PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues 'Win One for Teddy,' Say Dems Pushing for Health Reform


Pages : [1] 2

petegz28
08-26-2009, 10:10 PM
Democrats are hoping that the memory of Sen. Ted Kennedy will revive the Democratic Party's flagging push for health care reform.

"You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News.

Democrats are hoping that Kennedy's influence in death may be even stronger than it was when he was alive as they push for President Obama's top domestic priority. Democratic officials hope that invoking Kennedy's passion for the issue will counter slippage in support for heatlh care reform.

"Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a statement.

Pelosi's sentiment was echoed by former vice president Al Gore who served with Kennedy in the Senate.

"Ted would want nothing more than for his colleagues to continue his life's work and to make real his dream of quality health care for all Americans," said Gore.

To infuse Kennedy into the health-care debate, Democrats are planning to affix the former senator's name to the health-care legislation that emerges from Congress.

The idea of naming the legislation for Kennedy has been quietly circulating for months but was given a new push today by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the only person who served with Kennedy for all his 47 years in the Senate.

"In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American," Byrd said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Health, Education and Labor Pensions Committee chaired by Kennedy, has been the panel's point person on health-care reform in Kennedy's absence. Today Dodd said that he hopes Kennedy's death will revive a spirit of bipartisanship.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TedKennedy/story?id=8420408

petegz28
08-26-2009, 10:11 PM
That is just page 1 of 3. I think it is tasteless to use his death like this. That being said, I think everyone should get the same level of health care coverage that "Teddy" had. How is that???

Ultra Peanut
08-26-2009, 10:16 PM
how is this offensive or tasteless at all

you are very fucking dumb

petegz28
08-26-2009, 10:18 PM
how is this offensive or tasteless at all

you are very ****ing dumb

Is it dumb to say everyone should have the same type of coverage as Teddy?

I thought that is what you wanted?

And yes, it is tasteless on the day the man dies to start using his death to pimp some BS legislation.

All you can do is call me names, obviously, cause you know I'm right.

headsnap
08-26-2009, 10:20 PM
yup fitting, FVCK the Country in honor of Tedward...

HolmeZz
08-26-2009, 10:21 PM
Suck it up. It's a Post-8/25 world.

Dave Lane
08-26-2009, 10:22 PM
President and CEO of America for the Arts, Robert L. Lynch from Washington, DC, tells of Kennedy's impact on the keeping the arts alive:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy was a titan for the arts. Ever since the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was opened as a living memorial to the late president, and Senator Kennedy has carried forth the arts and humanities legacy that his brother began. He powerfully advocated the need to nurture creativity and to broaden access to artistic excellence in the U.S. Senate, and his leadership extended to co-founding and co-chairing the Senate Arts Caucus.

Throughout his work, he carried strong messages of freedom of expression, tolerance, and creative rights. He spoke staunchly of the central role of the federal government in supporting American cultural life, inspiring bipartisan cooperation among his colleagues. Each year for Arts Advocacy Day, he welcomed a small group of our advocates to his hideaway office on Capitol Hill and hosted a lunch that brought us together with Congressional leaders. One year he even met up with us on the steps of Capitol Hill, enthusiastically joining in as Peter Yarrow led a rousing sing-a-long on behalf of the arts.

I've had the personal pleasure of working with Senator Kennedy on federal arts issues on a number of occasions, and as a native of Massachusetts and longtime admirer, let me say how deeply his warmth, humor, empathy, and fierce passion will be missed.

headsnap
08-26-2009, 10:23 PM
President and CEO of America for the Arts, Robert L. Lynch from Washington, DC, tells of Kennedy's impact on the keeping the arts alive:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy was a titan for the arts. Ever since the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was opened as a living memorial to the late president, and Senator Kennedy has carried forth the arts and humanities legacy that his brother began. He powerfully advocated the need to nurture creativity and to broaden access to artistic excellence in the U.S. Senate, and his leadership extended to co-founding and co-chairing the Senate Arts Caucus.

Throughout his work, he carried strong messages of freedom of expression, tolerance, and creative rights. He spoke staunchly of the central role of the federal government in supporting American cultural life, inspiring bipartisan cooperation among his colleagues. Each year for Arts Advocacy Day, he welcomed a small group of our advocates to his hideaway office on Capitol Hill and hosted a lunch that brought us together with Congressional leaders. One year he even met up with us on the steps of Capitol Hill, enthusiastically joining in as Peter Yarrow led a rousing sing-a-long on behalf of the arts.

I've had the personal pleasure of working with Senator Kennedy on federal arts issues on a number of occasions, and as a native of Massachusetts and longtime admirer, let me say how deeply his warmth, humor, empathy, and fierce passion will be missed.

thanks for the diversion, now back to the thread...

Dave Lane
08-26-2009, 10:25 PM
Leslie Mills from Menlo Park, CA:

All of the Kennedys affected my life, although we lost John and Robert far too soon. Teddy, as I recall, was in the plane accident in which he broke his back, and it was on my 14th birthday; I remembering crying, as I thought he was going to die. I had loved the Kennedys from about 5th grade on, and always remained their most ardent admirers. There are no others in public service whom I admire more than this family who have had to face more trials and tribulations than most people in a lifetime.

All of the Kennedy brothers were eloquent, true to their beliefs, honestly cared about the common man and this country, and were generous with their money as far as causes and contributions. Instead of being focused only on their families, the Kennedys were honestly concerned about this country and the people.Ted, in particular, was the greatest senator this country has ever seen, and I just mentioned the other day that I could not think of one single politician that I admire and care about more than Ted Kennedy. While he made mistakes, it really makes no difference; everyone has as no one is perfect. He was essentially a good man who fought for the downtrodden, the poor, those discriminated against, etc., and he was honestly the most concerned about how everyday people have been affected by the government, the economy, the politics. I believe he would have made an extraordinary president.

I will miss Teddy for the rest of my life--and miss him. I have no other person in politics to look up to anymore. There is no other as eloquent, as dignified, as dedicated, as Ted Kennedy was. May he rest in peace, be with the rest of his family who have already gone on ahead of him, and may his family here on earth be blessed for the rest of their lives. No more tragedies for the Kennedys; they have had more than their share. My prayers are with them, and I will continue to remember the Kennedy brothers as fondly and as lovingly as I did when I was in grade school--over 50 years ago.

Both the above public responses on Huffington post

petegz28
08-26-2009, 10:35 PM
Leslie Mills from Menlo Park, CA:

All of the Kennedys affected my life, although we lost John and Robert far too soon. Teddy, as I recall, was in the plane accident in which he broke his back, and it was on my 14th birthday; I remembering crying, as I thought he was going to die. I had loved the Kennedys from about 5th grade on, and always remained their most ardent admirers. There are no others in public service whom I admire more than this family who have had to face more trials and tribulations than most people in a lifetime.

All of the Kennedy brothers were eloquent, true to their beliefs, honestly cared about the common man and this country, and were generous with their money as far as causes and contributions. Instead of being focused only on their families, the Kennedys were honestly concerned about this country and the people.Ted, in particular, was the greatest senator this country has ever seen, and I just mentioned the other day that I could not think of one single politician that I admire and care about more than Ted Kennedy. While he made mistakes, it really makes no difference; everyone has as no one is perfect. He was essentially a good man who fought for the downtrodden, the poor, those discriminated against, etc., and he was honestly the most concerned about how everyday people have been affected by the government, the economy, the politics. I believe he would have made an extraordinary president.

I will miss Teddy for the rest of my life--and miss him. I have no other person in politics to look up to anymore. There is no other as eloquent, as dignified, as dedicated, as Ted Kennedy was. May he rest in peace, be with the rest of his family who have already gone on ahead of him, and may his family here on earth be blessed for the rest of their lives. No more tragedies for the Kennedys; they have had more than their share. My prayers are with them, and I will continue to remember the Kennedy brothers as fondly and as lovingly as I did when I was in grade school--over 50 years ago.

Both the above public responses on Huffington post


Do you have a point?

Simplex3
08-26-2009, 10:50 PM
Leslie Mills from Menlo Park, CA:

All of the Kennedys affected my life, although we lost John and Robert far too soon. Teddy, as I recall, was in the plane accident in which he broke his back, and it was on my 14th birthday; I remembering crying, as I thought he was going to die. I had loved the Kennedys from about 5th grade on, and always remained their most ardent admirers. There are no others in public service whom I admire more than this family who have had to face more trials and tribulations than most people in a lifetime.

All of the Kennedy brothers were eloquent, true to their beliefs, honestly cared about the common man and this country, and were generous with their money as far as causes and contributions. Instead of being focused only on their families, the Kennedys were honestly concerned about this country and the people.Ted, in particular, was the greatest senator this country has ever seen, and I just mentioned the other day that I could not think of one single politician that I admire and care about more than Ted Kennedy. While he made mistakes, it really makes no difference; everyone has as no one is perfect. He was essentially a good man who fought for the downtrodden, the poor, those discriminated against, etc., and he was honestly the most concerned about how everyday people have been affected by the government, the economy, the politics. I believe he would have made an extraordinary president.

I will miss Teddy for the rest of my life--and miss him. I have no other person in politics to look up to anymore. There is no other as eloquent, as dignified, as dedicated, as Ted Kennedy was. May he rest in peace, be with the rest of his family who have already gone on ahead of him, and may his family here on earth be blessed for the rest of their lives. No more tragedies for the Kennedys; they have had more than their share. My prayers are with them, and I will continue to remember the Kennedy brothers as fondly and as lovingly as I did when I was in grade school--over 50 years ago.

Both the above public responses on Huffington post

WTF? ROFL

This twit never met any of these people. Never spent any time with them. But she 'knows' them. I can assure you this twat is sitting in front of Entertainment Tonight reading a People magazine right now.

wazu
08-26-2009, 10:52 PM
That's like saying we should all drown innocent victims while driving drunk and flee the scene. "You know, for Teddy."

jAZ
08-26-2009, 10:56 PM
That is just page 1 of 3. I think it is tasteless to use his death like this. That being said, I think everyone should get the same level of health care coverage that "Teddy" had. How is that???

This was the "cause of his life". It's rather tasteless that you woudl try to turn people against the idea of naming the bill after him when it's the most appropriate (and surely welcome) honor imaginable.

You'll say anything won't you?

