The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LOL - THERE IS ALREADY RATIONING OF CARE BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!!!

I guess I'm not 100% sure how you define rationing. I don't experience any type of rationing of services. It is basically to restrict consumption. If an insurance company covers it great, if they don't you can still get it by paying out of pocket. Places like Canada and the UK have rationing in the sense they cannot purchase something even if they want it. Or they have to wait beyond a reasonable amount of time (rationing because health services can be time sensitive) to get it even if paying for it. I don't think we have that problem in the US.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm trying to wonder how this bill is even close to "government-controlled health care"? It seems like a Swiss system. Private insurance companies, lots of government regulation, mandated health insurance coverage and government assistance for the poor to buy health care.

Maybe I just think that people who believe that regulation = government controlled are just nuts.

I don't think regulation equals government run. I do think the "public option" in this bill is fair to call government run.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I guess I'm not 100% sure how you define rationing. I don't experience any type of rationing of services. It is basically to restrict consumption. If an insurance company covers it great, if they don't you can still get it by paying out of pocket. Places like Canada and the UK have rationing in the sense they cannot purchase something even if they want it. Or they have to wait beyond a reasonable amount of time (rationing because health services can be time sensitive) to get it even if paying for it. I don't think we have that problem in the US.

That's not true. You have every right to get get treatment privately in those countries. The public plan is just an option and an option that works most of the time for residences.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

In addition, you haven't been rationed because you haven't got majorly sick. No, the insurance company isn't going to deny your claim for going to go to the doctor and get antibiotics. But, if you have a major multi-thousand dollar issue, I guarantee you that at some point, you'll be asking a guy making twelve bucks an hour why the insurance denied something a doctor said was medically necessary.

Plus, like Rainmaker said, additional private insurance is only banned in Cuba and North Korea. Everywhere else, you want to buy extra insurance to cut in line and go private hospitals/etc. Go ahead.

Huge +1 on both of these. Very basic factual stuff here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anecdotal but not once during my father-in-law's decade long struggle with, and to recover from, an aortic aneuryism and all of the attendant problems that followed did I ever see a single treatment or procedure denied by insurance. .Not by Medicare, not by private, not by anyone. And that includes multiple hospitalizations of more than a month, multiple stints in physical rehab that followed in order to get him back on his feet after weeks in bed, etc & et al into what seemed like infinity.

And believe me, it was well beyond the "major multi-thousand dollar" threshold. Heck, he passed that point en route to the hospital the first night somewhere in the air between his hometown & the closest major hospital.

Nor did we encounter any denial of service during my grandfather's bouts with cancer. Nor during the additional health problems that eventually killed him. And his was the more traditional Medicare + private supplement scenario (aka Medigap coverage). Nor with my grandmother's shorter but brutal fight with cancer. Nor with her broken shoulder, surgical repair, and extensive rehab therapy.

In fact, outside of the games that facilities play with time tables (30 day limits on Medicare coverage for certain services & situations) the only time I've ever actually run into anything more extensive than reasonably legitimate questions for coverage was when my wife gave birth & that seemed more like Blue Cross-Blue Shield being the sorry ass cheap bastards they are.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

New LA Times article detailing how much private insurance providers stand to gain if health care reform is passed........

Healthcare insurers get upper hand -- latimes.com

Factcheck.org with another good article detailing another Obama denial that isn't totally accurate.......

Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating? | FactCheck.org

Great clip here to watch for those of you that don't have HBO (If you do have HBO, you should watch a replay of this week's episode). Jeremy Scahill was on Bill Maher's show the other day and did a great job taking Bush, Obama, and the media to task for letting Blackwater continue to land major contracts overseas despite their reputation. I also had no idea that the number of military contractors has increased by 25% or more in both Iraq and Afghanistan under Obama. Loved watching Chuck Todd get taken to the mat over his hypocrisy in regards to Blackwater. Some great questions by Jay Leno as well.

Jeremy Scahill Slams Chuck Todd, Media, Congress Over Blackwater On "Real Time With Bill Maher" (VIDEO)

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's not true. You have every right to get get treatment privately in those countries. The public plan is just an option and an option that works most of the time for residences.

