Healthcare reform

[kapkomet]

Except the problem is that the GOP leadership doesn't. The political reality of this is anything passes that has "health care reform" attached to it will be a big victory for Obama. If Obama was really all about being a hack, he'd have well abandoned the public option - knowing that liberals won't stray in big enough numbers and 18 months won't be a long enough time to realize a real benefit or problem from any legislation for major reform.

 

The GOP leadership is full of hacks. They know that any reform is a bad thing for their chances in 2010 which, despite an incredibly steep road in the senate does historically signify a moderate gain in the house next year. Blocking health care reform makes Obama less effective. The GOP has to be the party of no in order to foment enough anger to win an election in the midterm or have a shot with the extremely shallow primary field that you see for 2012 at the moment. There's no Obamas, Clintons or even Edwards's there. Just Romney, Santorum and other people who haven't won anything at all recently.

Bull, Rex. Bull. The FIRST priority is to defeat this crap legislation. Which, candidly, I hope leads to Obama getting slowed down because he's done a lot of disruptive crap (my kids will be paying for Obama's "plans" and probably my grandchildren at this point). The focus has to be getting this gone.

 

Obama cannot abandon the public option, because he doesn't get what he wants. It's all or nothing, baby. And he knows it. With that said, reform COULD BE fixing what's wrong, but they don't want any part of that, they want "government option" on the table because they know damn well that in 5 years that means the end of the "private option". I heard it said today that the legacy of Kennedy should be to pass health care legislation - the same health care he got. Amen.

[EvilMonkey]

Except the problem is that the GOP leadership doesn't. The political reality of this is anything passes that has "health care reform" attached to it will be a big victory for Obama. If Obama was really all about being a hack, he'd have well abandoned the public option - knowing that liberals won't stray in big enough numbers and 18 months won't be a long enough time to realize a real benefit or problem from any legislation for major reform.

 

The GOP leadership is full of hacks. They know that any reform is a bad thing for their chances in 2010 which, despite an incredibly steep road in the senate does historically signify a moderate gain in the house next year. Blocking health care reform makes Obama less effective. The GOP has to be the party of no in order to foment enough anger to win an election in the midterm or have a shot with the extremely shallow primary field that you see for 2012 at the moment. There's no Obamas, Clintons or even Edwards's there. Just Romney, Santorum and other people who haven't won anything at all recently.

And the DEM leadership won't pass any kind of healthcare legislation that caps jury awards thanks to their trial lawyer donors. GOP leadership has proposed changes, but since they all contain tort reform in some fashion, they get dismissed outright by the left.

[Y2HH]

I trust neither party.

 

They're all a big rich club and none of us are members.

 

And none of us ever will be.

 

 

[lostfan]

And the DEM leadership won't pass any kind of healthcare legislation that caps jury awards thanks to their trial lawyer donors. GOP leadership has proposed changes, but since they all contain tort reform in some fashion, they get dismissed outright by the left.

A couple of months ago Obama told the GOP leadership he was open to tort reform, and he asked what they would give him in return if he put it in the bill. He got silence for an answer. That silence actually says a lot.

Edited August 26, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

A couple of months ago Obama told the GOP leadership he was open to tort reform, and he asked what they would give him in return if he put it in the bill. He got silence for an answer. That silence actually says a lot.

There should be nothing in return. It just needs to be done, but it won't be on Obama's watch. They got him elected, and he will not sell them out, just like the unions. Those two are Obama.

 

[bmags]

and who got the republicans elected.

[kapkomet]

and who got the republicans elected.

Not ambulance chasing tort lawyer guys and union masses, that's for damn sure. Some other evil groups.

[bmags]

and they don't have to give in?

[Rex Kickass]

Bull, Rex. Bull. The FIRST priority is to defeat this crap legislation. Which, candidly, I hope leads to Obama getting slowed down because he's done a lot of disruptive crap (my kids will be paying for Obama's "plans" and probably my grandchildren at this point). The focus has to be getting this gone.

 

Obama cannot abandon the public option, because he doesn't get what he wants. It's all or nothing, baby. And he knows it. With that said, reform COULD BE fixing what's wrong, but they don't want any part of that, they want "government option" on the table because they know damn well that in 5 years that means the end of the "private option". I heard it said today that the legacy of Kennedy should be to pass health care legislation - the same health care he got. Amen.

 

If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.