Taco John
08-26-2009, 10:57 PM
This will give the Democrats a slight boost from where they are, but at the end of the day it won't give them the juice that they are hoping for. This bill is going to go the way of Hillarycare.

jAZ
08-26-2009, 10:58 PM
And yes, it is tasteless on the day the man dies to start using his death to pimp some BS legislation.

All you can do is call me names, obviously, cause you know I'm right.

The most important legislation of his career, in his mind.

You are an idiot or a tool. My guess is not "idiot".

jAZ
08-26-2009, 10:59 PM
This will give the Democrats a slight boost from where they are, but at the end of the day it won't give them the juice that they are hoping for. This bill is going to go the way of Hillarycare.

I agree with part 1. You are kidding if you don't think that they will pass at least co-ops.

wazu
08-26-2009, 11:01 PM
The most important legislation of his career, in his mind.

I dunno. I think whatever legislation kept him out of prison would have to be the most important of his career.

jAZ
08-26-2009, 11:11 PM
I dunno. I think whatever legislation kept him out of prison would have to be the most important of his career.

Don't hurt yourself.

kcfanXIII
08-26-2009, 11:53 PM
"oh teddy was great, and health care was his passion" will be the rally cries, when we should all be celebrating because one of the most elitist congressman in washington, will no longer be polluting policy. naturally another piece of scum will replace him, but come on people, he's a fucking politician. its not like he was some great person.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 07:39 AM
The most important legislation of his career, in his mind.

You are an idiot or a tool. My guess is not "idiot".

Yes, I am an idiot for saying everyone should get the same level of health cre that Teddy had. :deevee:

petegz28
08-27-2009, 07:42 AM
Notice the Lefties in this thread have totally ignored part of what I said in my first post? The part where I said "everyone should get the same health care Teddy had"? Not one has made a comment on that. Instead they attack me for calling the use of is name to pass this BS bill, tasteless.

And it is tasteless, especially of the Dems want to pass something that forces a level of health care ontop people that as anything short of what Teddy had. After all, I am sure Teddy wanted EVERYONE to have what he had.

BigRedChief
08-27-2009, 07:58 AM
This will give the Democrats a slight boost from where they are, but at the end of the day it won't give them the juice that they are hoping for. This bill is going to go the way of Hillarycare.
Wanna bet some cold hard cash on it?

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 08:55 AM
KennedyKare-A big, fat bloated leviathan moving through the halls of Congress sucking up tax revenue and hanging around the neck of every party moderate that in the end will screw anybody that gets involved with it and then leave them to die alone and desperate. Yep, that seems about right.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 09:45 AM
Yes, I am an idiot for saying everyone should get the same level of health cre that Teddy had. :deevee:

Your inner tool is inhibiting your reading comprehension.

Donger
08-27-2009, 09:48 AM
I fail to see how a senator dying changes the facts at hand.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 09:50 AM
Notice the Lefties in this thread have totally ignored part of what I said in my first post? The part where I said "everyone should get the same health care Teddy had"? Not one has made a comment on that. Instead they attack me for calling the use of is name to pass this BS bill, tasteless.

And it is tasteless, especially of the Dems want to pass something that forces a level of health care ontop people that as anything short of what Teddy had. After all, I am sure Teddy wanted EVERYONE to have what he had.

Well, no one will accuse you of being unwilling to change your arugment for what's "tasteless" in a desperate search to find something that doesn't keep making you look like a tool.

Of course, I am certain that you couldn't even begin by telling us what coverage TK had.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 09:53 AM
I fail to see how a senator dying changes the facts at hand.

They don't.

They might focus the discussion in a way that gives Dems momentum. It certainly won't change anyone's mind who's opposed to the policy. And won't change any R votes to "yea".

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 09:55 AM
They don't.

They might focus the discussion in a way that gives Dems momentum. It certainly won't change anyone's mind who's opposed to the policy. And won't change any R votes to "yea".

Yeah, it will make the discussion about a dead guy rather than the substance of the bill bearing his name.

If the left insists on naming something after Teddy they can change the name of the DMV.

Donger
08-27-2009, 09:55 AM
They don't.

They might focus the discussion in a way that gives Dems momentum. It certainly won't change anyone's mind who's opposed to the policy. And won't change any R votes to "yea".

Do you think it will change the minds of the Blue Dogs?

Baby Lee
08-27-2009, 09:55 AM
I fail to see how a senator dying changes the facts at hand.

Because good intentions and warm feelings are far more important than prudence.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 09:59 AM
Well, no one will accuse you of being unwilling to change your arugment for what's "tasteless" in a desperate search to find something that doesn't keep making you look like a tool.

Of course, I am certain that you couldn't even begin by telling us what coverage TK had.

Ok, dickhead, if you say so.


BTW, I am certain that the covereage you and the Dems want to force on everyone else isn't going to be half of what Teddy and the rest of your heros have.

vailpass
08-27-2009, 10:00 AM
They could call the health plan "Kopechne Kare"....


Kennedy earned C grades at the private Milton Academy, but was admitted to Harvard as a "legacy" -- his father and older brothers had attended there, so the younger and dimmer Kennedy's admission was virtually assured. While attending, he was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England, pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged.

While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked.

On 19 July 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. He swam to shore and walked back to the party -- passing several houses and a fire station -- and two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep.

Kennedy called the police the next morning. By then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began pulling strings, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. In versions not so kind, it is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, that he was having an affair with Kopechne, and/or that he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight.

After the accident, Kennedy's political enemies referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick, or worse. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a suspended sentence of two months. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.

In 1973, at the height of Nixon's Watergate scandal, Kennedy thundered from the Senate floor, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"

http://www.nndb.com/people/623/000023554/

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:01 AM
Your inner tool is inhibiting your reading comprehension.

Yea, I failed to comprehend where you agreed that everyone should have the same level of health care Teddy had. Care to point out where I missed that, asshole?

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:03 AM
How dare Democrats fight for universal healthcare in the name of the guy who's fought for universal healthcare longer than any of us.

The sheer gall, I tell you.

This is nothing new to politics, nor should it be. Republicans regularly use Reagan as a rallying cry to advance their conservative agenda.

It's allowed, it's legit. Both Kennedy and Reagan would likely approve. So what's the big deal?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:03 AM
They could call the health plan "Kopechne Kare"....


Kennedy earned C grades at the private Milton Academy, but was admitted to Harvard as a "legacy" -- his father and older brothers had attended there, so the younger and dimmer Kennedy's admission was virtually assured. While attending, he was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England, pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged.

While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked.

On 19 July 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. He swam to shore and walked back to the party -- passing several houses and a fire station -- and two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep.

Kennedy called the police the next morning. By then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began pulling strings, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. In versions not so kind, it is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, that he was having an affair with Kopechne, and/or that he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight.

After the accident, Kennedy's political enemies referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick, or worse. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a suspended sentence of two months. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.

In 1973, at the height of Nixon's Watergate scandal, Kennedy thundered from the Senate floor, "Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"


A real American hero.......:spock:

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:04 AM
How dare Democrats fight for universal healthcare in the name of the guy who's fought for universal healthcare longer than any of us.

The sheer gall, I tell you.

This is nothing new to politics, nor should it be. Republicans regularly use Reagan as a rallying cry to advance their conservative agenda.

It's allowed, it's legit. Both Kennedy and Reagan would likely approve. So what's the big deal?


So do you think everyone should have the same kind of coverage Teddy had? Yes or no?

I noticed not 1 of you fucking Lefties has yet to answer that question.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:07 AM
So do you think everyone should have the same kind of coverage Teddy had? Yes or no?

I noticed not 1 of you ****ing Lefties has yet to answer that question.

I do. I think everybody should have Bill Gates' healthcare coverage. Don't you?

Now, I don't think everybody CAN, because as a Senator, we provide him top notch stuff that we can't afford everybody. But I'd love it if we COULD.

Chief Henry
08-27-2009, 10:07 AM
Because good intentions and warm feelings are far more important than prudence.

Thats how Liberals govern.

Chief Henry
08-27-2009, 10:09 AM
So do you think everyone should have the same kind of coverage Teddy had? Yes or no?

I noticed not 1 of you ****ing Lefties has yet to answer that question.

Good luck with getting an answer. The performing arts were saved by Teddy though. Thank goodness we can preserve the Crucifix in the jar of urine
art exceptions.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:09 AM
I do. I think everybody should have Bill Gates' healthcare coverage. Don't you?

Now, I don't think everybody CAN, because as a Senator, we provide him top notch stuff that we can't afford everybody. But I'd love it if we COULD.

Now why do you have to toss in Gates? I said Kennedy. Quit trying to twist the topi. It was a simple yes or no question.

In other words, you think there should be some degree of elitism. The peasants get one thing, Teddy gets something else. But lets name the bill after him.

We can't afford it? Exactly. And you know what, my private, non-government controlled insurance probably isn't much different than Teddy's.

I am so glad your true colors came out.

Take a bow, you're good serf.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:10 AM
Do you think it will change the minds of the Blue Dogs?

There are a few things working together that could improve the outlook WRT to them.

1) I believe they generally support the "Public Option" and have publicly said so now and in the past (Max Baccus comes to mind).

2) As the Reps (Gasserly) have come clean that he won't even support a bill he negotiates, the Blue Dogs lose interest in gaining the Reps support. They aren't even negotiating in good faith. That will have an impact on concessions they are willing to make.

3) TK's positive vibe plus the GOP's bad faith vibe plus a fundamental support for the policy by at least some... could very well = a much stronger bill from the finance committee.

4) Add in the point I made in another thread, that with Medicare Part D, 15 people voted for cloture but against the bill... and there is a clear path for the Dems (with TK's replacement sooner or later) to pass a strong bill.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:12 AM
Now why do you have to toss in Gates? I said Kennedy. Quit trying to twist the topi. It was a simple yes or no question.

In other words, you think there should be some degree of elitism. The peasants get one thing, Teddy gets something else. But lets name the bill after him.

LOL

You think everybody should get the same level of care, part-time janitors and US Senators?

What are we discovering here, that pete is a true socialist?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:14 AM
LOL

You think everybody should get the same level of care, part-time janitors and US Senators?

What are we discovering here, that pete is a true socialist?

Hey, who is paying for it?

No, what we are discovering here is that your calls for "Universal Coverage" are fucking holllow. HOLLOW!

Donger
08-27-2009, 10:15 AM
There are a few things working together that could improve the outlook WRT to them.

1) I believe they generally support the "Public Option" and have publicly said so now and in the past (Max Baccus comes to mind).