Then why does anyone in those countries come to the US for services? Why are there wait lists in those countries and not in the US? I think that illustrates rationing far better then stories about somebody you know, etc.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Anecdotal but not once during my father-in-law's decade long struggle with, and to recover from, an aortic aneuryism and all of the attendant problems that followed did I ever see a single treatment or procedure denied by insurance. .Not by Medicare, not by private, not by anyone. And that includes multiple hospitalizations of more than a month, multiple stints in physical rehab that followed in order to get him back on his feet after weeks in bed, etc & et al into what seemed like infinity.

Yeah, my anecdotal issues would be similar. Issues my grandfather had with a fall and complications after it some time ago were covered beautifully by Medicare.

BCBS North Carolina continues to directly fuck over my father by denying him medication that we have seen work wonders on his short term memory loss that he suffers as a result of cancer/brain surgery years ago. Not because they don't cover the medication... they do, but only if you have the right diagnosis. You have to have Alzheimers. My dad doesn't, but the impact on my dad's brain and memory equates to "Alzheimers like symptoms" that are alleviated/improved by this medication, which costs $180/mo when not covered. But the diagnosis isn't exactly right, so BCBS gives us the finger even after letters and calls from both our family doc and neurologist.

I'm not about to tell anyone where to side on any of these debates. But some of this shit is just blatantly factually wrong and people are basing their decisions on this stuff. That pisses me off.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Plus, like Rainmaker said, additional private insurance is only banned in Cuba and North Korea. Everywhere else, you want to buy extra insurance to cut in line and go private hospitals/etc. Go ahead. Somebody from Austrailia I believe explained all of this back a few pages but of course, nobody decided to go after him.

Also, the same thing the right-wing is rallying against was _supported_ bi-partisanly during the Medicare Part D negoitations. It's not a huge deal. It's just written in enough leaglese because hey, it's a bill that it allows people to be confused.

Bolded for emphasis.

Even if we get UHC those that see their wait times longer than they'd like I am certain will be able to find that the marketplace creates a solution, for profit, to help meet their needs. That argument in my opinion holds zero water.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Then why does anyone in those countries come to the US for services?

The same reason many people in the United States travel to Canada for prescription meds and procedures. Some stuff about our system is better, some stuff about their system is better. This ain't black and white.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

In addition, you haven't been rationed because you haven't got majorly sick. No, the insurance company isn't going to deny your claim for going to go to the doctor and get antibiotics. But, if you have a major multi-thousand dollar issue, I guarantee you that at some point, you'll be asking a guy making twelve bucks an hour why the insurance denied something a doctor said was medically necessary.

Sounds a lot like the kind of thing that happens when I go to the DMV to get my license renewed, or call the IRS to ask a question, or try to figure out the process for paying a parking ticket. Has the government somehow made huge strides in the (your words) "twelve bucks an hour" service category? How exactly is the government going to be any better at this?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Because, like in anything, there are certain areas of care where there are world-class specialists people seek out. Also, super-rich people who want to skip all the lines, even those in their own country.

Since you and the administration care so much about the common man why does your boss feel the need to vacation in a $35,000 a week house? Couldn't he just go back to Chicago?

(I understand that the $35K is out of his pocket and not a taxpayers, but it seems a little... what is your talking point? Out of touch)

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Factcheck.org with another good article detailing another Obama denial that isn't totally accurate.......

Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating? | FactCheck.org

Factcheck.org is one of the best sites on the web IMO. Everyone ought to go there often, not to bolster their side, or attack the other side. For once fuck sides. This site does an incredible job of remaining non-partisan and wading through the bullshit on both sides. their recent pieces on their front page, all about healthcare reform, do a great job to try to find the truth in the talking points and oversimplifications that both sides are constantly making.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Since you and the administration care so much about the common man why does your boss feel the need to vacation in a $35,000 a week house? Couldn't he just go back to Chicago?

(I understand that the $35K is out of his pocket and not a taxpayers, but it seems a little... what is your talking point? Out of touch)

Really?

He's got a very stressful job. If he wants to vacation (out of his own pocket, with his own money) somewhere different and "away from it all" then I'm pretty sure that's his right. I have zero problem with it. Just like I had zero problem with any of the previous president's vacationing (well except for Bush who spent historically absurd levels of time at his ranch instead of in Washington)

[JPhillips]

Didn't think I'd ever say this, but Ross Douthat nails it:

If the Congressional Democrats can’t get a health care package through, it won’t prove that President Obama is a sellout or an incompetent. It will prove that Congress’s liberal leaders are lousy tacticians, and that its centrist deal-makers are deal-makers first, poll watchers second and loyal Democrats a distant third. And it will prove that the Democratic Party is institutionally incapable of delivering on its most significant promises.

