>2009 Holiday Online Boycott<

[pocketfullofshells]

you do not see any thing wrong with the bill presented?

I see a ton of things wrong with it.

sucky reform for the sake of reform is dumb IMO

As much as I hate obama I would welcome him fixing our problems with health care, lowering the cost of hospital stays, lowering the cost of insurance.

but not at the cost of making our healthcare like europe or those other countries where we have no more choices.

well your in luck, since none of the bills are anything like Europe..

And whats your plan to lower the cost of evrything...with no goverment being in the system...and of course without pissing off all the insurance companies.....

 

[Pandora]

well your in luck, since none of the bills are anything like Europe..

And whats your plan to lower the cost of evrything...with no goverment being in the system...and of course without pissing off all the insurance companies.....

Its ok to piss off insurance companies and attorneys.


first

medical malpractice reform would lower the cost of what doctors pay in insurance, they could lower their costs if their own overhead were lower


second

let any doctor willing to see a patient free deduct that cost off thier taxes and give any doctor willing to work extra time in a clinic a tax break.

Third

let people buy insurance from what ever state they want instead of making them buy from only their own state

Open health savings accounts like my work has done for me.

they take out what ever I say tax free and put it in a special account, when I see a doctor I use that money from my savings to pay for it.

not everyone would use it and it would not do any good for a heart transplant because of the cost but it would help normal familes buy their medication and do the normal doctor visits exc.

I am not saying this will fix everything but it will improve things a great deal...

then work together and keep coming up with ideas that will help those who need it with out hurting those who are ok and happy with what they have.


also I am for some kind of law to stop hospitals from over charging.

I had major surgery a few years ago. It was very complicated. The doctor charged less than 2 thousand for the surgery but the hospital charged over 4 thousand to sleep in the hospital bed for 3 days. I looked at the bill and they charged me 25 dollars for booties they stuck on my feet and 9 dollars for one asprin.

The hospital did next to nothing for me except keep the morphine drip going through my IV. I can see the cost of that being high but the rest of the costs were just stupid. A law insisting they charge normal rates for things would reduce the cost of hospital stays.

 

[Sihouette]

I was thinking today that the 2009 American Holiday Protest was like the GOP tea parties...only much MUCH bigger if you weigh those for the Public Option vs those against it.

Piss off insurance companies? Where do I sign up? Oh yeah! placeofnopity.com ..lol..

 

[PLC1]

The hospital did next to nothing for me except keep the morphine drip going through my IV. I can see the cost of that being high but the rest of the costs were just stupid. A law insisting they charge normal rates for things would reduce the cost of hospital stays.

You'd be for socialistic price controls??!!

 

[Pandora]

You'd be for socialistic price controls??!!

to some degree sure. like we regulate how much a bank can charge insterest
and how low a person can be paid per hour.

reasonable regulations should be ok

mark up ten percent of the price of asprin or bandages or what ever

 

[Sihouette]

I've been meaning to answer your signature Pandora.

The answer is "yes" as long as corporate lobbying is legal..

 

[PLC1]

to some degree sure. like we regulate how much a bank can charge insterest
and how low a person can be paid per hour.

reasonable regulations should be ok

mark up ten percent of the price of asprin or bandages or what ever

I admit, I didn't expect a positive response from that one.

How about hospitals being paid according to the number of people successfully cured, rather than according to how many $10 aspirins they can dole out?

 

[Pandora]

I admit, I didn't expect a positive response from that one.

How about hospitals being paid according to the number of people successfully cured, rather than according to how many $10 aspirins they can dole out?

The only problem with that is they would deny access to a hospital bed to people who have a poor chance of getting better, and it would be unfair for people to tell them they HAVE to take people who will probably not get better and they WONT be paid for it.

If you could come up with a way to make sure they wont deny some access to the hosptal but also make sure they get paid for services given then it could be a good idea

 

[PLC1]

The only problem with that is they would deny access to a hospital bed to people who have a poor chance of getting better, and it would be unfair for people to tell them they HAVE to take people who will probably not get better and they WONT be paid for it.

If you could come up with a way to make sure they wont deny some access to the hosptal but also make sure they get paid for services given then it could be a good idea

That is a tough one. Maybe payment could be based on so much for a particular service. That way, if the treatment was done efficiently and well, the hospital would make more money than if it wasn't.

My brother in law has been going daily to the hospital for treatment for a staph infection due to an operation. I wonder how much the insurance is paying for treating that hospital caused infection? If they get paid extra for treating an infection that they caused, there isn't much incentive to make sure that as few infections result from treatment as possible.

 

[Pandora]

That is a tough one. Maybe payment could be based on so much for a particular service. That way, if the treatment was done efficiently and well, the hospital would make more money than if it wasn't.

My brother in law has been going daily to the hospital for treatment for a staph infection due to an operation. I wonder how much the insurance is paying for treating that hospital caused infection? If they get paid extra for treating an infection that they caused, there isn't much incentive to make sure that as few infections result from treatment as possible.

That is a really good point, it seems they should be treating him free since they caused the infection and giving him a discount on the first reason he was there for in the first place.

 

[Sihouette]

Good points.

A hospital staph infection should be like a fault car-accident. At-fault pays, period. And this would be an incentive for the hospitals to keep their scene cleaner, more employees to do so and less for the adminstration's pockets. Boo hoo.