2) As the Reps (Gasserly) have come clean that he won't even support a bill he negotiates, the Blue Dogs lose interest in gaining the Reps support. They aren't even negotiating in good faith. That will have an impact on concessions they are willing to make.

3) TK's positive vibe plus the GOP's bad faith vibe plus a fundamental support for the policy by at least some... could very well = a much stronger bill from the finance committee.

4) Add in the point I made in another thread, that with Medicare Part D, 15 people voted for cloture but against the bill... and there is a clear path for the Dems (with TK's replacement sooner or later) to pass a strong bill.

So, not even Teddy's demise will unify the Democrats in support of this legislation?

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:15 AM
Hey, who is paying for it?

No, what we are discovering here is that your calls for "Universal Coverage" are ****ing holllow. HOLLOW!

HOLLOW, SAYS I

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:16 AM
HOLLOW, SAYS I

You lost what little credibility you had with me. Nice to see you aren't really for universal health care. Though you run your trap as if you are. Perhaps you need to look up the word "universal"?

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:18 AM
In short, I think using Kennedy's death is a legit rallying point for Dems on healthcare.

Just like using Reagan's death is a legit rallying point for Republicans on seemingly everything.

It's fine. It's not controversial, the guy fought his whole life for it.

In addition to that, I'd love for everybody to have a US Senator's healthcare, but I doubt we can afford that.

Instead, I support having government provided healthcare in basic packages (rather than the exuberant ones Senators get because they are extremely important people) is beneficial.

It doesn't mean we're all serfs and they're the elite. It means different people get different packages, and I don't think that's controversial.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:19 AM
You lost what little credibility you had with me. Nice to see you aren't really for universal health care.

I have never had any credibility with you.

According to you, I want to hug terrorists, end capitalism, and fuck dogs.

What credibility could such a person have with anybody?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:19 AM
I have never had any credibility with you.

According to you, I want to hug terrorists, end capitalism, and **** dogs.

What credibility could such a person have with anybody?

Well now that we know you are a bold faced liar, none.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:20 AM
Universal, by the way, means "everybody's covered."

NOT "everybody's covered the same."

The public option would do nothing to ensure that everybody's covered the same. That wouldn't even be true under single-payer. You wouldn't get that far until you get to Britain-style fully socialized medicine.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:21 AM
Well now that we know you are a bold faced liar, none.

Racist.

Donger
08-27-2009, 10:21 AM
It doesn't mean we're all serfs and they're the elite. It means different people get different packages, and I don't think that's controversial.

Interesting. How do you determine which person gets which package?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:22 AM
Universal, by the way, means "everybody's covered."

NOT "everybody's covered the same."

The public option would do nothing to ensure that everybody's covered the same. That wouldn't even be true under single-payer. You wouldn't get that far until you get to Britain-style fully socialized medicine.

Oh, no, sorry, no it doesn't.

IF that is your argument, everyone already IS covered. Just not the same.

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 10:22 AM
In short, I think using Kennedy's death is a legit rallying point for Dems on healthcare.

Just like using Reagan's death is a legit rallying point for Republicans on seemingly everything.

It's fine. It's not controversial, the guy fought his whole life for it.

In addition to that, I'd love for everybody to have a US Senator's healthcare, but I doubt we can afford that.

Instead, I support having government provided healthcare in basic packages (rather than the exuberant ones Senators get because they are extremely important people) is beneficial.

It doesn't mean we're all serfs and they're the elite. It means different people get different packages, and I don't think that's controversial.

Rep. Dean Heller (R., Nev.) offered an amendment, which would require members of Congress to enroll in the newly-created public health insurance plan. They would thereby have to forfeit their private coverage. So yeah, Rep. Heller was going to put Members of Congress in the same boat as the rest of us in the proletariat and his amendment was roundly defeated on a party line vote. So, what about that?

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 10:23 AM
Universal, by the way, means "everybody's covered."

NOT "everybody's covered the same."

The public option would do nothing to ensure that everybody's covered the same. That wouldn't even be true under single-payer. You wouldn't get that far until you get to Britain-style fully socialized medicine.

First get "everybody covered" then play the class warfare game until "everybody is covered the same" under a Britain style fully socialized medicine scheme. How does this not compute?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:25 AM
Rep. Dean Heller (R., Nev.) offered an amendment, which would require members of Congress to enroll in the newly-created public health insurance plan. They would thereby have to forfeit their private coverage. So yeah, Rep. Heller was going to put Members of Congress in the same boat as the rest of us in the proletariat and his amendment was roundly defeated on a party line vote. So, what about that?

That's about people saying do as I say, not as I do. The Dems don't want what they want to force onto the People.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:26 AM
If everyone could get the exact same coverage as Kennedy and members of Congress and the government provided for it would you then be for that bill?

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:26 AM
Yea, I failed to comprehend where you agreed that everyone should have the same level of health care Teddy had. Care to point out where I missed that, asshole?
You failed to comprehend

1) That I think you are a tool, not an idiot.
2) I think that based on your judement that naming a bill after TK that he worked his entire life to pass is "tasteless".
3) Bonus tool moment, abandoning your first claim without acknowledging it's flaming carcas and just randomly picking something else mid-stream to call "tasteless" instead.
4) Double bonus tool moment, ignoring this discussion...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=212627

How about the irony of Kennedy being able to hold on to his dear life for a year longer because he has gold-plated insurance but instead the Dems and he would only give us kulaks rationing in such a situation at that age.

You won't be able to buy gold plated supplemental insurance like Kennedy?


The public option, like all public options, necessitates rationing because something seeming free/cheap will create soaring demand without a market mechanism to satisfy it. That would be real prices that reflect availability. The only way to deal with it is through rationing.


...Or do you mean like rationing that creates a supplemental insurance market that can be filled by private companies? Or rationing like people will be unhappy with the public option and will keep their existing private coverage though they must they go through the Fed Gov Exchange?FYP

That's not even true. Insurance companies aren't mandated to offer coverage through the exchange. People or employers aren't mandated to buy insurnace through the exchange.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:27 AM
Interesting. How do you determine which person gets which package?

Under the current bill, you opt for the plan that you want.

Want the nicer one, you pay a higher premium.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:28 AM
Rep. Dean Heller (R., Nev.) offered an amendment, which would require members of Congress to enroll in the newly-created public health insurance plan. They would thereby have to forfeit their private coverage. So yeah, Rep. Heller was going to put Members of Congress in the same boat as the rest of us in the proletariat and his amendment was roundly defeated on a party line vote. So, what about that?

They could buy private supplemental insurance f they wanted to, just like anyone else.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:28 AM
Oh, no, sorry, no it doesn't.

IF that is your argument, everyone already IS covered. Just not the same.

If by not being covered, somebody can be covered, than I guess you're right.

:spock:

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:29 AM
You failed to comprehend

1) That I think you are a tool, not an idiot.
2) I think that based on your judement that naming a bill after TK that he worked his entire life to pass is "tasteless".
3) Bonus tool moment, abandoning your first claim without acknowledging it's flaming carcas and just randomly picking something else mid-stream to call "tasteless" instead.
4) Double bonus tool moment, ignoring this discussion...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=212627

Yea, he was a real American hero. And drunk, who got expelled for cheating in college until Daddy saved him, had Daddy manipulate his time in the Army, rode Daddy's tail coats throughout life, had Daddy get him out of a manslaughter charge...

And you all called Bush a Daddy's boy. LMAO!

Teddy is the epitome of such.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:29 AM
If by not being covered, somebody can be covered, than I guess you're right.

:spock:

Anyone can go to the emergency room and get treatment. Therefore, they are covered. Just not the same as others.


What's wrong with that? You seem to think that is ok when it comes to Senators.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:31 AM
Anyone can go to the emergency room and get treatment. Therefore, they are covered. Just not the same as others.

What's wrong with that?

It's insanely expensive to have 50 million people rely on ER as their primary form of care.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:31 AM
So, not even Teddy's demise will unify the Democrats in support of this legislation?

Did you read my last post?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:32 AM
It's insanely expensive to have 50 million people rely on ER as their primary form of care.

How is your plan of "Universal Care but not really" going to make it cheaper?

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:33 AM
Yea, he was a real American hero. And drunk, who got expelled for cheating in college until Daddy saved him, had Daddy manipulate his time in the Army, rode Daddy's tail coats throughout life, had Daddy get him out of a manslaughter charge...

And you all called Bush a Daddy's boy. LMAO!

Teddy is the epitome of such.

I'd say your spiraling contrbution to this discussion was 100% predictable from post one.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:33 AM
How is your plan of "Universal Care but not really" going to make it cheaper?

By not making us pay for 50 million people having to use the ER as a primary source of care.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:33 AM
If everyone could get the exact same coverage as Kennedy and members of Congress and the government provided for it would you then be for that bill?

Any takers? Cmon now don't be shy.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:34 AM
By not making us pay for 50 million people having to use the ER as a primary source of care.

So you just want to make us pay someone else other than the ER?


Nice plan....:spock:

Donger
08-27-2009, 10:34 AM
Did you read my last post?

Yes, I did.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:35 AM
Any takers? Cmon now don't be shy.

I would. How is that? Generally speaking

Donger
08-27-2009, 10:35 AM
Any takers? Cmon now don't be shy.

Not me.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:36 AM
So you just want to make us pay someone else other than the ER?

That would be cheaper than paying for the ER as a primary source of care for 50 million people.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:36 AM
Anyone can go to the emergency room and get treatment. Therefore, they are covered.
Anyone can steal food there fore they aren't hungry.

Sweet.

wild1
08-27-2009, 10:37 AM
By not making us pay for 50 million people following normal avenues to receive care, just never paying the bill.

Fixed that.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:37 AM
I would.

Hey!

Pete supports universal healthcare!

He just doesn't think the current proposals go far enough!

I didn't know the guy was to the LEFT of ME, for god's sakes!

Donger
08-27-2009, 10:37 AM
Why should I have to pay for the health care of someone else?

vailpass
08-27-2009, 10:37 AM
If everyone could get the exact same coverage as Kennedy and members of Congress and the government provided for it would you then be for that bill?

bump

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:38 AM
Anyone can steal food there fore they aren't hungry.

Sweet.

Are you that much of a fucking idiot? Or is your vag so sore that now you have to compare something legal to something illegal to make a point?


That is a terrible analogy, dickhead.

Why don't you jsut say people shouldn't have to pay to go to the ER?

