Obama aims to ax moon mission

You are so wrong Yusuf it isn’t even funny.

First of all, the insurance companies cover what they are contractually obligated to cover. Otherwise they are in danger of being sued. The bureaucrats (i.e. American citizens working for those companies) process the claims based upon the contracts and fulfill an important role in monitoring the rates physicians change and in some cases negotiate lower rates that are then passed on to the consumer. The fact is the Medicare denies more claims than insurance companies do and yet still is fraught with fraud. In fact many employer’s actually self insure their employees up to a stop loss point so that the insurance company has no vested interest in the amount of the claims but only make money on the processing fee.

My wife’s best friend has lupus which attacked her kidneys and she has had two kidney transplants both of which her body rejected) and so she goes to dialysis. They thought that she was reaching her lifetime maximum, but someone in the insurance company dug back at least 30 years and determined that she is still well below the max. If you expect some government bureaucrat to do that then obviously you have never dealt with the IRS. You can’t even get those guys on the phone.

One of the things we need to do is to separate health insurance from employment. If we all bought individual plans (like I do – I’m self employed) then we would be free to switch companies to ones that offer lower cost and better service. But again this market based approach is outright rejected by the left that can only see a government run nanny state solution.

As far as your so-called science based solutions run by the government we have seen how science get perverted in the whole global warming (opps it’s now climate change) industry.

Oh by the way, I just love the way you dismiss someone for just having GOP talking points and scare tactics while you use DEM talking points and anti-insurance company scare tactics.

fansince62 said:

you do realize that you are speaking with Vets in the system?

Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. But you do realize you're speaking with a Vet of the hospital system with access to real, live quality data? I've seen firsthand a lot of the things the research talks about. In fact, that's why I ultimately ended up pursuing a course of study in public health...because I just had to know "why" the stupidity and tragedy I was seeing was happening...repeatedly.

What I can tell you is that the quote I previously posted from the article about VA hospitals is 100% spot on. To patients quality generally means less wait time, a nice lobby with pretty pictures, a doctor with a good bedside manner, etc. which is why hospitals love to tout their patient satisfaction scores as an indicator of quality. However, 99% of patients have no clue about the stuff that really matters like hospital acquired infections, medication error rates, readmission rates, and the like. The legislation addresses that by making much of that information public so that patients and payers can finally at least attempt to figure out which hospitals do a good job and which ones don't.

fansince62 said:

the problem I have with so many of your posts is the dependency on examing only parts of the problem. perhaps better expressed: most of us are interested in the part of the story you always leave out. your observations on inefficiencies are accurate. your understanding that resource scarcity dictates a health "supply curve" that is not perfectly elastic is also accurate. that the current system of entitlements is unsustainble is also accurate. where we part company is that you deny what is obvious to so many of us: Obamacare doesn't address those problems.

Click to expand...

Again, who's fault is that? It wasn't the left that forced removal of any sort of cost benefit analysis measures by yelling about death panels and the like. I have repeatedly said that the legislation doesn't do enough to address costs. Moreover, I have also pointed out the fallacy of the argument that preventive care reduces costs--though I agree it is worth doing for other reasons.

fansince62 said:

Obamacare is fundamentally about income transfer.

Click to expand...

I don't agree but as always I'm open to being proven wrong. However even if that does turn out to be the case, you do realize that we already do the same thing via things like the home mortgage interest tax deduction, dependent tax deduction, etc. I don't see anyone railing against those things though....speaking of leaving things out.

fansince62 said:

I don't buy the notion that something is better than nothing. bad is bad. there were alternatives - it's BS that the opposition didn't offer alternatives. they did. The President simply continues to manufacture a lie when he states that the Republicans were obstructionist and had no ideas of their own. there were plans (see Congressman Ryan) and multiple amendments (shot down by the Dems and ont reported by the media). why? because the whole F'd up effort wasn't about health care. it was about "social justice", political debts and...as noted...income transfers.

btw...I assume when referring to the quality vet system you aren't referring to the scandal that broke out at Walter Reed just a few scant years ago.

Click to expand...

We agree on the point about something not being better than nothing. However, I've read the legislation and on balance I think it's more good than bad. What I expect and hope for is that as time goes on, it gets tweaked to add some of the cost control measures back in. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on that to happen though.

As for Walter Reed, it's an Army hospital, not VA.