Senator Jim DeMint - July 2009

 

Look no further than the stimulus package to prove my point Kap. The President filled half of the stimulus with tax cuts and handed the vast majority of what the Republicans wanted in a package to the Republicans. For all that effort, he got a total of three bipartisan votes. The GOP views its path out of the wilderness by being a loud and shrill opposition, and to continue to use a fear playbook. (Death Panels, for example) This is a wider, general strategy of refusing to give any part of the Democrat's agenda any legitimacy whatsoever. Calling Sotomayor a racist. Calling health care reform a "government takeover." Even debating whether the President is even eligible to be President.

 

The Republican party has no goal currently other than to make Obama and the Democratic congress look as bad and ineffectual as possible. That means getting nothing passed. Not a budget, and certainly nothing with the word "reform" attached to it. Obama could push Bush's agenda item for item and the GOP leadership would still try to block it.

[StrangeSox]

For all the talk of tort reform, I just need to keep pointing to study after study by places like the CBO that shows it is, at most, only a couple of percentage points of total spending. That includes payments, insurance and defensive medicine.

[StrangeSox]

I kept looking at the SO2 and thought, what are you talking about? Ah, now I'm with you - the carbon tax legislation. That's pretty significant but not as significant as health care.

 

SO2 is sulfur dioxide, not carbon dioxide. It's responsible for acid rain. There has been a cap-and-trade tax-and-kill! program in place for that pollutant for a little while now, but it was fought fiercely when it was proposed.

 

You don't hear too much about acid rain these days.

[Texsox]

And the DEM leadership won't pass any kind of healthcare legislation that caps jury awards thanks to their trial lawyer donors. GOP leadership has proposed changes, but since they all contain tort reform in some fashion, they get dismissed outright by the left.

 

So many people want tort reform until some Doctor, drunk or on drugs, f***s up their operation, then they want everything. I'm not certain what the answer is, but we have established a system of civil awards (re: fines) that based on the severity of the f*** up, can get very expensive. But when someone loses their leg or worse, do to neglect by a Doctor, I'm not certain how much is fair or adequate. Perhaps there are people smart enough to decide in advance how much is fair, but I doubt it.

 

We could have a chart. 35 years old, father of two, needs legs to work, active athlete, loses his leg $250,000. 63 years old, inactive, retired, likes to read, loses his leg, $25,000.

[bmags]

SO2 is sulfur dioxide, not carbon dioxide. It's responsible for acid rain. There has been a cap-and-trade tax-and-kill! program in place for that pollutant for a little while now, but it was fought fiercely when it was proposed.

 

You don't hear too much about acid rain these days.

 

yeah, funny part to that, the original solution in the seventies when it was derailed by coal states and people like D Robert Byrd, they got the regulation to be that coal plants had to build their smoke towers x feet high. It effectively passed the buck over to different states and was doing NOTHING. Cap and trade solved this problem.

[EvilMonkey]

So many people want tort reform until some Doctor, drunk or on drugs, f***s up their operation, then they want everything. I'm not certain what the answer is, but we have established a system of civil awards (re: fines) that based on the severity of the f*** up, can get very expensive. But when someone loses their leg or worse, do to neglect by a Doctor, I'm not certain how much is fair or adequate. Perhaps there are people smart enough to decide in advance how much is fair, but I doubt it.

 

We could have a chart. 35 years old, father of two, needs legs to work, active athlete, loses his leg $250,000. 63 years old, inactive, retired, likes to read, loses his leg, $25,000.

tex, if a doctor is drunk or on drugs f***s up something, he SHOULD have to pay thru the nose. AND not be able to practice again. but when a baby is born and has a birth defect of some sort, the first course of action nowadays is to sue the doctors and hospitals, because it HAD to be somethign they did. Most setttle out of court to avoid the hassles, so it perpetuates the cycle. Those are the cases reform needs to happen for. Reform needs to happen so doctors can stop having to do defensive medicine and ordering every test under the sun just to cover thier asses. People complain about how many tests and labs get run, but if they don't run them, and then discover somethign later, they get sued.

[bmags]

So many people want tort reform until some Doctor, drunk or on drugs, f***s up their operation, then they want everything. I'm not certain what the answer is, but we have established a system of civil awards (re: fines) that based on the severity of the f*** up, can get very expensive. But when someone loses their leg or worse, do to neglect by a Doctor, I'm not certain how much is fair or adequate. Perhaps there are people smart enough to decide in advance how much is fair, but I doubt it.