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:38 AM
I would. How os that?

cool thanks. So you really have no problem with government run health care then.

As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents.

Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but there’s no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what - effective immediately.

And here’s the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium. That government, of course, is funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers who often cannot afford health care themselves.

Representatives pay about $300 per month, and Senators about $600 - taxpayers end up kicking in another $2 million.

wild1
08-27-2009, 10:39 AM
Why should I have to pay for the health care of someone else?

Interesting question.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:39 AM
Why should I have to pay for the health care of someone else?

You shouldn't.

However, if the want to make health care a "Right", then it has to be equally applied to all. And therefore, I would only support making it a Right if we got the same coverage as Teddy and Nancy.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:40 AM
You shouldn't.

However, if the want to make health care a "Right", then it has to be equally applied to all. And therefore, I would only support making it a Right if we got the same coverage as Teddy and Nancy.

Who would pay for it in that case, pete?

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:40 AM
Not me.

Ok thanks

Donger
08-27-2009, 10:41 AM
cool thanks. So you really have no problem with government run health care then.

Having one's employer provide health insurance is how the vast majority of people obtain insurance in this country. These people are employees of the government, so it's not unusual that their employer provides the insurance.

I'm not a government employee.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:42 AM
Who would pay for it in that case, pete?

Who is going to pay for the bill on the table?

So you think health care should be a Right that is applive differently to each individual?

That's real American of you.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:43 AM
cool thanks. So you really have no problem with government run health care then.

That is not the case. Their current plans do not involve a "government run health care system".

Nice try.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:43 AM
Having one's employer provide health insurance is how the vast majority of people obtain insurance in this country. These people are employees of the government, so it's not unusual that their employer provides the insurance.

I'm not a government employee.

Well the people are supplying the insurance since it comes from the taxpayers wallets.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:44 AM
Having one's employer provide health insurance is how the vast majority of people obtain insurance in this country. These people are employees of the government, so it's not unusual that their employer provides the insurance.

I'm not a government employee.

He is trying to mince words.....I am onto his bullshit

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:44 AM
That is not the case. Their current plans do not involve a "government run health care system".

Nice try.

You are right. I should have said government funded health care.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:44 AM
Who is going to pay for the bill on the table?

So you think health care should be a Right that is applive differently to each individual?

That's real American of you.

Whereas you believe that healthcare should be a right applied equally.

We should all get socialized medicine, and receive the exact same healthcare, right?

Pete, you are to the left of me on healthcare.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:45 AM
Well the people are supplying the insurance since it comes from the taxpayers wallets.

But it is not a "government run" heath care system.

Donger
08-27-2009, 10:45 AM
Well the people are supplying the insurance since it comes from the taxpayers wallets.

Sure. The government is great at spending other people's money.

Simplex3
08-27-2009, 10:46 AM
LOL

You think everybody should get the same level of care, part-time janitors and US Senators?

What are we discovering here, that pete is a true socialist?

Wow.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:47 AM
Whereas you believe that healthcare should be a right applied equally.

We should all get socialized medicine, and receive the exact same healthcare, right?

Pete, you are to the left of me on healthcare.

Well, that may be the case in this particular example. I believe Rights should be applied to everyone equally. Now, do I think health care should be a Right? Not sure I do.

That being said, I am glad to see that not only have you shown you are not really for Universal Care, but also that you belive the Bill of Rights should not apply to all equally.

Simplex3
08-27-2009, 10:47 AM
Instead, I support having government provided healthcare in basic packages (rather than the exuberant ones Senators get because they are extremely important people) is beneficial.

It doesn't mean we're all serfs and they're the elite. It means different people get different packages, and I don't think that's controversial.

ROFL

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:48 AM
ROFL

x 2

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:49 AM
If everyone could get the exact same coverage as Kennedy and members of Congress and the government provided for it would you then be for that bill?

bump for anyone else that would like to answer this

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:50 AM
bump for anyone else that would like to answer this

:D

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:50 AM
Sure. The government is great at spending other people's money.

No doubt without tax payer dollars we would have no military

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:51 AM
bump for anyone else that would like to answer this

You need to quit playing games. What you are really tying to ask people is "if the Congress is forced onto their plan would you support it?"


That is not what you are asking in this question. Nice try at the bait and switch. I am sure you thought it was clever.

Donger
08-27-2009, 10:51 AM
No doubt without tax payer dollars we would have no military

Thanks for the clue.

Simplex3
08-27-2009, 10:51 AM
Universal, by the way, means "everybody's covered."

NOT "everybody's covered the same."

The public option would do nothing to ensure that everybody's covered the same. That wouldn't even be true under single-payer. You wouldn't get that far until you get to Britain-style fully socialized medicine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

I'm not saying they won't do it, because Congress treats themselves better than the rest of us already and gets away with it. What I don't understand is why people like you are Ok with it.

Politicians are no more or less important than a part time janitor. A doctor may be harder to find and therefore be able to demand more money, but that doesn't make them more important.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:52 AM
Oh and I will answer my own question. I would be hesitant only because if I had to pay the Senators cost there is no way I could afford it. That would be the only reason.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:53 AM
No doubt without tax payer dollars we would have no military

Except it is the Constitutional duty of the Gov to provide protection to all the People.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:54 AM
Oh and I will answer my own question. I would be hesitant only because if I had to pay the Senators cost there is no way I could afford it. That would be the only reason.

So in other words then, the level of care would go down as a whole if this bill gets passed because we simply could not afford to mainatin high levels of care.

;)

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:54 AM
You need to quit playing games. What you are really tying to ask people is "if the Congress is forced onto their plan would you support it?"


That is not what you are asking in this question. Nice try at the bait and switch. I am sure you thought it was clever.

I am not trying to play any games. It is a straight forward question. You were the one earlier in this thread whining and crying about Senators having a different plan than everyone else.

So I posed a simple question that is all.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:56 AM
Why should I have to pay for the health care of someone else?

Because whether you welcome it or not when you are healthy and wealthy, if you keel over from a heart attack and are taken to the emergency room, they will treat you using someone else's money whether you expect it or not.

If you don't like the hypocratic oath at the core of this nations healthcare funding mechanism, you should move somewhere that doesn't have your back when you can't look.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:56 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

I'm not saying the won't do it, because Congress treats themselves better than the rest of us already and gets away with it. What I don't understand is why people like you are Ok with it.

Politicians are no more or less important than a part time janitor. A doctor may be harder to find and therefore be able to demand more money, but that doesn't make them more important.

He is ok with it because his party wants him to be.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:56 AM
Politicians are no more or less important than a part time janitor. A doctor may be harder to find and therefore be able to demand more money, but that doesn't make them more important.

So you think janitors should get the exact same healthcare coverage as senators?

I thought you were all about the free market, where right now a part-time janitor probably gets zero healthcare coverage while you probably get plenty.

Does that make you more important than a part-time janitor?

Or do you think that, while you are not more important, you can subscribe to nicer healthcare because of your own personal situation?

So if we were going to get everybody into a universal system, why is having that same sort of arrangement (only now the part-time janitor gets better coverage than he had before) suddenly elitism?

Simplex3
08-27-2009, 10:56 AM
bump for anyone else that would like to answer this

No, I wouldn't be for any bill that involves the government in anything but their own reduction.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:57 AM
Because whether you welcome it or not when you are healthy and wealthy, if you keel over from a heart attack and are taken to the emergency room, they will treat you using someone else's money whether you expect it or not.

If you don't like the hypocratic oath at the core of this nations healthcare funding mechanism, you should move somewhere that doesn't have your back when you can't look.

Once again, we have established that people are already covered. You just don't like the price.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 10:57 AM
we simply could not afford to mainatin high levels of care.

We can afford to maintain basic levels of care.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:57 AM
So you think janitors should get the exact same healthcare coverage as senators?

I thought you were all about the free market, where right now a part-time janitor probably gets zero healthcare coverage while you probably get plenty.

Does that make you more important than a part-time janitor?

Or do you think that, while you are not more important, you can subscribe to nicer healthcare because of your own personal situation?

So if we were going to get everybody into a universal system, why is having that same sort of arrangement (only now the part-time janitor gets better coverage than he had before) suddenly elitism?


So you champion and elitist heirarchy of our society?

You want coverage for everyone, but not really.

Under your argument the status quo is fine.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:57 AM
So in other words then, the level of care would go down as a whole if this bill gets passed because we simply could not afford to mainatin high levels of care.

;)

I think that is what Direckshun was getting at because as a nation we couldn't afford to give everyone that high level of care and honestly most people couldn't afford to pay $600 a month for it either.

Simplex3
08-27-2009, 10:57 AM
Oh and I will answer my own question. I would be hesitant only because if I had to pay the Senators cost there is no way I could afford it. That would be the only reason.

You do pay them. It's just that 100 people who aren't you are the only ones benefiting.

Donger
08-27-2009, 10:58 AM
Because whether you welcome it or not when you are healthy and wealthy, if you keel over from a heart attack and are taken to the emergency room, they will treat you using someone else's money whether you expect it or not.

If you don't like the hypocratic oath at the core of this nations healthcare funding mechanism, you should move somewhere that doesn't have your back when you can't look.

Yes, I know, because that's law.

My question wasn't pertaining to ER care specifically. More of a general question about why I should be forced (through taxation) to pay for the overall health care of someone else.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 10:58 AM
Are you that much of a ****ing idiot? Or is your vag so sore that now you have to compare something legal to something illegal to make a point?


That is a terrible analogy, dickhead.

Why don't you jsut say people shouldn't have to pay to go to the ER?

Your effort is to deliberately build a healthcare system around an ethical loophole that amounts to ER's being required to look the other way when people who can't afford "dinner" to steal it instead.

That's outright stupid if it's avoidable.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 10:59 AM
No, I wouldn't be for any bill that involves the government in anything but their own reduction.

thanks

petegz28
08-27-2009, 10:59 AM
We can afford to maintain basic levels of care.

In other words yes, our high level of care will go down. And we will all just have to live with "basic" health care.


Do you actually listen to the stuff you say?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:00 AM
Your effort is to deliberately build a healthcare system around an ethical loophole that amounts to ER's being required to look the other way when people who can't afford "dinner" to steal it instead.

That's outright stupid if it's avoidable.

But the fact is people get treatment at the ER regardless of coverage. And most cases legal status. You are just pissed cause they get stuck with a bill as they leave.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:00 AM
In other words yes, our high level of care will go down. And we will all just have to live with "basic" health care.