You have to assume that on some level Congress understands this — which is why you also have to assume that some kind of legislation will eventually pass.

If it doesn’t, President Obama will have been defeated. But it’s the party, not the president, that will have failed.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by panerd

or call the IRS to ask a question

I am shocked by this. I worked for a year doing some tax law and some administrative law in 2002-03. I found that, by far, the IRS was the most user-friendly government agency with whom I interacted. DOT also wasn't too bad. The military was impentrable. Other agencies were hit or miss.

The IRS public web site is one of the best Q&A places that I have seen. And they are easy to call on the phone, get a human being, and ask a question. They once called me back to clarify an answer that they gave me previously.

When did you try and call them? Why was it so bad?

I am, again, shocked. Sure the IRS has a bad reputation, but that's just BS that come from people who have never tried to call them--or frustration with the complexity of the law--which is Congress' fault, not the IRS's. Anyone who actually tries to interact with IRS has almost nothing but positive things to say about the level of information and service provided.

So, what happened? When did it happen? I often sing IRS's praises in this regard, and if I am wrong, I'd like to be informed of that.

(I, of course, agree that the DMV sucks donkey balls.)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

New LA Times article detailing how much private insurance providers stand to gain if health care reform is passed........

Healthcare insurers get upper hand -- latimes.com

Factcheck.org with another good article detailing another Obama denial that isn't totally accurate.......

Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating? | FactCheck.org

Great clip here to watch for those of you that don't have HBO (If you do have HBO, you should watch a replay of this week's episode). Jeremy Scahill was on Bill Maher's show the other day and did a great job taking Bush, Obama, and the media to task for letting Blackwater continue to land major contracts overseas despite their reputation. I also had no idea that the number of military contractors has increased by 25% or more in both Iraq and Afghanistan under Obama. Loved watching Chuck Todd get taken to the mat over his hypocrisy in regards to Blackwater. Some great questions by Jay Leno as well.

Jeremy Scahill Slams Chuck Todd, Media, Congress Over Blackwater On "Real Time With Bill Maher" (VIDEO)

Relying on so many contractors has always been a bad policy. If we don't have a large enough military to do the job then we should expand, but national security can't be effectively handled by mercenaries. I'd prefer a no contractors in a war zone policy personally.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Relying on so many contractors has always been a bad policy. If we don't have a large enough military to do the job then we should expand, but national security can't be effectively handled by mercenaries. I'd prefer a no contractors in a war zone policy personally.

+1

contractors in combat bad

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Relying on so many contractors has always been a bad policy. If we don't have a large enough military to do the job then we should expand, but national security can't be effectively handled by mercenaries. I'd prefer a no contractors in a war zone policy personally.

As noted in the interview, we would also save quite a bit of money if we weren't hiring out contractors. Many of the U.S. military soldiers are leaving the military and moving to work for these contracting companies because of the increase in pay. Cutting off these contracts would help keep people in the military if we neutralized that alternative.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Didn't think I'd ever say this, but Ross Douthat nails it:

It was a great Op-ed. Of course we come from different sides on this because I think Douthat is the best columnist working today, and nails a lot of issues. .

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Africa requests $67B from wealthy countries to combat global warming effects on that continent. I'm sure that will be used well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/lates...s/idUSLO544093

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Again, I wonder why people truly believe there would be _more_ rationing in a government system with no profit motive than one where there is. But, that's just not going to get through anybodies head at this point.

Rationing as a problem depends on how big the public option ends up being. For now, it actually seems pretty meaningless, like an experiment, so in that sense I feel a lot better about it.

If you tried to offer a public option to anyone who wanted it, the rationing concern wouldn't be profits obviously, but doctor/clinic shortages. And perhaps political agendas to care (not a concern for you when the government leans Democrat, but what if we have a switch?) You're just taking the concerns of the private system (profit system), and then noting that it doesn't apply to government, which is obvious, but then ignore the unique risks of AMERICAN government involvement in order to make your case. That's gone on again and again in this thread. Highlight the postivies, deny or ignore the negatives and risks. It doesn't fill me with confidence when its assumed everything will be perfect. You talk about European perspectives being ignored, but nothing's being ignored more then the regular downsides and risks. It's like, "what if X happens?"..."Oh no, that would never happen here, it hasn't happened in Denmark, so it can't possibly happen here". Which isn't really responsive to the question.

