Page 21 of 30 FirstFirst ... 11171819202122232425 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 438

Thread: U.S. Health Care

  1. #301

    Default

    Huge schlong


  2. #302

    Default

    more likely tiny schlong, big ASS

  3. #303
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by londonlawyer View Post


  4. #304

    Default

    March 22, 2010
    Op-Ed Columnist
    Fear Strikes Out
    By PAUL KRUGMAN

    The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”

    And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

    I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.

    But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)

    And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.

    Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing.

    Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.

    It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.

    And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”

    Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?

    And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.

    This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/op...22krugman.html

  5. #305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scumonkey View Post
    more likely tiny schlong, big ASS
    Good one!

  6. #306

    Default

    YES WE CAN even if they say HELL NO YOU CAN'T new mix 3-10



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTz6Jxc8uNU

  7. #307

    Default G.O.P. Forces Another House Vote on Package of Changes to Health Bill

    From the New York Times
    By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
    With the Senate working through an all-night session on a package of changes to the Democrats’ sweeping health care legislation, Republicans identified parliamentary problems with at least two provisions that will require the measure to be sent back to the House for yet another vote, once the Senate adopts it.
    Senate Democrats had been hoping to defeat all of the amendments proposed by Republicans and to prevail on parliamentary challenges so that they could approve the measure and send it to President Obama for his signature. But the bill must comply with complex budget reconciliation rules, and Republicans identified some flaws.
    Read the full article here.

  8. #308

    Default

    Why this is going to be a disaster for reasons that no one it talking about:

    - The new rules eliminate some of the cost containment methods the insurance companies used (prexisting condition limits, lifetime caps, etc).

    - It does NOT cap premiums (from everthing I've heard)

    - It forces people to buy insurance who previously didn't/couldn't, providing some level of subsidy (we'll see if this holds up.) These people are likely the larger risks (haven't had health care, or priced out for the reasons above).

    What does this add up to? A HUGE increase in premiums, over what we've seen now, and everyone being forced to pay them. In the end, it will come out that the entire basis or this legislation was complete off base and counter productive.

  9. #309
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default


    Democrats who voted for health care reform get police protection as threats turn ugly

    BY Kenneth R. Bazinet
    DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
    Wednesday, March 24th 2010, 11:27 PM

    Kamm/Getty
    "Anyone who feels at risk is getting attention from the proper authorities." House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer said.

    WASHINGTON - At least 10 lawmakers who voted for health care reform were offered around-the-clock police protection yesterday after getting death threats.




    "We've had very serious incidents that have occurred in the last 48 or 72 hours," said House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). "Anyone who feels at risk is getting attention from the proper authorities."
    Some lawmakers, including Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter of upstate Rochester reported having windows smashed in their district offices.
    The FBI, Capitol Hill and the House sergeant-at-arms were conducting a joint investigation.
    Slaughter is among the lawmakers offered police protection.
    In addition to death threats, Democratic House members were spit on, cursed at and had racial, homophobic and anti-Semitic slurs hurled at them over the weekend by an angry mob of protesters.
    A message left for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said, "Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother f---er.... I hope you bleed out your a--, got cancer and die, you mother f---er."
    What really frightened lawmakers was word that authorities suspect anti-health care reform activists are responsible for cutting the gas line at the home of the brother of Virginia Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello.
    Authorities believe the vandals responsible thought they were at the lawmaker's home when they tampered with the gas line.
    "Some members are very rattled," a New York congressman said.
    For days, Republicans declined to scold the demonstrators responsible for the crimes, but House GOP leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally called for a halt to the hate.
    "I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren't listening," Boehner said. "But, as I've said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That's not the American way."
    The legislative action, meanwhile, turned to the Senate, where the health reconciliation bill is being debated. The GOP began offering at least 90 amendments to stall passage of the "fix it" bill.
    Only a simple majority of 51 votes is needed to pass reconciliation in the Senate, and Vice President Biden was on standby last night in case he's needed to break a tie, the White House said.
    In addition, Senate Republicans vowed not to permit any committee hearings after 2 p.m. as part of a payback strategy to protest health insurance reform.
    "The notion that you don't get what you want [so] you're not going to cooperate on anything else is not a whole lot different than I might hear from a 6-year-old," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

  10. #310
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    For days, Republicans declined to scold the demonstrators responsible for the crimes
    These people are disgusting.