Yusuf06 said:

Again, who's fault is that? It wasn't the left that forced removal of any sort of cost benefit analysis measures by yelling about death panels and the like. I have repeatedly said that the legislation doesn't do enough to address costs.

Click to expand...

How Wilsonian of you.

That really what this matter boils down to. There are those such as yourself who believe that an elite core should make decisions based upon science that the rest of us low lifes are then subject to. Then there are those of us that believe in the power of the individual and personal responsibility and associated with that is the responsibility of the individual not society to pay the cost associated with those decisions.

You keep bring up the end-of-life counseling that was removed from the bill. However, I really doubt that would have much of an impact on costs simply because what something thinks about doing 5 years before their death and what they decide to do when actually confronted with death may be two different things. (BTW I have read the stats on end of life health care costs so spare me those links.)

The real cost control in the bill that was basically neutered was the Cadillac tax on high cost policies that may shift more costs onto the consumers and may result in actual market forces taking hold. That tax was pushed back to 2018 at the assistance of Obama’s union supporters. So spare me the rhetoric of the GOP’s death panel statements driving out all the cost control mechanisms. In fact the bill is full of provisions that will drive up costs which the insurance companies will have to pass on to the consumers and allow Obama to demonize insurance companies once again.

MikeSr619 said:

this went from the moon back to health care.

Click to expand...

It makes sense. The helth care bill was designed by a bunch of moonbats.

Alaskan said:

You also have to understand that I have developed a deep distrust for liberals as a result of my experiences on the CPND politics and War forum. When Sarah Palin was nominated it became an open field day on her. Now I have no problem with discussing her actual record as governor which was moderate and in direct contrast to Obama, open transparent and bi-partisan. But the attacks on her were not based upon her record but instead were attacks on her family and her intelligence and were based upon falsehoods. But the liberal posters in CPND were not content to limit their attacks to Sarah Palin. They instead decided to bash the entire state. I was called stupid and my wife, kids and our friends were insulted. Not only did the moderators tolerate it in some cases they engaged in it. Even though I had posted with some of these guys for over 10 years, only one stood up for me. The other’s either joined in or said nothing like a bunch of cowards. And when this one individual stood up they turned on him also. That’s why I’m here and not at CPND any more.

But I’m starting to see some of the “Tea Bagger” type comments in this forum and I don’t believe anyone has the right to use that sort of derogatory comments regarding a fellow American anymore than anyone has the right to use the n word. Based upon my experiences at CPND, I believe that political discussion is incompatible with the larger purposes of this site and while I don’t like censorship, I’m personally going to stay out of political discussions. There is simply too much about this board that I like, to get caught up in this.

Click to expand...

I would hasten to mention that this is not other sites and while we (the staff of the site, that is) espouse a minimalistic approach to moderation, somethings will not be tolerated. If you feel you are seeing comments outside the mission statement of this site, directed to you or someone else, we would like it reported. I can assure you it will be addressed, either by explaining to you why we don't see an issue to address or by explaining privately to the offending party why we would like the nature of their tone moderated.

Rest assured that while I am not a big participant in many of these threads, they do get read by me (and likely by other members of the staff as well). BGO is currently different from other sites and, with the help of the membership here, it will remain so.

fansince62 said:

bingo. then again...BINGO!

I encountered the same issues over at "that other board". one long-time moderator is the very incarnation of the risk of concentrated editorial authorities. The game goes like this:

- someone opens a discussion with "I want to be open minded and am not sure of all the ramifications of recently passed Bill X or Executive order Y". The post, of course, is dishonest and only intended to provoke responses that can be attacked. The poster is already committed to an ideological disposition...so the "it's a forumn for open, temperate discussion" is a crock right from the start.

- someone intentionally or unintentionally takes the bait. a heated exchange occurs. the orig poster or an ally then sends a PM to the moderator claiming great offense (i.e., the mommy factor weighs in). the poster - who was likely very scrupulous not to make personal threats or employ vile language, is banned anyway.....because the moderator happens to share the same political leanings as the OP. I have seen and been victim of this many times.

- and yes....as noted elsewhere in this thread...I frequented many Liberal blogs in the run-up to the election. the verbal violence on the part of Liberals was astonishing. Much of it was orchestrated. on one blog in particular, run by a well known columnist for the WAPO, one poster went so far as to openly wish for the death of the then sitting President. I was dumbfounded that this person wasn't even chastized by any of the moderators. we all know why.