 

[Sihouette]

Short Vs Longterm Capitalism

P*F*M*M & Capitalism. The Long And The Short Of It. What Is It And Why Is It Of Interest?
September 21, 2009.

1. Police

2. Fire

3. Military

4. Medical

What do all these have in common? They exist to protect the physical wellbeing of American citizens. It's the position of the folks at the 2009 American Holiday Protest that none may be treated differently than another. If we deregulate one, we must deregulate them all. If we tax for one, we must tax for all. They are the four legs of a vital layout of infrastructure without which capitalism will be doomed to fail. Long-term capitalism depends on a healthy and stable populace on which to build tremendous presence in a world market. Short-term capitalism focuses on exploiting and neglecting populations to short term gains. The downfall is an insidious and nearly invisible undermining of long term gains. Anyone arguing that health care is socialist is actually exactly 180 degrees wrong. Anyone arguing short-term capitalism over long-term capitalism is actually arguing treason and the undoing of the capitalistic goal: competitiveness on the world market! http://placeofnopity.com/cgi-bin/blog

I really think that the short-term profiteering is a form of subversion to the stability of the United States. If I was a terrorist, for example, and wanted to bring this country to its knees, I wouldn't do it with bombs or scare tactics per se. Only would I fall to those as a means to do the real damage: undermining the US with it's own momentum: rampant and unbridled capitalism. When we deregulate we place an enormous power in the private sector. Emphasis on "private". So while people shudder in fear of a big nebulous monster getting out of control [the US government...as they should] they completely neglect to shudder in fear from an even more insidious monster...one they have no access to...the backrooms of private industry and who it is really pulling the strings there.

How simple would it be if you had a subversive mind to inject a type of financial plan luring board members with their own greed to undermine the US with things like what has just happened over the last couple of years? There's more than one way to skin a cat. At least we can regulate the medical end of things so our population doesn't become unstable. A stable population is hard to bring down. An unstable one is a snap. Are we abetting terrorism and subversion by allowing our population to degrade into sick and suffering masses?

Do the math and then understand how some socialist institutions in basic infrastructure actually promote and perpetuate capitalism while none spell it's doom as sure as I sit here writing this.

 

[PLC1]

Re: Short Vs Longterm Capitalism

I really think that the short-term profiteering is a form of subversion to the stability of the United States. If I was a terrorist, for example, and wanted to bring this country to its knees, I wouldn't do it with bombs or scare tactics per se. Only would I fall to those as a means to do the real damage: undermining the US with it's own momentum: rampant and unbridled capitalism. When we deregulate we place an enormous power in the private sector. Emphasis on "private". So while people shudder in fear of a big nebulous monster getting out of control [the US government...as they should] they completely neglect to shudder in fear from an even more insidious monster...one they have no access to...the backrooms of private industry and who it is really pulling the strings there.

How simple would it be if you had a subversive mind to inject a type of financial plan luring board members with their own greed to undermine the US with things like what has just happened over the last couple of years? There's more than one way to skin a cat. At least we can regulate the medical end of things so our population doesn't become unstable. A stable population is hard to bring down. An unstable one is a snap. Are we abetting terrorism and subversion by allowing our population to degrade into sick and suffering masses?

Do the math and then understand how some socialist institutions in basic infrastructure actually promote and perpetuate capitalism while none spell it's doom as sure as I sit here writing this.

Why is it than no one is decrying the "socialization" of police, fire, and military, but sound alarm bells at a public payer for medical?

I submit that it is largely tradition. The government pays for the first three, has almost always done so, and so it is accepted. The fourth is seen by those who are afraid of change as socialism, the end of freedom, anti capitalism, and so on. Actually, a single payer health care system would be more fair to those capitalists who are willing to take the risks inherent in starting a small business. Large established corporations pay less than they will, putting them and their employees at a disadvantage.

White House Study: Small Businesses Pay 18% More for Health Coverage

A new study by the White House Council of Economic Advisers said small businesses pay up to 18 percent more to provide health insurance for their employees. As a result, fewer of them do so and the number has been shrinking further in these hard economic times.

Far from being "socialistic", universal health care is pro competition.

 

[Dr.Who]

It will make a lot of partisans who consider themselves to be conservatives happy. That is why they're so busy throwing out red herrings, setting up straw men, and fearmongering.

They say that they're for reform, and maybe they are. They just don't want it to happen on the Democrat's watch.

Party above country, that seems to be the order of the day.

I agree that both parties do that and it makes me sick.

As a conservative I would champion any conservative reform P Obama came up with. I even give him the benefit of the doubt as on the Polish missile site issue where I have not opposed him because he just might be right and have even defended him (on another forum).

 

[Sihouette]

This thread is about healthcare reform and the online protest to promote the People's Will to have the Public Option. Did you get confused Dr. Who?

As far as promoting conservative ideas, that is exactly what Obama is up to whether or not he realizes it. Adding that crucial fourth leg to supporting American lives and civil stability is...well...stabilizing the base, the very foundation on which capitalism rests and our ability to compete globally over the long haul.

Short-gain capitalism is actually legal treason. It guts the innards out of the beast it expects to pull the cart the next day. At best it is wholly foolish.