I'm still trying to figure how much exactly the "Public option" premiums are going to cost, if that option is going to be self-sufficient. And who exactly is elligible for the public option, that would actually buy it, that could afford premiums out-of-pocket to the extent that the option will be self-sufficient, as has been promised. Ask a question like that - nobody has any idea (but they might write something in all caps about what Europe does or how there won't be death counsels).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, I don't really care.

I figured when the Obama administration sent out people to popular websites to spread their propaganda that they would also have you defend his other decisions.

Of course I guess it's possible that you maybe just randomly visited a sports text-sim website where your only posts are in the Obama presidency thread. Which sports sims do you play again?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I figured when the Obama administration sent out people to popular websites to spread their propaganda that they would also have you defend his other decisions.

Of course I guess it's possible that you maybe just randomly visited a sports text-sim website where your only posts are in the Obama presidency thread. Which sports sims do you play again?

So are we now becoming elitist in that he can't express a political opinion without having a history of playing text-sims/posting in other threads? He has to do that before he can express his political opinions here?

Steve's been anything but a troll - his posts are coherent and well thought-out and referenced. Even humerous sometimes. He's hardly here inciting conflict.

Really panerd, I'd expect better from you.

And yes, if he was a lefty-troll I'd excoriate him too - I'm against trolling by either side (even my own)...we've managed to maintain fairly good decorum and a high level of discussion in here, and on this board in general as far as politics go...I'd hate to see that dragged down.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Sorry, anybody b.) says the following, "You could spin this out further and point out that it also makes adaptive sense for women to have a certain amount of difficulty having orgasms, because then they're more likely to seek out a long-term monogamous partner who knows their body well, which in turn dovetails nicely with the general female interest in having only one partner, the better to keep that partner around when the children come along" can't qualify as the best columnist working today.

Then again, I'm one of those weird things called a male feminist so somebody who thinks birth control is yucky isn't exactly on my Christmas card list.

Not sure what's so radical about that thought. It makes sense, from a evolutionary biology standpoint (and you know how I stand on other things - it's not like we're on radically different sides). That may be one of the biological reasons why CERTAIN women have a certain amount of difficulty achieving orgasm. Not all though. And it may not always lead to monogomy - particularly if they end up for some length of time with someone who loses/never had the ability to cause them to orgasm.

From a Jared Diamond "Third Chimpanzee" evolutionary-biology standpoint, this actually makes a whole lot of sense.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Sorry, anybody a.) working on the same paper with Bob Herbert and b.) says the following, "You could spin this out further and point out that it also makes adaptive sense for women to have a certain amount of difficulty having orgasms, because then they're more likely to seek out a long-term monogamous partner who knows their body well, which in turn dovetails nicely with the general female interest in having only one partner, the better to keep that partner around when the children come along" can't qualify as the best columnist working today.

Then again, I'm one of those weird things called a male feminist so somebody who thinks birth control is yucky isn't exactly on my Christmas card list.

I'm a male feminist too, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is opposed is a horrible person. Regardless, I find nothing that bad in that quote you posted. What is so horrid about it? The man is thinking out loud about an evolutionary creation and it isn't out of left field at all.

And who you work with drives you down? I realize Bob Herbert is absolute dreck and sucks like a black hole, but that shouldn't drive down the rest of the staff.

[ISiddiqui]

Or.. what DaddyTorgo just said

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

If you tried to offer a public option to anyone who wanted it, the rationing concern wouldn't be profits obviously, but doctor/clinic shortages. And perhaps political agendas to care (not a concern for you when the government leans Democrat, but what if we have a switch?) You're just taking the concerns of the private system (profit system), and then noting that it doesn't apply to government, which is obvious, but then ignore the unique risks of AMERICAN government involvement in order to make your case.

Another consideration is the upward spiraling defecit. A future administration now runs the real problem of having to make drastic cuts just to keep the government afloat. Medicare and any version of a 'public option' would be prime targets in that case, given what would be their huge contributions to the increasing defecit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Radii

Yeah, my anecdotal issues would be similar. Issues my grandfather had with a fall and complications after it some time ago were covered beautifully by Medicare.

