Islamic country back in to the stone age.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I have Rastafarian leanings myself.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

Do you really believe the majority of Republicans believe that? Or, is it that they get the most attention in the media? Hey...look at these crazies.

Polls say they do.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/re...eationism.aspx

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Polls say they do.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/re...eationism.aspx

Am I missing something? The article you linked does not have anything to do with the earth being 6,000 years old or people believing that.

[tarcone]

Quoted from an interview with Cathleen Falsani

FALSANI:
What do you believe?

OBAMA:
"I am a Christian.

So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith.

On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences.

I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10.

My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim.

And I'd say, probably, intellectually I've drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.

(A patron stops and says, "Congratulations," shakes his hand. "Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.")

So, I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.

And so, part of my project in life was probably to spend the first 40 years of my life figuring out what I did believe - I'm 42 now - and it's not that I had it all completely worked out, but I'm spending a lot of time now trying to apply what I believe and trying to live up to those values."

Again from the interview:
"I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.

That's just not part of my religious makeup."

If you dont give yourself to Jesus Christ, you go to Hell. Christians believe this.

Obama believes he is “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth."

This quote by Obama should scare all Christians.

Obama ignores national day of prayer. The president slights godly expression. No mention of Matthew 6:5-6:

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret."


"We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers," Mr. Obama said

This is a Judeo-Christian country. Muslims live for divisiveness. Not untiy.

"Obama is a true believer in the religion of Environmentalism.

Not the science of the environment. Where that science survives, it provides us with a vital service; and it doesn't take any faith to believe in the findings of genuine scientists doing science properly."

Allah is the name for the Moon god that Mohammed founded the Muslim religion on.

Obama quoted as saying "We are no longer a Christian nation....."

Again the divisive rhetoric.

I think its pretty clear that Obama is not a Christian and does lean towards the religion of Mulims

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And your scientific proof of this? Or is this just a belief of what happened?

Countless fossils and DNA?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Am I missing something? The article you linked does not have anything to do with the earth being 6,000 years old or people believing that.

What article is coming up for you?

[DaddyTorgo]

oh man. i might let somebody else have first crack at that...lol

[Grammaticus]

One that polls peoples belief in evolution or creationism.

[RainMaker]

And points out that 60% of Republicans believe God created us in our current form within the last 10,000 years.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And points out that 60% of Republicans believe God created us in our current form within the last 10,000 years.

And here is a link to an article on the same site that polls only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. Does that mean the other 61% are lunatics?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Da...Evolution.aspx

Also, the article you linked indicates 38% of Democrats also believe in creationism and that God created humans 10,000 years ago and 39% of Democrats believe in Evolution. An additional 17% of democrats believe humans evolved but that God guided the process.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

And here is a link to an article on the same site that polls only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. Does that mean the other 61% are lunatics?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Da...Evolution.aspx

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Or horribly ignorant. One of the two.

yep

[Grammaticus]

Either way, it sounds like most can agree that believing in creationism or God does not imply a person is crazy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

And here is a link to an article on the same site that polls only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. Does that mean the other 61% are lunatics?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Da...Evolution.aspx

Also, the article you linked indicates 38% of Democrats also believe in creationism and that God created humans 10,000 years ago and 39% of Democrats believe in Evolution. An additional 17% of democrats believe humans evolved but that God guided the process.

Not lunatics, but uneducated and/or ignorant.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Either way, it sounds like most can agree that believing in creationism or God does not imply a person is crazy.

false

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

false

Then I guess your not as smart as JIMG thinks you are

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Then I guess your not as smart as JIMG thinks you are

eh, maybe "crazy" isn't the best word. but it's a lot "nicer" than some of the other words i'd use

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

The problem is we don't have a "general fund" to bail out a public health care system (potentially for 300 million people down the road) once it greatly exceeds it's funding caps. If we had an unlimited supply of money, I would expect that a national program would be comparable to medicare. But, given none of us want 70% tax rates to pay for it, cost becomes an issue in that it will tax an extremely high cost to keep the quality of care similar to what it is right now for the 80-85% with health coverage.

I agree with this. Health care should not be on the table until there is a plan in place to reduce the deficit.

Originally Posted by Arles

There are two arguments I see for national health care. One is that it will allow price controls and get overall cost of health care down. The next is that everyone will be covered. For the first to occur, some kind of rationing needs to occur and it will certainly cost more to the average employed health care recipient (I pay $150 pretax a month total in premiums for PPO coverage). For the second point to occur, you will see a large increase in stress on our infrastructure (wait times, access to services) and an increased cost (to cover the 40 million uninsured).

