| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On September 11 2009 09:39 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: AKA the best leaders are beta types that will get nowhere near the levers of power in a country like this one. yep | ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 11 2009 09:52 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: I mean, bottom line is, the speech didn't do anything new or helpful for him. He's still saying some stuff in support of a public option while saying it's not a must-have. He's still not leading; he just waiting for congress to figure it out while being vague enough to claim credit if they pass something that works. Have you taken Civics or Government 101 or anything that would inform you of what the President can do? | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
On September 11 2009 09:32 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: NEWS FLASH - THIS JUST IN - WE INTERRUPT YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED STARCRAFT DISCUSSION TO BRING YOU THIS SPECIAL REPORT - Groups and individuals tend to donate money to political representatives THAT THEY AGREE WITH! SHOCKING! - WE WILL BRING YOU MORE AT ELEVEN Thanks for the caps lock abuse, but this is the rude guy (well it seems that the adjective is unnecessary since you seem to know all about rude) who shouted "YOU LIE" to Obama during his speech which was even more ridiculous since Obama was telling the truth. This guy also has a history of being outrageous. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 11 2009 05:34 ghostWriter wrote: Are you talking about blue dog democrats? Because they aren't really conservative, but are really just hesitating to hop onto the health care bill because they get a lot of contributions from hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, etc. that would probably see their profits drop. ugh, I wish people would educate themselves a bit before posting. Pharmaceuticals SUPPORT Obama's health care plan. Pharma is even paying big $$$ to advertise in favor of Obama's plan. My guess is that "hospitals" in general are also supportive of the plan since after all, the bill brings MORE money to the health care industry NOT less. I don't know where you are getting the idea that hospitals will "see profits drop" with this bill. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 11 2009 09:25 ghostWriter wrote: http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909090009 http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/10/obama-speech-disrupter-a-health-industry-darling/ He got almost a quarter of a million dollars from health professionals. Coincidence? "Health professionals" as you call it...the largest single source being pharmaceuticals. And yet...uh oh...pharmaceuticals are IN FAVOR or ObamaCare. Wilson must be doing the bidding of the Pharma by opposing Pharma's interests! That must explain why he yelled at Obama! | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
On September 11 2009 11:14 Savio wrote: "Health professionals" as you call it...the largest single source being pharmaceuticals. And yet...uh oh...pharmaceuticals are IN FAVOR or ObamaCare. Wilson must be doing the bidding of the Pharma by opposing Pharma's interests! That must explain why he yelled at Obama! I find it depressing all the current drug provisions in the bills prohibit the feds from negociating lower drug prices. Canada, the UK, Germany, all do this. Somehow this hasn't happened in the united states, which is why Canadian pharmacies sell billions of drugs to Americans. | ||
|
poor newb
United States1879 Posts
On September 10 2009 10:01 Excalibur_Z wrote: Camille Paglia had it exactly right: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/ Obama is such a master speaker. He's inspiring and powerful, but it's unfortunate for the rest of us that he's not addressing very serious concerns, such as the fine details of cost, coverage, and tax increases. He's right that we can't stick with the status quo, but this bill isn't going to fix anything. hes laying out the goals to be reached, and telling us some of the ideas that they had been working on so far what you're asking from obama is like asking dustin browder to come up with the perfect balance and exact statistics of every unit in the final version of starcraft 2 right this moment, it's nowhere near being done yet | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On September 11 2009 11:24 GreEny K wrote: Wow, how disrespectful to yell something like that during the speech, guarantee it was a republican which just amplifies my point that they suck ^^ and btw was that John Kerry at around 47 seconds? Well then, you should be spitting with rabies that democrats were booing and insulting bush during his SOTU address. But of course, you aren't. So saying I guarantee it's a republican would put you with a minority chance of it happening, unless you are just not an idiot who would think that democrats would yell "liar" and their leader. On September 11 2009 11:41 aRod wrote: I find it depressing all the current drug provisions in the bills prohibit the feds from negociating lower drug prices. Canada, the UK, Germany, all do this. Somehow this hasn't happened in the united states, which is why Canadian pharmacies sell billions of drugs to Americans. That's because WE are the ones who pioneer all new drugs. You want lower costs for drugs, don't expect them to continue researching new ones (unless it is subsidized of course). | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