The sum total of my family experiences with Medicare do not any include any real problems with getting them to pay for services that doctors requested. In fairness there would also have to be a reasonable grain of salt added there, or a reality check of sorts at least, in that doctors seem to pretty much know what will/won't be covered in most cases and tend to tailor treatment options with that in mind (which has both pros & cons obviously).

{insert 2 hour pause here, as I had to run out in mid-post for an appointment I almost forgot about}

If anything, it's things like prescription drugs, secondary issues (eyeglasses for a quick example of the top of my head) where I've seen some issues but nothing I would attribute to Medicare/Insurance directly.

The doctors unwillingness to treat certain problems adequately when they're getting Medicare rates, that's a whole different topic.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The CBO has scored the public option that's in the House as deficit neutral.

Given the latest deficit projections, I'm not even sure if 'deficit neutral' is good enough anymore.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Rationing as a problem depends on how big the public option ends up being. For now, it actually seems pretty meaningless, like an experiment, so in that sense I feel a lot better about it.

If you tried to offer a public option to anyone who wanted it, the rationing concern wouldn't be profits obviously, but doctor/clinic shortages. And perhaps political agendas to care (not a concern for you when the government leans Democrat, but what if we have a switch?) You're just taking the concerns of the private system (profit system), and then noting that it doesn't apply to government, which is obvious, but then ignore the unique risks of AMERICAN government involvement in order to make your case. That's gone on again and again in this thread. Highlight the postivies, deny or ignore the negatives and risks. It doesn't fill me with confidence when its assumed everything will be perfect. You talk about European perspectives being ignored, but nothing's being ignored more then the regular downsides and risks. It's like, "what if X happens?"..."Oh no, that would never happen here, it hasn't happened in Denmark, so it can't possibly happen here". Which isn't really responsive to the question.

I'm still trying to figure how much exactly the "Public option" premiums are going to cost, if that option is going to be self-sufficient. And who exactly is elligible for the public option, that would actually buy it, that could afford premiums out-of-pocket to the extent that the option will be self-sufficient, as has been promised. Ask a question like that - nobody has any idea (but they might write something in all caps about what Europe does or how there won't be death counsels).

The premiums issue isn't that complicated. The idea is that the public option would have to survive on it's premiums, without extra governmental aid.

Most of the people who sign up for the public option are assumed to be lower income/chronically ill who don't have access to other insurance plans.

The government will subsidize premiums for those under a certain income level.

Most of these subsidies will go to pay for premiums in the public option.

Whatever those premiums are, will be the cost for those who don't qualify for subsidies.

The exact cost of the premiums has yet to be determined.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

That's more of an example than proof. If he threw that quote in with the rest of everything else being relatively enlightened, I could see he's coming from it from that perspective. However, since he's also basically against birth control and has said several other quite silly things, it becomes sort of a backhanded/quasi-misognistic compliment to woman like many evolutionary psychology type things are, even if they aren't meant that way.

Also, I was more saying that Bob Herbert was a better columnist than Ross, so it was sort of silly calling him the best. Obviously, I screwed the pooch on the metaphor. I was trying to use it like, "Well, as long as Albert Pujols is still playing, you can't call Kevin Youkliss the best hitter in the game," or something along those lines.

He's against birth control because of his religious faith (he's Catholic). And his views are somewhat prudish, but he attempts to flesh them out and be honest with them. I've never seen him as a misogynist, but rather someone who actually reasons out his views from his starting spoints (which I find rather rare... most people have at least a few views that they rationalize away from where their starting points would lead them).

Your quote is also one of the reasons I like Douthat. It's very easy for people to jump on him, but when you actually take time to read his stuff, it is very thoughtful and makes sense. And the man has the balls to say what he thinks, regardless of who he gets attacked by (his feud was Limbaugh was great).

Regardless, I also disagree with your comparison, obvious, as I consider Douthat the best columnist out there and Herbert to be one of the worst.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Then why does anyone in those countries come to the US for services? Why are there wait lists in those countries and not in the US? I think that illustrates rationing far better then stories about somebody you know, etc.