  11. #311
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    Why this is going to be a disaster for reasons that no one it talking about:

    - The new rules eliminate some of the cost containment methods the insurance companies used (prexisting condition limits, lifetime caps, etc).
    Oh, you mean death sentances. If your condition goes over a certain $$, regardless of the chance of success, fuggetaboutit.

    Also, if you are required by law, except in extenuating circumstances, to have insurance, the whole "pre-existing condition" thing is no longer a valid concern.

    The original intent was to prevent last minute buyers. But it was turned into a way to exclude people from coverage even if your lapse of coverage could be measured in days.

    - It does NOT cap premiums (from everthing I've heard)
    That seems like a conciliation. Kind of like NJ backing down on some of its "no fault" clauses for its auto insurance that made many companies say "to hell with you, our profit margin is much higher in NY/CT/PA".

    If they can get the public option going, and provide a viable alternative to private health care, premiums will not be capped. Probably another reason we have not seen that in the bill.

    - It forces people to buy insurance who previously didn't/couldn't, providing some level of subsidy (we'll see if this holds up.) These people are likely the larger risks (haven't had health care, or priced out for the reasons above).
    Actually, no. It has clauses that allow for exemption. This is not a do-or-die thing, but more of a way to get a balancing of the health care of America, including the previous Welfare/Medicare recipients, over the shoulders of everybody, not just those that feel they need it. Not only that, the penalties are SO SMALL compared to the current rates it is almost laughable. I believe, by something liek 2014, the fee will be somewhere around $750/pp/per year. An amendment/revision calls for this for entire households rather than individuals. To give you a clue, you can spend about $400-$600 A MONTH on insurance as a young, healthy, athletic individual.

    What does this add up to? A HUGE increase in premiums, over what we've seen now, and everyone being forced to pay them.
    How? This sounds like a soundbite, not a fact. How would it drive UP rates if everyone has to get it and it does not restrict the companies? They would be making more money, net, than they did before...

    In the end, it will come out that the entire basis or this legislation was complete off base and counter productive.
    Nah. I think it needs tweaking, but not by a bunch of table-pounders. If we want this to work, we need our politicians to behave themselves and stop turning this into a fish-oil sale (on either side).

    It is needed, plain and simple. What is also needed is a government that works to REPRESENT THE MAJORITY, not fool them into fearing something they need not fear.

  12. #312
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,777

    Default

    "The notion that you don't get what you want [so] you're not going to cooperate on anything else is not a whole lot different than I might hear from a 6-year-old,"
    I was gong to say that same thing. Ask them to "grow up", until I realized that a lot of older retirees act the same way....

  13. #313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    Oh, you mean death sentances. If your condition goes over a certain $$, regardless of the chance of success, fuggetaboutit.

    Also, if you are required by law, except in extenuating circumstances, to have insurance, the whole "pre-existing condition" thing is no longer a valid concern.

    The original intent was to prevent last minute buyers. But it was turned into a way to exclude people from coverage even if your lapse of coverage could be measured in days.

    That seems like a conciliation. Kind of like NJ backing down on some of its "no fault" clauses for its auto insurance that made many companies say "to hell with you, our profit margin is much higher in NY/CT/PA".

    If they can get the public option going, and provide a viable alternative to private health care, premiums will not be capped. Probably another reason we have not seen that in the bill.
    I don't see anything capping premiums as it sits now. I also don't see a public option happening any time soon. And a public option would likely have a lot of the sam problems the privates have, and would not be viable/competitive, without having preferential rules or sigificant subsidies.