The end result is no plan from Washington will get me the high quality of care I have for myself and my son right now at a price anywhere near $150 a month (plus copays). But what's worse is that there's a real strong chance that I will see longer doctor wait times and risk my company (not a huge company) potentially dropping health benefits because of the government option. So, there's a good chance that if this bill gets enacted, I will face the following scenario a few years down the road:

A. Pay more
B. Wait more
C. Have less access to specialists/coverage than I do now

Seems to me like this is something worth fighting against.

You don't pay $150 pretax a month though. Your employers may cover a portion of it, but that's still technically part of your compensation.

I don't see those same negatives you do. It's not like we are killing the private sector so there will still be good money in the medical profession. Supply and demand should dictate that if there is more demand for specialists, we'll see more coming out of school.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

As you mentioned, about 80-85% of the people in our country have health care. Ideally, that number would 100% but I don't feel we have the health care infrastructure to serve that many people in any efficient way. There would have to be major changes in the way we do things that go beyond what this plan seems to offer (more doctors, more clinics, less bullshit tests/exams to drive patients bills up, ect).

I agree things would need to change. But isn't it a bid morbid to tell 15% of the country to fuck themselves because the 85% need higher care?

It would be no different to me than to say that we'll pull police officers out of 15% of the cities and move the to the other 85% so that they could get much better protection.

[molson]

The funniest part about that evolution survey that people love to cite( because they're trying to lump them with anyone that disagrees with them) is the last question - only 55% even know what the theory of evolution is. So what do the rest of the numbers even matter?

[sterlingice]

I've always wondered why this debate was framed as "creation vs evolution". It's pretty easy to believe in creation and still be ok with evolution. Is anyone really railing against Mendel and his punnett squares? Now if you want to go "Creation vs Big Bang"- that gets a bit more interesting because big bang is built on a lot of speculative science with no real good underpinnings.

SI

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree things would need to change. But isn't it a bid morbid to tell 15% of the country to fuck themselves because the 85% need higher care?

It would be no different to me than to say that we'll pull police officers out of 15% of the cities and move the to the other 85% so that they could get much better protection.

I didn't mean it to come across as telling 15% to go fuck themselves. What I was trying to get across is the complexity of the issue. Its not as simple as just giving everyone affordable health care and then letting the rest take care of itself. In a country with the resources we have every single person should have an affordable health care option. However, the infrastructure isn't in place for it right now.

We also need to the money to pull this off. As I stated above, Medicare is probably the best health care in the country, but it's well over-budget and is probably going to become a financial burden to the country. Where's the money going to come from? Are the 85% of the people with health care right now going to end up paying for the other 15%? Is this going to affect how long you wait for specialty care? Are doctors going to schedule less time to see their patients?

I think these are legitimate concerns and it may not sound fair, but I'd rather keep things the way they are until we have a plan that can answer all of these questions (no idea if the current plan does or not) than give the other 15% health care and fuck things up for everyone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I've always wondered why this debate was framed as "creation vs evolution". It's pretty easy to believe in creation and still be ok with evolution. Is anyone really railing against Mendel and his punnett squares? Now if you want to go "Creation vs Big Bang"- that gets a bit more interesting because big bang is built on a lot of speculative science with no real good underpinnings.

SI

I think again, it's framed that way by those on the "evolution" side to mock religion and for political points, and to more easily look down upon people that are different than them. I think less-educated people see "creation v. evolution" as "god v. no god", and answer accordingly. When you're absolutely right, the two things are completely compatible, it makes no sense that they're always presented as mutually exclusive.

I don't think the people who answer "creationism" to that question really don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution has just been framed as "anti-god" for some reason so they're against it. If you asked them, outside of a god context, whether they "believed" in natural selection, and gave an explanation of what natural selection is, the numbers would be different.

There's plenty of other threads here on this so I won't get into it again, but the religion-bashers don't get religion. Religion isn't an attempted scientific explanation for the earth, no matter what blog they read or preacher they quote.

[Arles]

I think this has been a very good debate (Monkey business aside). To build on an earlier point, many doctors have decided against accepting currently public-based insurance programs. The reasons are long delays in payment, reduced coverage options and too much paperwork/oversight:

Fewer Doctors In Texas Are Accepting Medicare Cases, Texas Health Insurance

Only 58 percent of Texas physicians are taking new Medicare cases, and only 38 percent of primary care physicians are doing so, according to a study conducted by the Houston Chronicle.