Click to expand...

Also not an issue here. The personal political philosophy of the staff members will never enter into decisions on whether some form of moderation is required.

In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing in the 1906 publication, The Friends of Voltaire, under the nom de plume Stephen G. Tallentyre, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", adding only this qualification as it relates to BGO and that is to do so in an intelligent and respectful manner.

Alaskan said:

You are so wrong Yusuf it isn’t even funny.

First of all, the insurance companies cover what they are contractually obligated to cover. Otherwise they are in danger of being sued. The bureaucrats (i.e. American citizens working for those companies) process the claims based upon the contracts and fulfill an important role in monitoring the rates physicians change and in some cases negotiate lower rates that are then passed on to the consumer. The fact is the Medicare denies more claims than insurance companies do and yet still is fraught with fraud. In fact many employer’s actually self insure their employees up to a stop loss point so that the insurance company has no vested interest in the amount of the claims but only make money on the processing fee.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, you're simply being naiive about this. Insurers keep close tabs on their medical loss ratios (i.e. "loss" meaning payouts for care) and will do pretty much anything they can to avoid or delay payment in the interests of improving their bottom line. The fact is, they are businesses with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. That is as it should be. However, you as a consumer and/or patient had better realize what that situation may mean for you. Your life or that of your loved ones might depend on it.

A few examples of their devotion to their contractual obligations follow...

Recission:

Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

Click to expand...

Intentional denial of legitimate claims to "game" the system, AKA screwing the providers:

A recent AMA study found that doctors spend 14 percent of the fees they receive from insurance companies and Medicare on the process of collecting those fees, adding more than $200 billion (about ten percent) a year to the nation's healthcare costs [Lisa Girion, 2008]. Sadly, about 30 percent of over 5 billion claims generated annually, are rejected, and surprisingly, only 50 percent of the rejected claims are ever resubmitted [Walker et al, 2004]. Note that physicians are giving up this revenue in addition to losing revenue because of the annual cuts of allowed fees. (Since 2000, health insurance premiums increased by 73 percent compared to cumulative increases in inflation and wages of about 15 percent. Yet physician's inflation-adjusted incomes dropped by 7 percent from 1995 to 2003 [Herzlinger, 2007].)

...In other words, depending on the claim rework costs, denial amount, and repeat denial odds or claim rework efficacy, it may be in the provider's best interest to minimize losses by abandoning the denied claim instead of working the denial. Therefore, a rational payer will deny a higher number of claims, counting on the good business sense of the rational provider who will only rework a small subset of the denied claims, specifically those claims that can be justified with a quick cost-benefit calculation such as the aforementioned example. Such rational payer's behavior explains the AMA findings much better than any inefficiency on the provider's side.*

http://ezinearticles.com/?Medical-B...-Reduce-Costs-at-Providers-Expense&id=1293899

Click to expand...

*My emphasis added

Purging:

Testimony of Wendell Potter Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

To help meet Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations, insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick. Insurers have several ways to cull the sick from their rolls. One is policy rescission. They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment.

Asked directly about this practice just last week in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, executives of three of the nation’s largest health insurers refused to end the practice of cancelling policies for sick enrollees. Why? Because dumping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line. Ten percent of the population accounts for two-thirds of all health care spending. The Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigation into three insurers found that they canceled the coverage of roughly 20,000 people in a five-year period, allowing the companies to avoid paying $300 million in claims.

They also dump small businesses whose employees’ medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected. All it takes is one illness or accident among employees at a small business to prompt an insurance company to hike the next year’s premiums so high that the employer has to cut benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering coverage altogether–leaving workers uninsured. The practice is known in the industry as ―purging.

The purging of less profitable accounts through intentionally unrealistic rate increases helps explain why the number of small businesses offering coverage to their employees has fallen from 61 percent to 38 percent since 1993*, according to the National Small Business Association. Once an insurer purges a business, there are often no other viable choices in the health insurance market because of rampant industry consolidation.

Click to expand...