 

We could have a chart. 35 years old, father of two, needs legs to work, active athlete, loses his leg $250,000. 63 years old, inactive, retired, likes to read, loses his leg, $25,000.

 

Additionally, a lot of states have put forth tort reform measures. Missouri for one, on the healthcare point, it's done nothing to reduce individuals costs.

 

But on my part, on the examples like yours, I think everyone can agree compensation is in order. However, doctors getting sued for making mistakes on high risk surgery, I should like to see some reform.

[kapkomet]

Additionally, a lot of states have put forth tort reform measures. Missouri for one, on the healthcare point, it's done nothing to reduce individuals costs.

 

But on my part, on the examples like yours, I think everyone can agree compensation is in order. However, doctors getting sued for making mistakes on high risk surgery, I should like to see some reform.

And those high risk surgeries result in pretty high lawsuit claims. It's all a perpetual clusterf*** cycle that needs broken and REFORMED.

[bmags]

And those high risk surgeries result in pretty high lawsuit claims. It's all a perpetual clusterf*** cycle that needs broken and REFORMED.

 

Yeah, I'm not really against tort reform. At all. It's one of those things I just don't care that much about. I just don't like it being pointed to as the end all be all in the debate.

[lostfan]

Yeah, I'm not really against tort reform. At all. It's one of those things I just don't care that much about. I just don't like it being pointed to as the end all be all in the debate.

This is pretty much the only solution I've been seen getting presented by town hall protesters when they are asked. I really don't have any idea what they want.

[kapkomet]

This is pretty much the only solution I've been seen getting presented by town hall protesters when they are asked. I really don't have any idea what they want.

The immediate concern is to get this clusterf*** of a bill killed. Then, let's talk about real reform. What's going on today isn't reform, it's revamping (removing), and there's a total difference.

 

Reform means to correct and make elements better, not scrap and start over. Tort reform is a pretty big element because it will lead to changes of testing, which is a big part of cost. Also, there needs to be a restructure of medicare and medicaid. You can't continue programs with $35+ trillion in unfunded obligations.

 

The great LIE is the "if you like your insurance you'll get to keep it". Nevermind the fact that you cannot change at all or you automatically go to "public option". Not to mention that there's really no choice to newly enroll in private insurance, you are forced to enroll in "public option". Not to mention that as all these "change of status" people and newborns all don't have the option except "public option" that will kill the private industry. They know what they are doing. Of course, TECHNICALLY, you can keep your insurance. You just can't have a change in life event or you go into the "public" plan.

 

 

[lostfan]

Which bill kap... there's like 5, none of which Obama has endorsed.

[StrangeSox]

The immediate concern is to get this clusterf*** of a bill killed. Then, let's talk about real reform. What's going on today isn't reform, it's revamping (removing), and there's a total difference.

 

Reform means to correct and make elements better, not scrap and start over. Tort reform is a pretty big element because it will lead to changes of testing, which is a big part of cost.

 

No, it won't, because all tort costs, including defensive medicine, only amount to a couple of percent.

The great LIE is the "if you like your insurance you'll get to keep it". Nevermind the fact that you cannot change at all or you automatically go to "public option". Not to mention that there's really no choice to newly enroll in private insurance, you are forced to enroll in "public option". Not to mention that as all these "change of status" people and newborns all don't have the option except "public option" that will kill the private industry. They know what they are doing. Of course, TECHNICALLY, you can keep your insurance. You just can't have a change in life event or you go into the "public" plan.

 

Also, where in the bill(s) is this?

Edited August 27, 2009 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

No, it won't, because all tort costs, including defensive medicine, only amount to a couple of percent.

 

 

Also, where in the bill(s) is this?

House Bill 3200.

 

I also like the fact that it keeps being thrown around that "there's no bill". It makes for great political theatre. People know what these Congresspukes (and Obama) are up to, and they don't like it.

 

[kapkomet]

No, it won't, because all tort costs, including defensive medicine, only amount to a couple of percent.

 

 

Also, where in the bill(s) is this?

There's absolutely no way to know that. Think about it.

 

[lostfan]

House Bill 3200.

 

I also like the fact that it keeps being thrown around that "there's no bill". It makes for great political theatre. People know what these Congresspukes (and Obama) are up to, and they don't like it.

There are bills, I'm asking which one you're talking about?

[kapkomet]

There are bills, I'm asking which one you're talking about?

LOL. I just said which one.