That is not at all true. The government plan is currently just to provide an option.

If you like your private insurance, you can keep it.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:01 AM
But the fact is people get treatment at the ER regardless of coverage. You are just pissed cause they get stuck with a bill as they leave.

They don't. Many of them cannot pay the bill, and don't.

They also get really shitty treatment as a result.

HC_Chief
08-27-2009, 11:01 AM
That is not at all true. The government plan is currently just to provide an option.

If you like your private insurance, you can keep it.... while also paying for the "public" option! Lucky you!

Fixed your post

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:02 AM
So you think janitors should get the exact same healthcare coverage as senators?

I thought you were all about the free market, where right now a part-time janitor probably gets zero healthcare coverage while you probably get plenty.

Does that make you more important than a part-time janitor?

Or do you think that, while you are not more important, you can subscribe to nicer healthcare because of your own personal situation?

So if we were going to get everybody into a universal system, why is having that same sort of arrangement (only now the part-time janitor gets better coverage than he had before) suddenly elitism?

Waiting for Simplex.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:02 AM
They don't. Many of them cannot pay the bill, and don't.

They also get really shitty treatment as a result.

Hey, you are the one that wants varying levles of health care.

Do we need to go back to your janitor vs. Senator example?


Maybe people who can't afford just aren't as "important"??

See how stupid your argument is?

So you DO want the janitor to get good treatment but you don't think the health care bill should give them that? LMAO

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:03 AM
You are just pissed cause they get stuck with a bill as they leave.

Shit I wish that was the case.

You know just as well as I do most people don't pay especially illegals hence the problem.

I would be all for redoing that law.

Simplex3
08-27-2009, 11:03 AM
So you think janitors should get the exact same healthcare coverage as senators?

I thought you were all about the free market, where right now a part-time janitor probably gets zero healthcare coverage while you probably get plenty.

Does that make you more important than a part-time janitor?

Or do you think that, while you are not more important, you can subscribe to nicer healthcare because of your own personal situation?

So if we were going to get everybody into a universal system, why is having that same sort of arrangement (only now the part-time janitor gets better coverage than he had before) suddenly elitism?

No, I think they should have the same OPPORTUNITY to get healthcare as that Senator. Once the feds get involved that will all go away. It always does. The fact that Senators are giving themselves kick-ass healthcare on the backs of the part time janitors makes me sick.

The elitism comes in because you are assuming the politician should have better coverage because he's more important. That's bullshit. I could find 10k people tomorrow that could do a Senator's job.

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." - H. L. Mencken

Donger
08-27-2009, 11:03 AM
That is not at all true. The government plan is currently just to provide an option.

If you like your private insurance, you can keep it.

* As long as your private plan follows the same guidelines as the public option

* As long as you don't change jobs

* For a limited time only (five years)

* There as good chance that the public option will be the only option once private insurers are driven out of business

Other than that, you are correct.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 11:04 AM
Yes, I know, because that's law.

My question wasn't pertaining to ER care specifically. More of a general question about why I should be forced (through taxation) to pay for the overall health care of someone else.

But that moral principle is at the core of you paying for all of this.

It's about reducing the costs you bare caring for 50M emergency room writeoffs.

Donger
08-27-2009, 11:05 AM
But that moral principle is at the core of you paying for all of this.

It's about reducing the costs you bare caring for 50M emergency room writeoffs.

Easy. Change the law.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:05 AM
But that moral principle is at the core of you paying for all of this.

It's about reducing the costs you bare caring for 50M emergency room writeoffs.

Yea, so then we can have $50m in doctor office visits to write off.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 11:05 AM
But the fact is people get treatment at the ER regardless of coverage. And most cases legal status. You are just pissed cause they get stuck with a bill as they leave.

And that process costs your more money that it needs to.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 11:05 AM
Yea, so then we can have $50m in doctor office visits to write off.

50M doctor vists is cheaper than 50M ER vists. That's exactly the point.

Simplex3
08-27-2009, 11:06 AM
Waiting for Simplex.

Response took a while, I had to earn enough money to pay enough taxes for someone else's kid's healthcare.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:06 AM
Shit I wish that was the case.

You know just as well as I do most people don't pay especially illegals hence the problem.

I would be all for redoing that law.


I would be too. But the fact is people get covered and yes we all get stuck witht he bill. That does not change under the proposed bill. Just instead of tax payers getting stuck with ER bills, they will get stuck with an increased number of office vist bills.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:07 AM
Easy. Change the law.

We agree. Also round up alot of the illegals and ship them back.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 11:07 AM
Easy. Change the law.

If you have a problem with the policy, you change it.

You won't come within 1000 miles of being able to accomplish that. So you are faced with moving somewhere that doesn't commit to providing you emergency care without asking for your bank account first.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:08 AM
No, I think they should have the same OPPORTUNITY to get healthcare as that Senator. Once the feds get involved that will all go away.

The fed hasn't been involved in our healthcare (other than certain classes like gov't employees, military members, the elderly and the impoverished). Yet the same opportunities do not exist.

The same opportunities would exist under the government option. You are mandated into healthcare. If you want the nicer option that's probably comparable to what a Senator receives, you pay for it. Considerably less for it, by the way, than you would in the private sector.

Don't want/can't afford the gold plated stuff? You get basic care.

That ain't elitism. That is universal coverage that retains consumer choice.

Donger
08-27-2009, 11:09 AM
If you have a problem with the policy, you change it.

You won't come within 1000 miles of being able to accomplish that. So you are faced with moving somewhere that doesn't commit to providing you emergency care without asking for your bank account first.

I'm aware of that. Feel good legislation never goes away.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 11:10 AM
I'm aware of that. Feel good legislation never goes away.

When is your flight out?

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 11:10 AM
cool thanks. So you really have no problem with government run health care then.

That is NOT gov't run health care. That is gov't paid for health care. No different than my employer paying for my health care.

Barry-care gets gov't into the administrative game and ask Vets how that works out...or the folks at IHS. The gov't sucks at administering health care.

Bush tried to move Medicare towards the FEHB model but was beaten back.

The Heller amendment is germaine to the discussion insofar as it demonstrates the level of trust the proponents in Congress have in such a plan. In short, they're unwilling to put their money where their mouth is.

Simplex3
08-27-2009, 11:10 AM
That ain't elitism. That is universal coverage that retains consumer choice.

For five years, as long as you don't change jobs. Of course, if you become more important (get elected to the Senate) we'll hook you up with the gold plated shit for life.

Donger
08-27-2009, 11:10 AM
When is your flight out?

Pardon?

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:10 AM
Just instead of tax payers getting stuck with ER bills, they will get stuck with an increased number of office vist bills.

Which is considerably cheaper.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:11 AM
I would be too. But the fact is people get covered and yes we all get stuck witht he bill. That does not change under the proposed bill. Just instead of tax payers getting stuck with ER bills, they will get stuck with an increased number of office vist bills.

The difference being though is that doctor's offices are fairly strict about who they allow in and you better have insurance or medicaid\medicare or cash.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:11 AM
We agree. Also round up alot of the illegals and ship them back.

It would be nice if such would happen. But it won't. The Left needs the votes from the illegals and Right needs the cheap labor.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 11:11 AM
Pardon?

I expect you'll be moving to a country that refuses to use your tax dollars to pay for someone else's care. No?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:12 AM
The difference being though is that doctor's offices are fairly strict about who they allow in and you better have insurance or medicaid\medicare or cash.

You think if this bill gets passed you won't see increased visits to the doctor? The fact they have an insurance card means nothing when "we" still get stuck with the bill.


Costs have to be reduced, imposed coverage by the Fed Gov is not the answer.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:12 AM
For five years, as long as you don't change jobs. Of course, if you become more important (get elected to the Senate) we'll hook you up with the gold plated shit for life.

You're the folks that cooked up the "importance" shit.

As if Simplex currently, with his great healthcare, is more important than a part-time janitor, with zero healthcare.

Which, of course, you're not. Your life situation just allows you better stuff.

Same deal with the government option.

Donger
08-27-2009, 11:12 AM
I expect you'll be moving to a country that refuses to use your tax dollars to pay for someone else's care. No?

No. I'll stay here and continue to hope that my country does not become fully socialist.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:13 AM
That is NOT gov't run health care. That is gov't paid for health care. No different than my employer paying for my health care.

Barry-care gets gov't into the administrative game and ask Vets how that works out...or the folks at IHS. The gov't sucks at administering health care.

Bush tried to move Medicare towards the FEHB model but was beaten back.

The Heller amendment is germaine to the discussion insofar as it demonstrates the level of trust the proponents in Congress have in such a plan. In short, they're unwilling to put their money where their mouth is.

I know I messed up and I should have said government funded health care.

If you could have exactly what Congress had and the government paid for it would you support that bill?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:13 AM
Which is considerably cheaper.

No, it isn't. That is your dream world. If you don't think office visits will increase your out of your mind. I will guarantee that for ever 1 ER vist you will see an increase of 5-7 office visits.

It all comes out to be the same in the end. Especially under your idea of plan where peopel have varying packages. Theones who can't afford the office visit now aren't going to be saving much money under your plan.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:13 AM
You think if this bill gets passed you won't see increased visits to the doctor?

Which is considerably cheaper than ER serving as primary care.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:15 AM
I know I messed up and I should have said government funded health care.

If you could have exactly what Congress had and the government paid for it would you support that bill?

By saying what Congress "had\has" you mean private insurance?

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:15 AM
No, it isn't. That is your dream world. If you don't think office visits will increase your out of your mind. I will guarantee that for ever 1 ER vist you will see an increase of 5-7 office visits.

It all comes out to be the same in the end.

I am surrounded by medical professionals in my life who completely disagree with you, who work in hospitals.

1 ER visit costs tons more than 1 visit to a primary care physician.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:15 AM
You think if this bill gets passed you won't see increased visits to the doctor? The fact they have an insurance card means nothing when "we" still get stuck with the bill.


Costs have to be reduced, imposed coverage by the Fed Gov is not the answer.

Oh I am sure it will but at least we will be getting some money out of it instead of no money.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:16 AM
Which is considerably cheaper than ER serving as primary care.

No, no it isn't. You're on crack.


The increased number of visits will offset what you think are savings.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:17 AM
Oh I am sure we will but at least we will be getting some money out of it instead of no money.

How? Where is the money coming from?