*My emphasis added

Alaskan said:

My wife’s best friend has lupus which attacked her kidneys and she has had two kidney transplants both of which her body rejected) and so she goes to dialysis. They thought that she was reaching her lifetime maximum, but someone in the insurance company dug back at least 30 years and determined that she is still well below the max. If you expect some government bureaucrat to do that then obviously you have never dealt with the IRS. You can’t even get those guys on the phone.

...Oh by the way, I just love the way you dismiss someone for just having GOP talking points and scare tactics while you use DEM talking points and anti-insurance company scare tactics.

Click to expand...

I'm really glad for the good outcome with your wife's friend's dialysis. Kidney failure is really rough. In light of the tactics I described above, she was incredibly fortunate that someone at the insurance company would take the time to do this. Good for whomever did it and good for your wife's friend.

Again, I don't think I dismissed any arguments that included an attempt at providing a basis in objective fact. So for example, when you posted Rep. Burgess' argument about tort reform, I refuted your contention about Obama's reply as well as the basis of the argument itself based on objective facts that I provided. However, in the absence of anything to back the the claims of "socialized medicine", "destroying private insurance", etc., I don't think it's at all unreasonable to characterize those points that way.

Finally, your contention that I believe an "elite core" should be making end of life or other healthcare decisions for us completely mis-states my position. In fact, I believe in exactly the opposite. As I pointed out, under the British and Israeli systems voters have the opportunity to exercise political input into the process. Under ours, the best we can do when the insurer rations our care is file an appeal and hope we live long enough for the denial to get overturned.

Yusuf06 said:

OK, fair enough. But you do realize you're speaking with a Vet of the hospital system with access to real, live quality data? I've seen firsthand a lot of the things the research talks about. In fact, that's why I ultimately ended up pursuing a course of study in public health...because I just had to know "why" the stupidity and tragedy I was seeing was happening...repeatedly.

What I can tell you is that the quote I previously posted from the article about VA hospitals is 100% spot on. To patients quality generally means less wait time, a nice lobby with pretty pictures, a doctor with a good bedside manner, etc. which is why hospitals love to tout their patient satisfaction scores as an indicator of quality. However, 99% of patients have no clue about the stuff that really matters like hospital acquired infections, medication error rates, readmission rates, and the like. The legislation addresses that by making much of that information public so that patients and payers can finally at least attempt to figure out which hospitals do a good job and which ones don't.


Again, who's fault is that? It wasn't the left that forced removal of any sort of cost benefit analysis measures by yelling about death panels and the like. I have repeatedly said that the legislation doesn't do enough to address costs. Moreover, I have also pointed out the fallacy of the argument that preventive care reduces costs--though I agree it is worth doing for other reasons.


I don't agree but as always I'm open to being proven wrong. However even if that does turn out to be the case, you do realize that we already do the same thing via things like the home mortgage interest tax deduction, dependent tax deduction, etc. I don't see anyone railing against those things though....speaking of leaving things out.


We agree on the point about something not being better than nothing. However, I've read the legislation and on balance I think it's more good than bad. What I expect and hope for is that as time goes on, it gets tweaked to add some of the cost control measures back in. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on that to happen though.

As for Walter Reed, it's an Army hospital, not VA.

Click to expand...

1) Again....you're not listening: many of us are in the VA system (i.e., government run). We're talking about the VA system...not just the hospitals. We know far better than you how it really works.

2) In spite of your evident contempt for the average citizen and his understanding of his health needs....my experience has been just the opposite. If one does his homework, searches the Internet, networks with friends...speaks with real doctors...he can learn more than enough. I learned this valuable lesson several years ago the hard way: I had back issues that led me to wend my way from chiropractors, to physical therapists and, ultimately, orthopedic surgeons. Eventually, I ended up not being able to walk. You can bet as my situation deteriorated I took personal responsibility for informing myself - which included finding out which doctors in the area I live in were worth a XXXX. but, the real issue for me, was that my situation deteriorated radically when I was sent to a quack doctor (I had no choice given the way the system works) who really F'd me up - the reality is that our current medical system whether viewed from the Left or the Right is the same...all about what drugs are prescribed (under the glib rubric "pain management"). Once government intercedes, just like AK notes, you are on the phone talking to some nice but clueless person on the other side of the country using a dropdown list to assign a doctor "in the system" who lives near you. there is no quality qualifier and you don't get to chose - after waiting the week or more it takes for all the bureaucratic hurdles/approvals to clear requisite wickets. Obamacare bureacracy isn't going to be any different. One of the objectives of Obamacare is to eliminate competing options so that everyone is (charitably speaking) equal before the health Gods. They can't risk having a two tiered system (except for Congress, of course) in which the vast bulk are consigned to the inevitable mediocrities of ANY huge bureaucratic system and the rich/polticial and entertainment elites get whatever care they need when they need it.