Newer treatments, different methods, a better doctor perhaps. The same reason many cancer patients were flying over to Germany over the last few years for experimental treatments. I'd bet you that the number of people coming to the United States for treatment is miniscule.

You keep using this word rationing but I'm telling you that Canada and the UK have private options available. The same as the United States. The public option is just that, an option. If you aren't satisfied with the wait times on the public option, you are free to go the private route. They have the same exact private system available that we do.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As noted in the interview, we would also save quite a bit of money if we weren't hiring out contractors. Many of the U.S. military soldiers are leaving the military and moving to work for these contracting companies because of the increase in pay. Cutting off these contracts would help keep people in the military if we neutralized that alternative.

How very socialist of you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Anecdotal but not once during my father-in-law's decade long struggle with, and to recover from, an aortic aneuryism and all of the attendant problems that followed did I ever see a single treatment or procedure denied by insurance. .Not by Medicare, not by private, not by anyone. And that includes multiple hospitalizations of more than a month, multiple stints in physical rehab that followed in order to get him back on his feet after weeks in bed, etc & et al into what seemed like infinity.

And believe me, it was well beyond the "major multi-thousand dollar" threshold. Heck, he passed that point en route to the hospital the first night somewhere in the air between his hometown & the closest major hospital.

Nor did we encounter any denial of service during my grandfather's bouts with cancer. Nor during the additional health problems that eventually killed him. And his was the more traditional Medicare + private supplement scenario (aka Medigap coverage). Nor with my grandmother's shorter but brutal fight with cancer. Nor with her broken shoulder, surgical repair, and extensive rehab therapy.

In fact, outside of the games that facilities play with time tables (30 day limits on Medicare coverage for certain services & situations) the only time I've ever actually run into anything more extensive than reasonably legitimate questions for coverage was when my wife gave birth & that seemed more like Blue Cross-Blue Shield being the sorry ass cheap bastards they are.

Medicare works fairly well. The scenarios you described would not have been as smooth on a strictly private health insurance plan.

Having a handicapped mother, I've dealth more than I wanted to with health insurance companies. I can tell you every game they play when she has to make a hospital trip. I can tell you that virtually any new medicine she gets prescribed will be denied off the bat. I can tell you that they will conveniently forget to pay bills to hospital and doctors. They will fight just about everything they can with you. It's almost a full time job to send in appeals and documentation for everything. When people talk about the insured and how great having health insurance is, they are typically talking about it as a healthy person.

I'd also add that in my experiences, I've lost a lot of respect for doctors as they've been one of the only people that actually made me feel bad for insurance companies. I guess I grew up thinking doctors were holier than thou. I learned that many (not all) are no better than used car salesman and will pad their bills with bogus shit all the time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd bet you that the number of people coming to the United States for treatment is miniscule.

How much we betting? I know for a fact you'd lose, but I'm just curious how much you'd prefer to lose. The interesting part is that many prominent people come the U.S. to be treated anonymously. They do that to avoid the "What? We're not good enough?" backlash from the health care providers in their own country. I'm sure that most Americans aren't even aware that it happens quite often.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How very socialist of you.

Saving money using cheaper alternatives is now socialist? I thought you were the one that said most people don't know what the word 'socialist' means?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd also add that in my experiences, I've lost a lot of respect for doctors as they've been one of the only people that actually made me feel bad for insurance companies. I guess I grew up thinking doctors were holier than thou. I learned that many (not all) are no better than used car salesman and will pad their bills with bogus shit all the time.

Another day, another overgeneralization about a group with little basis in reality.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As noted in the interview, we would also save quite a bit of money if we weren't hiring out contractors. Many of the U.S. military soldiers are leaving the military and moving to work for these contracting companies because of the increase in pay. Cutting off these contracts would help keep people in the military if we neutralized that alternative.

The biggest draw to the military is the training received and the ability to slide into a similar job that offers financial security whenever your time is up. Eliminate those positions and you likely see a big drop-off in recruitment, especially in Intel and similar fields where it's hard to keep these people to begin with. Contract positions allow the military to keep the highly skilled and experienced people that don't want to stay in the military or are unable to stay in the military for a variety of reasons.

No one joins the military for the pay and very few leave it simply because there are high paying contractor jobs they can get. The military is something you either want to do or you don't. I'm sure the other former/current military on this board can tell you that job opportunities are more of a bonus once you've decided your time in the military is up than anything else. There are usually a lot of factors considered when leaving and pay is actually fairly low on the list from what I've seen.