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:18 AM
I am surrounded by medical professionals in my life who completely disagree with you, who work in hospitals.

1 ER visit costs tons more than 1 visit to a primary care physician.

I agree...

but for ever 1 ER visit you have now you are going to have an increase of 5-7 visits at the doctor.


JFC just stop. You are all over the place and in a dream world.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:18 AM
By saying what Congress "had\has" you mean private insurance?

This is what I am referring to:

As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents.

Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but there’s no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what - effective immediately.

And here’s the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium. That government, of course, is funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers who often cannot afford health care themselves.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:18 AM
The increased number of visits will offset what you think are savings.

Tell you what, pete.

If you know a single medical professional in your life, somebody who works full-time and earns their living in a hospital, ask them if what you just said is true.

If you get even one of them to agree, I'll leave you alone about the point.

I just know an army of medical professionals that completely disagree.

I think it's fair to say you're pulling this out of your ass.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 11:18 AM
I agree...

but for ever 1 ER visit you have now you are going to have an increase of 5-7 visits at the doctor.

Which is still cheaper, believe it or not.

Simplex3
08-27-2009, 11:19 AM
You're the folks that cooked up the "importance" shit.

As if Simplex currently, with his great healthcare, is more important than a part-time janitor, with zero healthcare.

Which, of course, you're not. Your life situation just allows you better stuff.

Same deal with the government option.

I pay for my health care. Out of pocket. I contacted the insurance companies, I found the best deals for myself and my family for the situation we are in, and I purchased it. Anyone can, even a part time janitor.

If the part time janitor can't afford coverage that he thinks he needs then he's welcome to go full time, or open his own janitorial business, or any number of things he can do to increase his income. He can provide for himself and his family as he sees fit.

Until you and the feds get involved. Then we're going to 'give' more 'free' stuff to people who haven't earned it so that they can over-consume with no realization or care for the actual costs because they are societal leaches.

You're asking to deepen the hole that the welfare class lives in and expand how much it costs me.

I would be far, far less opposed to a plan that gives up to $2,000 a year to someone to purchase catastrophic coverage. Leave it at that and don't dick with everyone and everything else. You have to meet some qualifications, though. You have to actually fall below the poverty line and you have to be a legal resident.

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 11:19 AM
That is not at all true. The government plan is currently just to provide an option.

If you like your private insurance, you can keep it.

Private insurance companies are required, by Sarbanes-Oxley and the market place, to remain profitable. Gov't is not. That is not true competition, that is a false choice and the notion that private insurance will be able to compete on a cost basis with an entity that holds the power to levy taxes on an entire population and operate at tremendous deficits is ludicrous. Moreover, the "penalty" for employers not covering an employee is roughly 8% of the uninsured employees' payroll. Currently employers' coverage costs average around 11% of the covered employees' payroll. So it is better business to cut insurance and pay the gov't and put people into the public "option" than it is to continue to pay for their plans.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:19 AM
How? Where is the money coming from?

Whatever plan happens to get passed (if it ever does) people will still have to pay a premium every month.

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 11:19 AM
I know I messed up and I should have said government funded health care.

If you could have exactly what Congress had and the government paid for it would you support that bill?

No.

1. Gov't is historically terrible at managing issues in the day to day lives of the population.
2. Gov't paying for my HC means gov't gets to tell me what lifestyle choices to make in the interests of "cost containment". Gov't telling me what to do is not freedom, it is opression and tyranny.
3. Most importantly, Gov't doesn't pay for a f'ing thing, never has never will. It is a false premise. Americans pay for everything and I'm not going to saddle you, my neighbor, my friend, my enemy, nor my children with the costs associated with keeping me alive in my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness and I'll thank you to have the same consideration for me.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:20 AM
Which is still cheaper, believe it or not.

Says you...

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:21 AM
Whatever plan happens to get passed (if it ever does) people will still have to pay a premium every month.

That is the dream. It won't happen. Excuses wll be made why some people can't pay. You know this. It is how our politicans get elected.

Donger
08-27-2009, 11:24 AM
Is it not reasonable to assume that ER care costs more than regular care because the ER is attempting to recoup the costs associated with people who don't not pay?

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:24 AM
That is the dream. It won't happen. Excuses wll be made why some people can't pay. You know this. It is how our politicans get elected.

That is a legit question that needs to be answered. Who is going to be the bill collectors for this when people don't or can't pay the portion that the government doesn't cover? The IRS? I don't really know.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:28 AM
Is it not reasonable to assume that ER care costs more than regular care because the ER is attempting to recoup the costs associated with people who don't not pay?

You can add that doctors have to increase their costs as well to make up for medicare shortfalls.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:36 AM
Is it not reasonable to assume that ER care costs more than regular care because the ER is attempting to recoup the costs associated with people who don't not pay?

I don't know. I went to the ER last year in my town because I had a huge spider bite that swelled up and I couldn't wait until past the weekend. Anyway all the doctors in our ER were contracted out from doctor offices in KC. I got bills from them instead of the hospital. I am sure that is not that way everywhere but it costs alot more to do that I would think.

Actually I take that back. I got bills from both the hospital and the doctor office where the doctor worked full time I suppose. The total cost was around $1100 IIRC. If I went to the doctor's office it would have cost me probably $200.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 11:46 AM
I don't know. I went to the ER last year in my town because I had a huge spider bite that swelled up and I couldn't wait until past the weekend. Anyway all the doctors in our ER were contracted out from doctor offices in KC. I got bills from them instead of the hospital. I am sure that is not that way everywhere but it costs alot more to do that I would think.

Actually I take that back. I got bills from both the hospital and the doctor office where the doctor worked full time I suppose. The total cost was around $1100 IIRC. If I went to the doctor's office it would have cost me probably $200.

Ok so as I said, you take the 1 visit to the ER and multiply it by 5-7 for doctor visits and it all comes out to around the same.

Chief Henry
08-27-2009, 11:50 AM
Private insurance companies are required, by Sarbanes-Oxley and the market place, to remain profitable. Gov't is not. That is not true competition, that is a false choice and the notion that private insurance will be able to compete on a cost basis with an entity that holds the power to levy taxes on an entire population and operate at tremendous deficits is ludicrous. Moreover, the "penalty" for employers not covering an employee is roughly 8% of the uninsured employees' payroll. Currently employers' coverage costs average around 11% of the covered employees' payroll. So it is better business to cut insurance and pay the gov't and put people into the public "option" than it is to continue to pay for their plans.

Over time ER's will dump the private insurance that they have and have EE's go to the public option plan.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 11:52 AM
Ok so as I said, you take the 1 visit to the ER and multiply it by 5-7 for doctor visits and it all comes out to around the same.

I guess I am not following. Obviously the ER is alot more expensive than regular doctor visits but why would I go to the doctor's office 5-7 times for one thing?

BigRedChief
08-27-2009, 11:53 AM
Ok so as I said, you take the 1 visit to the ER and multiply it by 5-7 for doctor visits and it all comes out to around the same.
but he only goes in for one visit to the doctors office, not 5-7 times. Saved at least $800.

BigRedChief
08-27-2009, 11:54 AM
Is it not reasonable to assume that ER care costs more than regular care because the ER is attempting to recoup the costs associated with people who don't not pay?No, hospitals do as a whole, not just ER.

KC Dan
08-27-2009, 11:56 AM
Moreover, the "penalty" for employers not covering an employee is roughly 8% of the uninsured employees' payroll. Currently employers' coverage costs average around 11% of the covered employees' payroll. So it is better business to cut insurance and pay the gov't and put people into the public "option" than it is to continue to pay for their plans.This has been my point ever since this debate began this year. It makes ZERO sense for a company to keep covering its workers. That is why this is a lead-in to a single-payer plan. I pointed this out to my House Rep last week and he gave a convoluted bullcrap answer that didn't address my point. They can't and they won't because its true.

Let one Liberal twat prove to me (if your company pays $1.1 Million for covering its workforce yet if you tax a company $400,000 for having no coverage) that every company will NOT drop its coverage if this plan passes the Congress.

jAZ
08-27-2009, 11:59 AM
No. I'll stay here and continue to hope that my country does not become fully socialist.

Yeah, that's about right. I didn't move during the Iraq War either. It's a great (marginally) socialist country.

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:01 PM
Yeah, that's about right. I didn't move during the Iraq War either. It's a great (marginally) socialist country.

Well, hopefully we'll get a Republican congress soon and put an end to the agenda.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 12:02 PM
but he only goes in for one visit to the doctors office, not 5-7 times. Saved at least $800.


Wrong....people who can only go to the ER now will go to their doctor a lot more if given the opportunity.

If you don't think this plan will increase office visits you are high

jAZ
08-27-2009, 12:02 PM
That is NOT gov't run health care. That is gov't paid for health care. No different than my employer paying for my health care.

That's a very good point. You should correct people in the future and ensure that they say "employer run healthcare" instead of private health insurance and "government paid for healthcare" when they talk about a public option.

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:05 PM
That's a very good point. You should correct people in the future and ensure that they say "employer run healthcare" instead of private health insurance and "government paid for healthcare" when they talk about a public option.

Don't forget the "government-run" part. That's important, too.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 12:21 PM
Wrong....people who can only go to the ER now will go to their doctor a lot more if given the opportunity.

If you don't think this plan will increase office visits you are high

it still would take them at least 8-10 visits per year to match 1 time going to ER.

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:23 PM
Why are ERs more expensive than a regular visit? More staff? Better staff? I assume that the "goods" such as bandages, medicine, etc. cost the same?

CoMoChief
08-27-2009, 12:26 PM
Ted Kennedy is probably the worst Kennedy to ever walk to earth, and yet the democraps are wanting to use his death as a tribute to try and push legislation that majority of Americans don't want because of BS loopholes and inconsistencies in the bill?

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 12:28 PM
Why are ERs more expensive than a regular visit? More staff? Better staff? I assume that the "goods" such as bandages, medicine, etc. cost the same?

I think all of those especially staffing considering you have to have multiple doctors always around 24x7

petegz28
08-27-2009, 12:30 PM
it still would take them at least 8-10 visits per year to match 1 time going to ER.