2) As for Constitutionality (commerce clause and all that), it would appear that at least 20 State AGs agree. but we'll see. I was actually referencing the larger context (e.g., GM) in which your hero operates. And, of course, enforcing the law (see immigration law; see New Black Panthers) means little either.

3) The Army isn't Federal government?

4) BTW...remember how Obama swore up, down, left and right during the HealthCare debate that Federal moneys would not be used to fund abortion? Check out what is going on in Pennsylvania right not and the tacit approval of the Obama adminstartion to use federal moneys for just that purpose. but nahhhh...he's a man of his word!!! he wouldn't say one thing and do another. not his style.

5) The death panel rhetoric had nothing to do with cost/ben analysis. keep to point. the issue was government representatives "advising" patients...especially the elderly...on their "options".

6) Why should I pay more into the system than I need? If I have only minor problems for..say....50-60 years...why should I transfer a huge chunk of change from my family to the government? There are competing equities here which you and I apparently weight differently.

7) I'll dispense with the Republican talking point probe since it says more about you than it does me. One which, btw, you have refused to address in several replies. Does Congressman Ryan know what he is talking about or not?

One last thought (and not being condescending): I think it is great you have invested time in mastering the economics of your chosen profession. It speaks well of you. I also think it is wonderful that you are driven to improve the system. Where we disagree is on the methods that should be employed to improve things, the evident ideological underpinnings to our positions and the acceptable tradeoffs in idividual liberties. we'll put aside the whole matter of the integrity of the process for another day.

Thanks for your kind comments Fansince. I give you "the business" from time to time, but you're a good guy. I hope your back is better these days and that you regained the ability to walk.

Again, I take you at your word on your experience with the VA system. My point was that I've seen what goes on behind the scenes at hospitals. Trust me, with regard to your taking charge for your care, you are in the vast minority. Most patients simply trust whatever the doctors tell them and leave it at that. Many also don't want to complain. Sadly, those end up being the ones who often get the worst care....the squeaky wheel really does get the grease as the saying goes.

The truly interesting thing about the VA system is that they did something truly revolutionary at the time-they started measuring quality based on certain metrics, set goals, implemented changes based on their data and achieved their quality goals. Wow! Who would've ever thought such a crazy scheme would actually work? I say that not to be glib but to point out how far behind our system is in many ways.

I did review Rep. Ryan's plan. Parts of it make sense, parts of it probably won't work, and some of his points were even included in the legislation that passed. Great. So why wasn't he pushing for this during W's administration when he had a real opportunity to do something with it? After all, it's not like this hasn't been a problem for years...even before Bill/Hillary tried to reform the system.

Yusuf06 said:

Thanks for your kind comments Fansince. I give you "the business" from time to time, but you're a good guy. I hope your back is better these days and that you regained the ability to walk.

Again, I take you at your word on your experience with the VA system. My point was that I've seen what goes on behind the scenes at hospitals. Trust me, with regard to your taking charge for your care, you are in the vast minority. Most patients simply trust whatever the doctors tell them and leave it at that. Many also don't want to complain. Sadly, those end up being the ones who often get the worst care....the squeaky wheel really does get the grease as the saying goes.

The truly interesting thing about the VA system is that they did something truly revolutionary at the time-they started measuring quality based on certain metrics, set goals, implemented changes based on their data and achieved their quality goals. Wow! Who would've ever thought such a crazy scheme would actually work? I say that not to be glib but to point out how far behind our system is in many ways.

I did review Rep. Ryan's plan. Parts of it make sense, parts of it probably won't work, and some of his points were even included in the legislation that passed. Great. So why wasn't he pushing for this during W's administration when he had a real opportunity to do something with it? After all, it's not like this hasn't been a problem for years...even before Bill/Hillary tried to reform the system.

Click to expand...

fyi...my wife works at a hospital and my sister is a paramedic at another. my neighborhood is "infested" with doctors. bastages are the most competitive group - want to drop huge checks at the monthly poker get togethers whenever frustrated.