Across the country, only 600,000 of 1.5 million total physicians are currently willing to treat Medicare patients, the study notes.

According to the Texas Medical Association, 78 percent of the state's physicians took new Medicare patients in 2000, which dropped to 72 percent in 2002 and 68 percent in 2004.

Looming cuts in the rates at which doctors are reimbursed for treating Medicare patients promise to depress those numbers even further in the coming months and years, analysts say.

Illinois Senate Republicans - The doctors are in, but not many taking kids

Many pediatricians in All Kids program won’t accept new patients.

“I thought it was a good idea the governor was going to help more people,” said Spagna, whose own family doctor of three years recently quit taking public aid patients. “But if it is such a great thing, why couldn’t we find a doctor?

A Daily Herald survey of 58 Kane County pediatricians on a state-supplied list found that at least 41 percent were not accepting new All Kids patients.

Donna Silberg, office manager at Batavia-based Fox Valley Children’s Medicine, said that until recently she was staring at a stack of public aid bills from nine months prior, just waiting to be paid.

Silberg said the office was contacted about joining All Kids voluntarily but “didn’t want to get involved with it” because of past experiences.

“You can only take so much loss,” she said.

Doctors Taking Less Medicaid Patients

Many people who rely on government health insurance for the poor have to search harder to find a doctor and increasingly are going to large practices, a study shows.

Officials say Medicaid's reimbursement rate is the biggest reason that it is getting more difficult to locate doctors who take new patients under the program. On average, reimbursements are 69 percent of what Medicare pays and even lower compared with what private insurers pay.

Doctors frequently complain about the administrative hassles. For example, physicians often have to get approval before prescribing medicine or conducting tests.

Low pay from Medicaid keeps doctors away from primary care

Look no further than the Illinois Medicaid program to understand why more physicians are not being lured into the primary-care profession.

Despite repeated calls by President Obama and members of Congress for people to have a medical home -- a primary-care physician -- those doctors usually receive low pay for what they do. Such doctors include family physicians, pediatricians and internists who are generally paid less than specialists but are key to keeping patients well and out of the more expensive hospital care setting.

Illinois is notorious for low payments from the Medicaid program for the poor. Payments are funded by state and federal taxes but administered by Illinois health officials.

Though payments can vary depending on the service provided, it's not uncommon for a physician to be paid $25 to $75 for a Medicaid patient's routine visit. That can be 20 percent to 30 percent less than what the Medicare health insurance for the elderly pays and less than half the $100 to $125 or more a private insurer would pay for the same service.

Currently publicly financed programs like Medicare, Medicaid, All Kids, Commonwealth Care in Mass and nearly every other instance in the US have a much lower scope than a national plan would, but struggle to provide competitive payments to doctors (or payments on time). There's a very good chance a large percentage of primary care physicians would just not accept this new program.

So, you have doctor X with your employer paid PPO insurance. This new government plan is enacted and your employer drops coverage (something very attractive to many employers when you look at the cost savings). Then, you go on the government plan. Next, you find that doctor X doesn't accept this plan (for the reasons above) and now you've lost your family doctor. This is a very real fear and one that is getting very little response from the congress/White House.

It's all fine to try and change a flawed system. But if that change results in losing your primary doctor, longer waits and less access to other doctors - is it something really worth doing? It seems like people are so invested in changing the health care system that they are embracing any new idea - even if that idea results in more issues than we have now. And, IMO, that is very dangerous.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by molson

There's plenty of other threads here on this so I won't get into it again, but the religion-bashers don't get religion. Religion isn't an attempted scientific explanation for the earth, no matter what blog they read or preacher they quote.

I think I "get" religion fairly well.

If the Christian religion didn't want to get dragged in to this debate, it shouldn't have included Genesis.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I think I "get" religion fairly well.

If the Christian religion didn't want to get dragged in to this debate, it shouldn't have included Genesis.

Sorry, you clearly don't get religion.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Did I say he was a Muslim? Or did I say he leaned that way? ah yes, post what others want to hear.

Oh I thought you were being sarcastic.

This thread just got awesome again.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Countless fossils and DNA?

And? You are so willing to believe a man made tool. How do you know those fossils arent 6000 years old? Why do they have to be 6 million years old?

You are reading a book that says 6 million years old, other people are reading a book that says 6000 years old. But they are crazy or lunatics?