I agree. And you will see doctor visits increase to that proportion. Bank on it.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 12:31 PM
I thought this was interesting Donger

http://blogs.biproinc.com/healthcare/?p=922

Sharon Rhodes, another consultant at CSI tech writes:


I’d like to add some numbers to this discussion. Let’s just look at staffing an Urgent Care facility vs. an Emergancy Room. To staff an Urgent Care facility it usually requires 2-4 doctors and 5-7 medical assistants. An Urgent Care facility may staff a nurse practioner or physician assistant in leiu of a physician. For an example, let’s create a medium size Urgent Care facility (usually sees apx 50,000 patients/yr) with 2 MDs, 1 PA, 1 NP and 7 medical assistants.

The average pay for each of the following are:
Urgent Care MD is $201,000/yr. x2 = $402,000
Physician Assistant (PA) it is $87,000/yr x1 = $87,000
Nurse practioner (NP) is $85,000/yr x1 = $85,000
Medical Assistant is $38,000/yr x7 = $266,000
Total = $804,000 in staff salary alone and this does not take into account the additional cost of benefits and taxes, or operational costs.

Compare that to an emergancy room where the staffing is much higher and the staff is more trained.
Average Pay:
ER MD is $257,000/yr
ER RN is $61,000/yr
ER PA is $92,000/yr
ER NP is $88,000/yr
For a small ER, minimum staffing would consist of the following:
1 Intake Nurse = 61,000/yr
1 Triage Nurse = 61,000/yr
3 Nurses in the treatment area = $183,000
1 MD = $257,000
1 PA or NP = 88,000
Total for one shift = $650,000

Now take into account the fact that ERs are 24/7 operations and the medical staff usually work 12 hr shifts. That brings the total to minimum $1.3 million for salaries alone. Add in the technicians, consulting MDs, and speciality therapists and the cost continues to climb and we haven’t even addressed the cost of equipment, medications or other operational costs. Also, if the ER is a trauma 1 ER then we have to add the cost of staffing and supplying a complete trauma team (very very expensive).

Many Urgent Care facilities are beginning to stay open after hours to handle simple cases thus taking the load off of the hospital ERs. Also, with regards to spare rooms, the comment I hear most from MDs and RNs it that there are never enough beds in the hospital. When patients need to be admitted from the ER, many times the patient will be held in the ER for several hours until a bed in the hospital opens up. This also takes people, time, and money to care for patients in the ER when they really belong in a hospital unit. Many times the long wait in an ER lounge has to do with the fact that rooms are occupied with patients needing to be admitted to the hospital. If you spend some time in an ER, you quickly find that there is never any down time. The ER staff is constantly in motion treating and caring for everything from an infant with an ear ache to a patient with chest pain to a gun shot victim.

I agree with Cynthina in that hospitals do not know their business; however, they are learning quickly. Many hospitals currently run an Urgent Care facility right next to their ERs. These Urgent Care facilities usually stay open until 12:00AM and reopen in the morning at 10:00AM.

Currently, there are many things wrong with our health care system; however, when patients use the ER as their primary care it is significantly more expensive than visiting the MD in a clinic or office or going to an Urgent Care facility. I think with a little education, patients will soon be able to discern when a visit to the ER is warrented or when Urgent Care would be satisfactory.

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:32 PM
I thought this was interesting Donger

http://blogs.biproinc.com/healthcare/?p=922

Sharon Rhodes, another consultant at CSI tech writes:


Iíd like to add some numbers to this discussion. Letís just look at staffing an Urgent Care facility vs. an Emergancy Room. To staff an Urgent Care facility it usually requires 2-4 doctors and 5-7 medical assistants. An Urgent Care facility may staff a nurse practioner or physician assistant in leiu of a physician. For an example, letís create a medium size Urgent Care facility (usually sees apx 50,000 patients/yr) with 2 MDs, 1 PA, 1 NP and 7 medical assistants.

The average pay for each of the following are:
Urgent Care MD is $201,000/yr. x2 = $402,000
Physician Assistant (PA) it is $87,000/yr x1 = $87,000
Nurse practioner (NP) is $85,000/yr x1 = $85,000
Medical Assistant is $38,000/yr x7 = $266,000
Total = $804,000 in staff salary alone and this does not take into account the additional cost of benefits and taxes, or operational costs.

Compare that to an emergancy room where the staffing is much higher and the staff is more trained.
Average Pay:
ER MD is $257,000/yr
ER RN is $61,000/yr
ER PA is $92,000/yr
ER NP is $88,000/yr
For a small ER, minimum staffing would consist of the following:
1 Intake Nurse = 61,000/yr
1 Triage Nurse = 61,000/yr
3 Nurses in the treatment area = $183,000
1 MD = $257,000
1 PA or NP = 88,000
Total for one shift = $650,000

Now take into account the fact that ERs are 24/7 operations and the medical staff usually work 12 hr shifts. That brings the total to minimum $1.3 million for salaries alone. Add in the technicians, consulting MDs, and speciality therapists and the cost continues to climb and we havenít even addressed the cost of equipment, medications or other operational costs. Also, if the ER is a trauma 1 ER then we have to add the cost of staffing and supplying a complete trauma team (very very expensive).

Many Urgent Care facilities are beginning to stay open after hours to handle simple cases thus taking the load off of the hospital ERs. Also, with regards to spare rooms, the comment I hear most from MDs and RNs it that there are never enough beds in the hospital. When patients need to be admitted from the ER, many times the patient will be held in the ER for several hours until a bed in the hospital opens up. This also takes people, time, and money to care for patients in the ER when they really belong in a hospital unit. Many times the long wait in an ER lounge has to do with the fact that rooms are occupied with patients needing to be admitted to the hospital. If you spend some time in an ER, you quickly find that there is never any down time. The ER staff is constantly in motion treating and caring for everything from an infant with an ear ache to a patient with chest pain to a gun shot victim.

I agree with Cynthina in that hospitals do not know their business; however, they are learning quickly. Many hospitals currently run an Urgent Care facility right next to their ERs. These Urgent Care facilities usually stay open until 12:00AM and reopen in the morning at 10:00AM.

Currently, there are many things wrong with our health care system; however, when patients use the ER as their primary care it is significantly more expensive than visiting the MD in a clinic or office or going to an Urgent Care facility. I think with a little education, patients will soon be able to discern when a visit to the ER is warrented or when Urgent Care would be satisfactory.

Sorry, could you post that again in Mexican? I can't read it.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 12:37 PM
I agree. And you will see doctor visits increase to that proportion. Bank on it.

Not per person they wouldn't I don't buy that.

Now I agree that doctors will see more patients because if we have care for all that is 45 million or so that didn't normally go to the doctor.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 12:38 PM
Sorry, could you post that again in Mexican? I can't read it.

is that better?

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:42 PM
is that better?

Yes. So, the ER is ~1.5 more expensive than a regular visit?

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:44 PM
What's not funny about it, KC native? Every place I call has the "for Mexican, press two" option. Well, I presume that's what they say, because I don't speak that language.

KC native
08-27-2009, 12:47 PM
What's not funny about it, KC native? Every place I call has the "for Mexican, press two" option. Well, I presume that's what they say, because I don't speak that language.

It was funny the first time. Now it's worn out and not funny. BTW this is the second time you've been concerned about rep I've left you when you say that it doesn't matter to you.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 12:47 PM
Yes. So, the ER is ~1.5 more expensive than a regular visit?

I am sure it is somewhere around there. The lady was just going off what she knew so it is not like it is entirely accurate. But it makes sense since you have to have a full staff 24x7 instead of 9-5.

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:49 PM
It was funny the first time. Now it's worn out and not funny. BTW this is the second time you've been concerned about rep I've left you when you say that it doesn't matter to you.

Only concerned as far as why it wasn't funny. Maybe the third time will be funny again.

KC native
08-27-2009, 12:50 PM
Only concerned as far as why it wasn't funny. Maybe the third time will be funny again.

Maybe, but it's highly unlikely. Jokes like that tend to lose oomph after being repeated.

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:50 PM
I am sure it is somewhere around there. The lady was just going off what she knew so it is not like it is entirely accurate. But it makes sense since you have to have a full staff 24x7 instead of 9-5.

Then it is not 8-10 times more expensive than a regular visit?

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:51 PM
Maybe, but it's highly unlikely. Jokes like that tend to lose oomph after being repeated.

Well, I like a struggle, so I'll keep at it, just for you.

KC native
08-27-2009, 12:52 PM
Well, I like a struggle, so I'll keep at it, just for you.

Feel free but please don't whine about any future neg reps for weak jokes. :thumb:

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:54 PM
Feel free but please don't whine about any future neg reps for weak jokes. :thumb:

What is the translation for those annoying phone messages? "Para Espanol, something something"?

KC native
08-27-2009, 12:55 PM
What is the translation for those annoying phone messages? "Para Espanol, something something"?

No puedo entenderte. Para Espanol, oprima 2. Gracias.

Donger
08-27-2009, 12:56 PM
No puedo entenderte. Para Espanol, oprima 2. Gracias.

And how does that translate, in English?

wild1
08-27-2009, 12:58 PM
Then it is not 8-10 times more expensive than a regular visit?

It's probably more expensive, but the reason for that is that you are being billed for what you are consuming, not what you perceive you are getting.

If you come into the ED, you're triaged, then registered, then seen by an RN, NP, whomever. You may see an MD as well. You're treated in a very large and expensive facility with wide capability that didn't get there by magic. Going to the ED versus going to a normal family practice will cost you more because you're consuming time from many more resources and much more valuable ones.

But - and everyone ignores it when I point this out, but I'll do it again - the medicare people are bogging the system down and causing you to get charged more. If you go to a family practice, where they can regulate their payor mix to limit government payors if needed, then you will save money for that reason. If you come into the ED to an organization that is required to see everyone, of course they have a much poorer payor mix - because a much larger part of it is government - so you are going to have to pay your bill along with that of 2 or 3 people with a government plan. The organization has to stay solvent, to do that they have to take in money, and you can only take in money from people and groups who are willing to pay.

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 01:10 PM
And how does that translate, in English?

I want to know where my options are for Russian, German, Korean, and Japanese? Why only cater to the spanish speaking population? Oh, that's right, those are the f's that can't or won't learn English.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:15 PM
It doesn't matter anyway, because Donger is implying that he buys into the truth that pete admitted earlier.

For the price that we all pay for 50 million Americans to be allowed to make 1 trip to the ER, we could pay the exact same price for those same Americans to be able to make several, if not plenty, trips to a doctor for primary healthcare.

And right there, our country starts getting healthier.

How is that not something that excites you folks? That alone would seem pretty exciting, to know that for the exact same price, we could get somebody to see a physician several times instead of one trip to the ER.