Alright, back to space. Or you all are gonna force me to create an "Obama is an illegal, undocumented space alien marxist bent on destroyig America in order to bring it down to the muslim world standards" thread



http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/14/4679091-crunch-time-for-nasas-space-vision

The Senate Commerce Committee is due to vote Thursday on a measure that would shift the direction of NASA's revised space vision - not necessarily to return to the moon, but to extend the space shuttle program, speed up the development of a heavy-lift rocket and slow down spending on space commercialization.

So whats the purpose of NASA anyway?

just to be contrarian...I was skimming through multiple blogs last night..conservatve and liberal...and came across a conservative one that questionded the utility of NASA. In a nutshell, the thoughts were:

- NASA primary mission has become supporting and expanding the bureaucracy (i.e., budget)

- NASA has become bloated, inefficeint, and characterized by signiifcant failures since the completion of the lunar missions

- the burgeoning private space industry made be able to do certain missions fatser and cheaper than NASA

btw...the article also noted...not mentioned in the press....that NASA has ignored much of Obama's initial direction on program cuts...and that the adminstration has quietly acquiesced

I kinda wondered about that, as well as the two Re-scheduled space shuttle missions. Coincidently, they go off after a new congres (likely to be republican) is seatted.

I wouldn't mind prvate companies taking over the low orbit stuff, but the government, bloated and inefficient as it is, is the only one capable of going to the moon or other planets

There is talk of Military Hospitals doing abortions again which will mean federal money involved

Yusuf06 said:

OK, fair enough. But you do realize you're speaking with a Vet of the hospital system with access to real, live quality data? I've seen firsthand a lot of the things the research talks about. In fact, that's why I ultimately ended up pursuing a course of study in public health...because I just had to know "why" the stupidity and tragedy I was seeing was happening...repeatedly.

What I can tell you is that the quote I previously posted from the article about VA hospitals is 100% spot on. To patients quality generally means less wait time, a nice lobby with pretty pictures, a doctor with a good bedside manner, etc. which is why hospitals love to tout their patient satisfaction scores as an indicator of quality. However, 99% of patients have no clue about the stuff that really matters like hospital acquired infections, medication error rates, readmission rates, and the like. The legislation addresses that by making much of that information public so that patients and payers can finally at least attempt to figure out which hospitals do a good job and which ones don't.


Again, who's fault is that? It wasn't the left that forced removal of any sort of cost benefit analysis measures by yelling about death panels and the like. I have repeatedly said that the legislation doesn't do enough to address costs. Moreover, I have also pointed out the fallacy of the argument that preventive care reduces costs--though I agree it is worth doing for other reasons.


I don't agree but as always I'm open to being proven wrong. However even if that does turn out to be the case, you do realize that we already do the same thing via things like the home mortgage interest tax deduction, dependent tax deduction, etc. I don't see anyone railing against those things though....speaking of leaving things out.


We agree on the point about something not being better than nothing. However, I've read the legislation and on balance I think it's more good than bad. What I expect and hope for is that as time goes on, it gets tweaked to add some of the cost control measures back in. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on that to happen though.

As for Walter Reed, it's an Army hospital, not VA.

Click to expand...

you're so far off the map it aint even amusing anymore. example: the historical economic INTENT for mortgage deductions is to promote family stability through home ownership. the express purpose is to encourage home ownership AMONG ALL SECTORS OF SOCIETY...not income transfers from the rich to poor.

and as I stated in an early post...with all due respect.....I have seen dozens of Liberal sorts like you playing the same game: "I'm here for rational argument. I only want to know the facts."

It's a crock. You know it. I know it. We all know it. You have your ideological predisposition and you will bend reality to fit it. that's fine. just as it is that many of us are not going to go along and we will labor overtime to employ every legal method to destroy this incipient, hugely dishonest fascism that is being blessed upon upon us by degrees.

right wing cant? blah blah blah. the power games started in earnest decades ago. the system is getting close to collapse and this idiot in the oval office has created conditions such that when the crisis does arrive - be it internal economic collapse or terrorism - many of us are going to hoist the dubious digit: "It's your problem." the violence is going to come from the bottom, like it always does (except for the well educated Liberal seekers of justice we have had to endure since the 60s), but this time may become more pervasive.