If you really think people would just opt to stay in the military because the contractor jobs are eliminated you're nuts. On top of forcing the very best of these to jobs where their skills aren't helping the military you'd likely see a drastic falloff in recruitment in the handful of job fields where contracting opportunities after you're done are the big draw (such as intel). The main attraction to these these fields is the training and experience the military can offer which translate to job opportunities when your done. Eliminating those opportunities by creating roadblocks to the outside would be a disaster as jobs that rely on the level of experience and skill that these contractors are able to bring would end up filled by people with little to no experience.

Those few that do keep because there are less job opportunities available are people that don't want to be there to begin with. You don't want these people in the military. Its entirely different to have someone that realizes the military isn't for them and they simply have to fulfill their current contract and be done than having experienced people filling important jobs that don't want to be there because you eliminated job opportunities. Building an experienced, low morale military is a great way to run our nation's defense.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Another day, another overgeneralization about a group with little basis in reality.

Not an overgeneralization at all. Plenty of statistics to support that doctors run up bills on insurance companies. Check out data on what tests are performed on someone with insurance and without. On what tests are performed when the doctor owns the machine and makes a cut off each test.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The biggest draw to the military is the training received and the ability to slide into a similar job that offers financial security whenever your time is up. Eliminate those positions and you likely see a big drop-off in recruitment, especially in Intel and similar fields where it's hard to keep these people to begin with. Contract positions allow the military to keep the highly skilled and experienced people that don't want to stay in the military or are unable to stay in the military for a variety of reasons.

No one joins the military for the pay and very few leave it simply because there are high paying contractor jobs they can get. The military is something you either want to do or you don't. I'm sure the other former/current military on this board can tell you that job opportunities are more of a bonus once you've decided your time in the military is up than anything else. There are usually a lot of factors considered when leaving and pay is actually fairly low on the list from what I've seen.

If you really think people would just opt to stay in the military because the contractor jobs are eliminated you're nuts. On top of forcing the very best of these to jobs where their skills aren't helping the military you'd likely see a drastic falloff in recruitment in the handful of job fields where contracting opportunities after you're done are the big draw (such as intel). The main attraction to these these fields is the training and experience the military can offer which translate to job opportunities when your done. Eliminating those opportunities by creating roadblocks to the outside would be a disaster as jobs that rely on the level of experience and skill that these contractors are able to bring would end up filled by people with little to no experience.

Those few that do keep because there are less job opportunities available are people that don't want to be there to begin with. You don't want these people in the military. Its entirely different to have someone that realizes the military isn't for them and they simply have to fulfill their current contract and be done than having experienced people filling important jobs that don't want to be there because you eliminated job opportunities. Building an experienced, low morale military is a great way to run our nation's defense.

You obviously took my point to an extreme. If you minimize or eliminate the contracting positions, you're going to have a lot more money to offer additional pay and benefits to the existing military. I'd agree with you every step of the way that they're not paid enough. All the money is going to the paid mercenaries.

Contracting is a long-standing tradition in all branches of government (not just the military)that needs to be curtailed. This is coming from a person who is currently employed as a government contractor. It's honestly ridiculous that they don't have a full-time employee on staff rather than me.

[DaddyTorgo]

not to mention that contracting in warzones gives them plausible deniability about atrocities and things that wouldn't be sanctioned by the Geneva convention - and since we haven't signed onto the International Criminal Court fully those "contractors" are at no risk of being forced to account for their crimes

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

not to mention that contracting in warzones gives them plausible deniability about atrocities and things that wouldn't be sanctioned by the Geneva convention - and since we haven't signed onto the International Criminal Court fully those "contractors" are at no risk of being forced to account for their crimes

Well, I think there are some examples where they would be held accountable, but I'd agree with you that it's not nearly the extent that a soldier would be. I think you'd agree it's a pretty weak reason to do it that way.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

How much we betting? I know for a fact you'd lose, but I'm just curious how much you'd prefer to lose. The interesting part is that many prominent people come the U.S. to be treated anonymously. They do that to avoid the "What? We're not good enough?" backlash from the health care providers in their own country. I'm sure that most Americans aren't even aware that it happens quite often.