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:18 PM
It doesn't matter anyway, because Donger is implying that he buys into the truth that pete admitted earlier.

For the price that we all pay for 50 million Americans to be allowed to make 1 trip to the ER, we could pay the exact same price for those same Americans to be able to make several, if not plenty, trips to a doctor for primary healthcare.

And right there, our country starts getting healthier.

How is that not something that excites you folks? That alone would seem pretty exciting, to know that for the exact same price, we could get somebody to see a physician several times instead of one trip to the ER.

Or, we could just end the practice of allowing people without insurance to use the ER for general care.

wild1
08-27-2009, 01:18 PM
For the price that we all pay for 50 million Americans to be allowed to make 1 trip to the ER, we could pay the exact same price for those same Americans to be able to make several, if not plenty, trips to a doctor for primary healthcare.

How is that not something that excites you folks?

Why should I be required to pay for someone else to make trips to the doctor?

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:20 PM
Or, we could just end the practice of allowing people without insurance to use the ER for general care.

That would leave 50 million Americans, your fellow citizens, with no care at all.

Thoughts?

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:20 PM
Why should I be required to pay for someone else to make trips to the doctor?

Don't you already?

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:24 PM
That would leave 50 million Americans, your fellow citizens, with no care at all.

Thoughts?

Free clinics. Don't those still exist?

wild1
08-27-2009, 01:24 PM
Don't you already?

Irrelevant to the question.

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:24 PM
Don't you already?

I actually support Medicaid, but I think it should be temporary, not a way of life.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:26 PM
Irrelevant to the question.

Well if we already have you on the hook for paying for other people's healthcare, why don't we make the healthcare you're paying for more efficient?

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:28 PM
Free clinics. Don't those still exist?

Have you ever been poor in your life?

Serious question. Because there's a huge disconnect in what you think is adequate healthcare for the unfortunate and what is actually adequate.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:28 PM
I actually support Medicaid, but I think it should be temporary, not a way of life.

That's fair.

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:29 PM
Have you ever been poor in your life?

Serious question. Because there's a huge disconnect in what you think is adequate healthcare for the unfortunate and what is actually adequate.

Yes.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 01:30 PM
Then it is not 8-10 times more expensive than a regular visit?

I think the 1.3 compares ER to Urgent Care facilities.

I imagine the difference is far greater comparing ER to regular doctor visits. I know in alot of states the average cost of ER is $1000-$1500.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:31 PM
Yes.

Alright.

Because you're acting as if the combination of free clinics and ERs as primary healthcare sources (or even worse sole healthcare sources) is adequate to take care of 50 million uninsured people. And I'm wondering if you've ever been in the position to do just that, and how incredibly inadequate it actually is.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 01:32 PM
Have you ever been poor in your life?

Serious question. Because there's a huge disconnect in what you think is adequate healthcare for the unfortunate and what is actually adequate.

Define poor.....

What is poor and why are you poor?

wild1
08-27-2009, 01:32 PM
Well if we already have you on the hook for paying for other people's healthcare, why don't we make the healthcare you're paying for more efficient?

Also irrelevant to the question, which was "Why should I be required to pay someone else's medical bills?"

wild1
08-27-2009, 01:32 PM
I think the 1.3 compares ER to Urgent Care facilities.

I imagine the difference is far greater comparing ER to regular doctor visits. I know in alot of states the average cost of ER is $1000-$1500.

Do some critical thinking. The average service rendered at the ED is much more complex.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 01:33 PM
Alright.

Because you're acting as if the combination of free clinics and ERs as primary healthcare sources (or even worse sole healthcare sources) is adequate to take care of 50 million uninsured people. And I'm wondering if you've ever been in the position to do just that, and how incredibly inadequate it actually is.

Now earlier you were just saying a janitor doesn't deserve the same health care a senator does.


Now you are bitching about it

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:34 PM
Alright.

Because you're acting as if the combination of free clinics and ERs as primary healthcare sources (or even worse sole healthcare sources) is adequate to take care of 50 million uninsured people. And I'm wondering if you've ever been in the position to do just that, and how incredibly inadequate it actually is.

How many of those 50 million could afford health insurance but decide to get other things instead, like Internet access, wide screen TVs, etc.?

How many of them simply choose not to have insurance?

Should I have to pay for them in addition to whatever is the real number of people who CANNOT afford it?

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 01:35 PM
Also irrelevant to the question, which was "Why should I be required to pay someone else's medical bills?"

You do already. Every time you get your paycheck your minus money from FICA. Where do you think that goes to?

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:36 PM
You do already. Every time you get your paycheck your minus money from FICA. Where do you think that goes to?

Dirk, yes, we know. That doesn't mean I want even more taken out to pay for even more people's health care.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:37 PM
Also irrelevant to the question, which was "Why should I be required to pay someone else's medical bills?"

I'm not going to getting into the philosophy of why you should or shouldn't have your taxes partially go to making sure the less fortunate get basic healthcare.

If you don't think the less fortunate in your society should get help from your taxes, that's on you.

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:38 PM
That's fair.

So you think that giving people a temporary safety net with regard to health coverage is fair, but you also want to make it permanent? E.g., universal coverage.

wild1
08-27-2009, 01:38 PM
You do already. Every time you get your paycheck your minus money from FICA. Where do you think that goes to?

Why should I have to? Why is it right that I should be required to pay someone else's bills? Explain why someone else's bills are my responsibility.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:39 PM
How many of those 50 million could afford health insurance but decide to get other things instead, like Internet access, wide screen TVs, etc.?

How many of them simply choose not to have insurance?

Should I have to pay for them in addition to whatever is the real number of people who CANNOT afford it?

See, another reason why I'd think you'd prefer the public option.

These guys who are choosing not to pay for health insurance will have to pay a premium. That's more money into the system.

How can you not love this deal? ;)

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 01:39 PM
How many of those 50 million could afford health insurance but decide to get other things instead, like Internet access, wide screen TVs, etc.?

How many of them simply choose not to have insurance?

Should I have to pay for them in addition to whatever is the real number of people who CANNOT afford it?

Exactly. How does this 46 million uninsured number break out? How many are 20 somethings who don't want insurance. How many are on COBRA or between jobs and therefore coverage? How many are illegal aliens? How many are just plain f'ing losers at life in general and have no skills, no job, nothing to offer whatsoever? It's that last category to whom the death panels should be first dispatched.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 01:39 PM
Do some critical thinking. The average service rendered at the ED is much more complex.

I agree and posted as much a page back.

That is why it is more important to stop people to going to the ER for stuff a regular office visit can handle.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:40 PM
So you think that giving people a temporary safety net with regard to health coverage is fair, but you also want to make it permanent? E.g., universal coverage.

I want to make it permanent, but I can see how temporary safety nets are reasonable suggestions.

I just wouldn't sign onto them.

See I find options that I disagree with reasonable, sometimes.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:41 PM
Now earlier you were just saying a janitor doesn't deserve the same health care a senator does.

Now you are bitching about it

You need to calm down, pete. You sound angry, my friend.

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:41 PM
See, another reason why I'd think you'd prefer the public option.

These guys who are choosing not to pay for health insurance will have to pay a premium. That's more money into the system.

How can you not love this deal? ;)

You'd be wrong. I believe that the less government intrudes into my life, the better. So, I wouldn't exactly like the idea of the government requiring me to have insurance.

RaiderH8r
08-27-2009, 01:41 PM
See, another reason why I'd think you'd prefer the public option.

These guys who are choosing not to pay for health insurance will have to pay a premium. That's more money into the system.

How can you not love this deal? ;)

Are you kidding me? Losers do not pay taxes. Losers do not pay into the system. If they did they would cease to be losers. Losers are parasites on society and I'm talking the real low life scum bag f-wad losers here. Not just some poor chump got laid off looking for work type. I'm talking the 40 year old hasn't had a jobby job in 10 years and never paid a dime in taxes type that has leached off of friends and family to the point they'll have nothing to do with him and now, instead, turns to the greatest collection of chumps to fund his vagabond lifestyle. That guy needs to drink the Drano.

wild1
08-27-2009, 01:42 PM
I agree and posted as much a page back.

That is why it is more important to stop people to going to the ER for stuff a regular office visit can handle.

:banghead:

Most people aren't going to the ED because their kid has a runny nose. Most people in the ED have a geniune emergency, or at least some pretense beyond what you would wait for the morning to address.

The average service at the ED costs more there because the average service is more serious.

ClevelandBronco
08-27-2009, 01:43 PM
I'm sorry that Joseph Jr. was killed in WWII.

I'm sorry that John was assassinated.

I'm sorry that Robert was assassinated.

I'm sorry that Edward had to die in such an incredibly horrible way.

None of that causes me to agree with them.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:44 PM
So, I wouldn't exactly like the idea of the government requiring me to have insurance.

Why? So you can suck away at our system that the rest of us pay into in incredibly inefficient ways?

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:45 PM
Most people aren't going to the ED because their kid has a runny nose.

Uhhh... have you worked in an ER? Because this is quite often the case. Especially in poorer neighborhoods.

wild1
08-27-2009, 01:46 PM
Why? So you can suck away at our system that the rest of us pay into in incredibly inefficient ways?

99% of the people who can afford it and choose not to carry coverage do not cost others money. The drains on the system are not people well-to-do enough to make that decision.

wild1
08-27-2009, 01:46 PM
Uhhh... have you worked in an ER? Because this is quite often the case. Especially in poorer neighborhoods.

Matter of fact I have. And you're wrong.

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:46 PM
Why? So you can suck away at our system that the rest of us pay into in incredibly inefficient ways?

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't suck on the system at all.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 01:47 PM
You need to calm down, pete. You sound angry, my friend.

I am just trying to get clear on your position. You think health care should be a Right but not applied equally. That is what I keep getting from you.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 01:47 PM
Matter of fact I have. And you're wrong.

Not really. Tons of people use the ER as a primary source of healthcare.

That includes the likes of smaller ailings.

Donger
08-27-2009, 01:48 PM
I think that Direckshum is attempting to be clever and deceptive.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 01:48 PM
Why should I have to? Why is it right that I should be required to pay someone else's bills? Explain why someone else's bills are my responsibility.

Because your mom raised you and took care of you and nurtured you with her succulent breasts. Then when it is time for her to croak you will have at least contributed something so she can die peacefully with the full help of Medicare.