THEY CAN'T SUCCEED WITH THEIR DREAMS OF "SOCIAL JUSTICE" UNLESS WE ALL GO ALONG. liberals have this fractured idea that they can regulate obeisance - this despite their whole history of fighting the system. the present (and temporary denizens on PA AVE) have been so duplicitous and incompetent in the conduct of their office...as well as hugely divisive....that there is no way this is going to turn out for the better. AGAIN...EVERYONE HAS TO GO ALONG FOR THE SORTS OF SACRIFICES THEY ARE GOING TO DEMAND. and that aint going to happen - their very conduct of national affairs has all but guaranteed that.

redskins26 said:

There is talk of Military Hospitals doing abortions again which will mean federal money involved

Click to expand...

look...the TRICARE system, military health care...it is all going to eventually disappear. of course Obama was telling egregious lies when he said his goal wasn't a single, Federal health care system. Reid et all have all but let the cat of the bag under the rubric of "public option". public option can't survive without merging all the alternatives under its aegis. the first prong of the attack - killing private health insurance companies has already commenced...as predicted by many who questioned the real intent of Obamacare - which we have learned since it passed was based on fraudulent numbers.

The American taxpayer (and voter) is being played for chumps by these people.

Yusuf06 said:

With all due respect, you're simply being naiive about this. Insurers keep close tabs on their medical loss ratios (i.e. "loss" meaning payouts for care) and will do pretty much anything they can to avoid or delay payment in the interests of improving their bottom line. The fact is, they are businesses with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. That is as it should be. However, you as a consumer and/or patient had better realize what that situation may mean for you. Your life or that of your loved ones might depend on it.

A few examples of their devotion to their contractual obligations follow...

Recission:


Intentional denial of legitimate claims to "game" the system, AKA screwing the providers:
*My emphasis added

Purging:
*My emphasis added


I'm really glad for the good outcome with your wife's friend's dialysis. Kidney failure is really rough. In light of the tactics I described above, she was incredibly fortunate that someone at the insurance company would take the time to do this. Good for whomever did it and good for your wife's friend.

Again, I don't think I dismissed any arguments that included an attempt at providing a basis in objective fact. So for example, when you posted Rep. Burgess' argument about tort reform, I refuted your contention about Obama's reply as well as the basis of the argument itself based on objective facts that I provided. However, in the absence of anything to back the the claims of "socialized medicine", "destroying private insurance", etc., I don't think it's at all unreasonable to characterize those points that way.

Finally, your contention that I believe an "elite core" should be making end of life or other healthcare decisions for us completely mis-states my position. In fact, I believe in exactly the opposite. As I pointed out, under the British and Israeli systems voters have the opportunity to exercise political input into the process. Under ours, the best we can do when the insurer rations our care is file an appeal and hope we live long enough for the denial to get overturned.

Click to expand...

I never did respond to this. Let me do so with an analogy that a football fans we can relate to.

Let’s suppose that the penalty for pass interference simply did not exist. A defensive back could simply hit a receiver at any time during his route. Then lets suppose that the two Redskins cornerbacks, lets call them Carlos Rodgers and Deangelo Hall, got together and decided that this was fundamentally unfair and that they wouldn’t do what we know of as pass interference.

So 9/12 rolls around and the game against the Cowboys starts. The Cowboys secondary is mugging our receivers and our offense is going nowhere. Meanwhile the Cowboys are marching up and down the field. The fans are outraged.

Meanwhile on the Redskins bench sits a backup cornerback. Let’s call him Ade Jimoh. He goes to the coach and says, “I play special teams. I know how to tackle. I’ll go out there and tackle those guys.” So the coach put him in and he’s tackling the Cowboy’s receivers, he’s tripping them and once he gets them down he sits on them. The fans are cheering and Ade Jimoh is on his way to the pro bowl. At this point, Rodgers and Hall reconsider their approach to playing defense.

So if you want to give receivers a reasonable chance to catch passes, the league (i.e. the government) establishes a pass interference rule complete with penalties for violations enforced by referees (regulators.) You don't have Goodall giving speeches about conerbacks tackling receivers on their routes being mean and "gaming" the system.

Likewise you don’t demonize insurance companies for doing what competitive pressures virtually force them to do. If they didn’t closely watch their loss ratios then they have two choices; raise their rates which would cause them to lose their healthy subscribers to lower cost insurers or lose money which means eventually they go out of business, which ultimately results in less competition in the insurance industry.