Lets see your statistics then. This reports that surveyed many hospitals seems to believe that Canadians being treated are miniscule numbers.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...20(%3Ca%20href

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Saving money using cheaper alternatives is now socialist? I thought you were the one that said most people don't know what the word 'socialist' means?

Saving money isn't, expanding a government controlled industry is. Isn't that the whole reason you are against health care? Private companies can do it better.

Not taking a side on that issue, just thought it was funny how you lambast government control and call it socialism. But when it comes to the socialized military, it's OK to expand and cut out the private sector. Hypocrisy, thy name is MBBF.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not an overgeneralization at all. Plenty of statistics to support that doctors run up bills on insurance companies. Check out data on what tests are performed on someone with insurance and without. On what tests are performed when the doctor owns the machine and makes a cut off each test.

Agreed. In addition, I'd like to say, if we are talking anecdotally, as someone who works for the agency regulates pension and health plans, doctor's offices plans are the worst. Mostly because doctors think they can do everything themselves (hey, they are DOCTORS, right?) and manage to completely fuck over their participants as a result of overconfidence in their abilities.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not an overgeneralization at all. Plenty of statistics to support that doctors run up bills on insurance companies. Check out data on what tests are performed on someone with insurance and without. On what tests are performed when the doctor owns the machine and makes a cut off each test.

That's a load of bullshit, but feel free to drive that train if you'd like to do so. Provide all the propaganda and we'll shovel through it piece by piece.

[ISiddiqui]

As someone who has seen my profession (lawyers) been dragged down by overgeneralizations and misrepresentations, even if doctors are being dragged down that way (and I don't think Rainmaker is doing so), I have no sympathy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Lets see your statistics then. This reports that surveyed many hospitals seems to believe that Canadians being treated are miniscule numbers.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...20(%3Ca%20href

So we're only talking about Canada here?

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Saving money isn't, expanding a government controlled industry is. Isn't that the whole reason you are against health care? Private companies can do it better.

There's a HUGE difference between a government contractor situation and a private company on its own without any government involvement.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's a load of bullshit, but feel free to drive that train if you'd like to do so. Provide all the propaganda and we'll shovel through it piece by piece.

This topic is covered at about the 3:30 mark of the video.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not an overgeneralization at all. Plenty of statistics to support that doctors run up bills on insurance companies. Check out data on what tests are performed on someone with insurance and without. On what tests are performed when the doctor owns the machine and makes a cut off each test.

Just wait until the phenomenon of widespread "government doctors". Especially when we really start needing to scrape the bottom of the barrel of medical schools. It's much easier to rip off the government than a private company.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's a load of bullshit, but feel free to drive that train if you'd like to do so. Provide all the propaganda and we'll shovel through it piece by piece.

I base my judgment on statistics.

Equal Treatment for the Uninsured? Don't Count on It. - washingtonpost.com

Doctor Self-Referrals Part of Health-Care Cost Trend - washingtonpost.com

Virtually every study has shown that a doctor will schedule more tests if they receive financial incentive for doing so (referral fee or own the machine). This is basic economics, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Virtually all studies on what doctors do for insured and uninsured patients have shown that insured patients get more tests and time with doctors. Again, financial incentive.

Do you have some statistics to dispute this or not?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You obviously took my point to an extreme. If you minimize or eliminate the contracting positions, you're going to have a lot more money to offer additional pay and benefits to the existing military. I'd agree with you every step of the way that they're not paid enough. All the money is going to the paid mercenaries.

Contracting is a long-standing tradition in all branches of government (not just the military)that needs to be curtailed. This is coming from a person who is currently employed as a government contractor. It's honestly ridiculous that they don't have a full-time employee on staff rather than me.

As I said, the military really isn't about pay. It's either something you want to do or something you don't. Pay and benefits greatly increased under Bush and retention went down even in the areas that weren't really affected by the war.

Curtailing contracting in certain sectors I can agree to. Eliminating it would be idiotic as there are job fields that rely heavily on these contractors and a good number of them are unable to serve either because they're too old, disabled, or a number other reasons.

As for you and your position, I don't know exactly what it is you do, but generally contractors offer experience and stability to a job position that a military person can't match. Contractors can stay in a position until they retire while the average military person probably stays at a particular job for less than 2 years before ETSing, PCSing, being moved, ect.