On September 11 2009 11:07 Savio wrote: ugh, I wish people would educate themselves a bit before posting. Pharmaceuticals SUPPORT Obama's health care plan. Pharma is even paying big $$$ to advertise in favor of Obama's plan. My guess is that "hospitals" in general are also supportive of the plan since after all, the bill brings MORE money to the health care industry NOT less. I don't know where you are getting the idea that hospitals will "see profits drop" with this bill. "The American Medical Association said while it believes in health care reform, "the AMA does not believe that creating a public health insurance option ... is the best way to expand health insurance coverage." The AMA has told members of Congress that doctors fear a new government-sponsored health insurance program would reimburse them at Medicare rates. "Medicare reimbursement rates have not kept pace with the cost of practice," AMA President Dr. Nancy Nielsen told CNN earlier this week. "Our Medicare rates are back at 2001 rates, and the reality is, that's not where our rent is, that's not where the electricity is. The system for paying doctors is a broken system, and everybody acknowledges it." My bad, I thought that pharmaceuticals would oppose the plan because they would try to bring the cost of drugs down. I didn't know that there would be no negotiations that would have allowed Medicare to bring those prices down. I thought there would be price controls to bring down costs and that having a public option would be deleterious to insurance companies because they would have to compete against it and lower premiums, although there would be a rise in the demand for health care, it would be from the people who can afford it the least. Educate me. This is what the thread is here for. I'd like to see the reasoning behind your statements. Explain why Pharma and hospitals support the plan. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
On September 11 2009 11:07 Savio wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 11 2009 05:34 ghostWriter wrote: Are you talking about blue dog democrats? Because they aren't really conservative, but are really just hesitating to hop onto the health care bill because they get a lot of contributions from hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, etc. that would probably see their profits drop. ugh, I wish people would educate themselves a bit before posting. Pharmaceuticals SUPPORT Obama's health care plan. Pharma is even paying big $$$ to advertise in favor of Obama's plan. My guess is that "hospitals" in general are also supportive of the plan since after all, the bill brings MORE money to the health care industry NOT less. I don't know where you are getting the idea that hospitals will "see profits drop" with this bill. You are absolutely correct, hospitals generally support healthcare reform and universal coverage. Please read the article, its instructive. Right now many are struggling with people who won't can't pay their bills, so they would love for the government foot the bill. That said, some outfits - notably the Mayo Clinic, while supportive of "reform" in general and the Obama speech (see here) have taken issue with the plan's specific recommendations. The devil is, as always in the details. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
If you look back to chemistry, you ask, what is the limiting factor in a chemical reaction? So, what is the limiting factor in health care? There are infinite ways to take care of patients and more ways invented all the time. And patients have vast needs and even greater desires for health care. So, neither of those is limiting. But money is limiting. Health care is determined by how much money is available. It’s a hard concept for physicians to accept – it was for me. But it’s true. Health reform is about assuring that everyone is covered by some health plan, but after that, it is about how to rein in spending to what the nation can afford. Not what is needed clinically or desirable personally – it is what is affordable collectively. The struggle in the political arena is whether more will go to those with lower income or not – how much will we as a society share? Just today, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial on SCHIP, the children’s coverage bill, and said it would lead to single payer system, the ultimate sharing, and they opposed it. Our country is divided over how much to spend but even more over how much to share. Lots of other insights on the coming shortage of doctors, the frequently endorsed "30% cost cuts solution" and more. You can disagree with some of the policy conclusions, but the analysis is quite good. | ||
|
Polyphasic
United States841 Posts
On September 10 2009 09:38 Mystlord wrote: I disagree. He's talking about the wrong things. He should be addressing the fundamental problems of the health care system, not the health care bill itself. In any case, if you don't want to turn on the tv, it's being broadcast on livestream as well. Either http://www.livestream.com/USA_TODAY1 or http://www.livestream.com/necn_live are the two top ones right now. it seems he is addressing fundamentals: preventive care will not cost more in insurance plans systems inefficiency will be analyzed by doctors tort reform (reeling in malpractice) all of these were addressed. i don't know how he's going to do the other things without increasing the national deficit though. offering a low cost insurance for all people who aren't insured, offering medicare to elderly, and increasing pay to primary care physicians,... all these cost a ton of money. many of these reforms are based off of Massachusetts reforms for universal health coverage, but most people don't know how badly it went in Massachusetts. i'm guessing that he's hoping that by making the healthcare system more efficient, that'll open up funds that were previously wasted. considering that currently, only 40 cents per dollar spent on healthcare is wasted, maybe the statistics will come out ok. | ||
|
Polyphasic
United States841 Posts
On September 11 2009 11:07 Savio wrote: ugh, I wish people would educate themselves a bit before posting. Pharmaceuticals SUPPORT Obama's health care plan. Pharma is even paying big $$$ to advertise in favor of Obama's plan. My guess is that "hospitals" in general are also supportive of the plan since after all, the bill brings MORE money to the health care industry NOT less. I don't know where you are getting the idea that hospitals will "see profits drop" with this bill. obama is doing this right. i wouldn't be surprised if most healthcare professionals are supportive of his plan. hospitals are probably orgasming all over america at the thought of a concerted national effort to reduce waste, inefficiency, and malpractice in the healthcare system. let me put it to you this way. by reducing waste, inefficiency, and malpractice, it means that your scvs bring back 16 minerals per round instead of 8. statistically, that is the extent to which our system is inefficient and broken. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 11 2009 11:41 aRod wrote: I find it depressing all the current drug provisions in the bills prohibit the feds from negociating lower drug prices. Canada, the UK, Germany, all do this. Somehow this hasn't happened in the united states, which is why Canadian pharmacies sell billions of drugs to Americans. I feel the same. Even though I would come up with a much different plan I do think that Obama could vastly improve his plan and gain more support for it by making 2 small changes: 1. Get rid of the public option. This is the main source of contention. I think many GOP would sign on without it. 2. Add drug price negotiation to the bill just like IHS and military government health care programs have. Obama caved really badly on this one especially since he specifically campaigned in favor of price negotiation. Then they give him $$$$ and all of a sudden he changed his mind. Lame. Those 2 changes would make it a much better bill. It still wouldn't be what I would do if I were President but I think I could find myself at least neutral on the bill rather than opposing it. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 11 2009 12:07 ghostWriter wrote: "The American Medical Association said while it believes in health care reform, "the AMA does not believe that creating a public health insurance option ... is the best way to expand health insurance coverage." The AMA has told members of Congress that doctors fear a new government-sponsored health insurance program would reimburse them at Medicare rates. "Medicare reimbursement rates have not kept pace with the cost of practice," AMA President Dr. Nancy Nielsen told CNN earlier this week. "Our Medicare rates are back at 2001 rates, and the reality is, that's not where our rent is, that's not where the electricity is. The system for paying doctors is a broken system, and everybody acknowledges it." My bad, I thought that pharmaceuticals would oppose the plan because they would try to bring the cost of drugs down. I didn't know that there would be no negotiations that would have allowed Medicare to bring those prices down. I thought there would be price controls to bring down costs and that having a public option would be deleterious to insurance companies because they would have to compete against it and lower premiums, although there would be a rise in the demand for health care, it would be from the people who can afford it the least. Educate me. This is what the thread is here for. I'd like to see the reasoning behind your statements. Explain why Pharma and hospitals support the plan. Pretty much Pharma is in favor of the plan because they got Obama to reverse his stance on 3 issues that he campaigned on. Namely, during the campaign Obama wanted: 1. Government price negotiation to get lower drug costs 2. The US should be able to import drugs from other developed countries at lower prices essentially letting us have the same price that the Pharmaceuticals give other countries 3. oops, I forgot the 3rd one but there is 1 more. Pharma (the biggest pharmaceutical lobbying group) met with Obama and promised to spend over $100 million dollars advertising in favor of his plan if he would reverse his stance. He agreed (so much for "Savior Obama"). Now Pharmaceuticals only stand to gain by this deal because if more people are covered, then more people will be getting drugs. And they will still be able to charge whatever they want. The insurance companies DO oppose the bill. Although they had all agreed to support the bill when they talked with Obama and there wasn't a plan for a public option. They signed on because there are provisions forcing more people to obtain insurance...especially young healthy people who right now are choosing not to get insurance because they don't think they need it. Healthy people are $$$$ to insurance companies. But then the public option was included and the insurance companies strongly oppose it. It is interesting to note that insurance companies had already agreed to the other stringent regulations that were int he bill such as mandates that they could not refuse coverage to anyone for preexisting conditions and that they could not drop someone's coverage. They are ok with that. Its only the public option that scares them. Hospitals and most of the rest of the health care industry are in favor of the bill namely because it fixes some problems in how medicare and medicaid reimburse doctors and overall it brings another $1 trillion dollars to the health industry over the next 10 years. So there you have it. Sorry my first response was a bit condescending. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 12 2009 06:01 Polyphasic wrote: obama is doing this right. i wouldn't be surprised if most healthcare professionals are supportive of his plan. hospitals are probably orgasming all over america at the thought of a concerted national effort to reduce waste, inefficiency, and malpractice in the healthcare system. let me put it to you this way. by reducing waste, inefficiency, and malpractice, it means that your scvs bring back 16 minerals per round instead of 8. statistically, that is the extent to which our system is inefficient and broken. This bill does not address the malpractice problem. A HUGE percentage of the donations to the democratic party comes from lawyers and so my guess is that you will NEVER see tort reform being offered by the democrats. That would have to come from the GOP (stupid Bush should have gotten that done while they had a majority but he was wasting all his political capital on a war that almost surely was not necessary). | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 13 2009 01:32 Savio wrote: The malpractice problem is huge. Another thing that absolutely needs to be addressed (and I KNOW you'll agree) is the costs of becoming a practicing physician. Medical school is far too expensive, and even if an ideal comprehensive plan were put in place, we'd still be short tens of thousands of doctors. Right now, it looks like we'll probably be importing doctors from India and South America.This bill does not address the malpractice problem. A HUGE percentage of the donations to the democratic party comes from lawyers and so my guess is that you will NEVER see tort reform being offered by the democrats. That would have to come from the GOP (stupid Bush should have gotten that done while they had a majority but he was wasting all his political capital on a war that almost surely was not necessary). | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
CrankTV Team League
Team Liquid vs Team Falcon
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Spirit
herO vs Solar
MaNa vs Gerald
Rogue vs GuMiho
Epic.LAN
CrankTV Team League
BASILISK vs TBD
Replay Cast
Epic.LAN
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