The reality is that insurance company profits are a small percentage their revenue (they average about 3%.) But people have been conditioned by demonizing politicians like Obama to believe that insurance company profits are outrageous and they are simply screwing with people. Fore example, when I posted here that my insurance company made less than $20 on the $10,000 I paid them last year, one poster expressed doubt about it. But no one has any problem understanding that General Motors lost billions last year but because of the way politicians and pundits have demonized insurance companies, they can’t seem to grasp the concept that claims paid were more than they expected (after all that is a cost that they have no control over) could cause them to make only a .2% profit.

As you indicate, Republicans supported outlawing denying coverage for preexisting conditions. But realize that this does not come at zero cost. This means that insurance companies will have more claims per insured person because more unhealthy people will be joining the ranks of the insured and these people will by definition have a higher claim rates. This means that insurance companies will have to raise their rates for everyone to cover these extra costs. I don’t have a problem with this nor do I think the American people do either because most of us can relate to “but for the grace of God, go I.” What I do object to is politicians passing laws that drive insurance costs up and them demonizing insurance companies for raising their rates to cover those costs.

BTW, please do not call me naïve especially with the “with all due respect” preface. That’s like saying I’m going to disguise the insult I’m about to give you. I have worked in business for 35 years, working closely with top managers of all sizes of companies and I think I know how senior managers of companies think and understand the competitive pressures they are under.

PS: “As I pointed out, under the British and Israeli systems voters have the opportunity to exercise political input into the process. “

The American people tried to exercise political input into the process too and their opinions were ignored and they were called racists and tagged with a demeaning sexual term.

Final NASA shuttle mission clouded by rancor

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-era-what-next/2011/06/29/AGeBAWtH_print.html

It is the nature of a shuttle to look kind of lonely out there on the pad, kept at a safe remove from the control room, the hangars, the observation platforms. The pad is not far from the beach, one of the last stretches of Florida coastline unblemished by hotels and condos. Beach houses were torn down years ago when the federal government showed up with rockets. Old-timers talk of 11 graveyards and an old schoolhouse lurking somewhere out there, the remnants of the era before the coming of the spaceport.

Now the U.S. space program itself is middle-aged, facing a painful transition. Atlantis will blast off, if all goes as planned, at 11:26 a.m. Friday for a 12-day mission to the international space station. And then . . . what?

Then a lot of uncertainty. The only sure bet is that thousands of people here will be out of a job.

NASA’s critics say the human spaceflight program is in a shambles. They see arm-waving and paperwork rather than a carefully defined mission going forward. NASA has lots of plans, but it has no new rocket ready to launch, no specific destination selected, and no means in the near term to get American astronauts into space other than by buying a seat on one of Russia’s aging Soyuz spacecraft.

The space agency’s leaders say everything’s on track, that the private sector will soon launch astronauts into orbit and let NASA focus on the hard work of deep-space exploration. There is a new heavy-lift rocket in the works, one capable of going far beyond the stamping grounds of the shuttle. President Obama has picked a destination, a near-Earth asteroid, though he did not say which one.

“We have a program. We have a budget. We have bipartisan support. We have a destination,” NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver said. “We are just putting finer points on the rocket design.”

But Garver and other administration officials are getting heat from some of the most famous astronauts on the planet, not to mention members of Congress and aerospace industry executives. Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, and someone never known to be a rabble-rouser, recently co-wrote with fellow Apollo astronauts Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan an op-ed in USA Today declaring that the space policy of the Obama administration is in “substantial disarray.” The astronauts protested the decision to kill the Constellation program, the George W. Bush-era plan for a new lunar mission with new rockets and spacecraft.

Here’s Bob Crippen, who was the pilot of the first shuttle mission, STS-1, back in 1981: “I’ve never seen NASA so screwed up as it is right now. . . . They don’t know where they’re going.”

Even one of NASA’s senior people here at the Kennedy Space Center, Mike Leinbach, the launch director who will supervise the final countdown and launch of Atlantis, has blasted his agency for the lack of direction.

“We’re all victims of poor policy out of Washington, D.C. — both at the NASA level and the executive branch of the government,” Leinbach said recently at a news conference here. He said he was “embarrassed” about the lack of guidance.