    Actually, no. It has clauses that allow for exemption. This is not a do-or-die thing, but more of a way to get a balancing of the health care of America, including the previous Welfare/Medicare recipients, over the shoulders of everybody, not just those that feel they need it. Not only that, the penalties are SO SMALL compared to the current rates it is almost laughable. I believe, by something liek 2014, the fee will be somewhere around $750/pp/per year. An amendment/revision calls for this for entire households rather than individuals. To give you a clue, you can spend about $400-$600 A MONTH on insurance as a young, healthy, athletic individual.
    If too many people buy out, that might change quickly

    How? This sounds like a soundbite, not a fact. How would it drive UP rates if everyone has to get it and it does not restrict the companies? They would be making more money, net, than they did before...
    They're driving up costs (I don't see anything in this that has any effect on reducing costs of providing care, then add in the costs from the provisions I discussed above). They're driving up demand. They're not capping premiums. Why WOULDN'T premiums go up.




    Nah. I think it needs tweaking, but not by a bunch of table-pounders. If we want this to work, we need our politicians to behave themselves and stop turning this into a fish-oil sale (on either side).

    It is needed, plain and simple. What is also needed is a government that works to REPRESENT THE MAJORITY, not fool them into fearing something they need not fear.
    From a financial standpoint, this takes everthing that was bad about the current system, and amplifies it. This is going to be an unmitigated disaster for employers, since they're the ones who cost are going to go up the most (and will get passed on to employess and/or customers somehow).

    This thing was never a cogent attempt at legitimately dealing with health care costs. It was a collection of political accomodations made to get something passed to save face.
    Last edited by BBMW; March 25th, 2010 at 03:31 PM.

  14. #314
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    I don't see anything capping premiums as it sits now. I also don't see a public option happening any time soon. And a public option would likely have a lot of the sam problems the privates have, and would not be viable/competitive, without having preferential rules or sigificant subsidies.
    Nothing caps them now, and they have been running wild. How is what is being proposed change what we already are seeing?

    If too many people buy out, that might change quickly
    Do a quick lookup. The excuses are not "cuz I don't wanna". But the arguments being shouted on the floor do not match the actual requirements either.

    They're driving up costs (I don't see anything in this that has any effect on reducing costs of providing care, then add in the costs from the provisions I discussed above). They're driving up demand. They're not capping premiums. Why WOULDN'T premiums go up.
    How? Again, you keep saying this is going to cost more money to provide, but do not site any specifics. It wil cost a certain amount more to keep track of, but that has never really been the issue. AAMOF, more money is spent trying to discourage people from filing claims or getting what they are owed than what is done simply to get the monies where they are needed.

    (I had a time where I spent about 6 hours, in several calls, to get a $250 bill resolved with the insurance company that they, according to their own policy, were required to pay.... needless to say, they still tried to convince me otherwise. Although I do not like the fact that it took me that much time, I am also glad it took THEM than much time and effort. People do not work for free.....)

    From a financial standpoint, this takes everthing that was bad about the current system, and amplifies it. This is going to be an unmitigated disaster for employers, since they're the ones who cost are going to go up the most (and will get passed on to employess and/or customers somehow).
    Again, how? You keep saying costs will go up, but do not site how. How premiums and the like will soar, but not why. I am in agreeance that there needs to be more regulation on profit margin for these policies (ours at my old company were raised because for 2 years they had more than 75 cents on the dollar in payouts. 33% profit margin??!?!? That is worse than loan sharking!)

    I am not completely debunking what you are saying, but much of what you have said smacks of fear mongering rather than constructive criticism. No solutions, no clear cases, just "This will be really bad and cost everyone more money!!!!!"...

    This thing was never a cogent attempt at legitimately dealing with health care costs. It was a collection of political accomodations made to get something passed to save face.
    No, it wasn't. It was a plan that was forced through a rather non-uniform meat grinder. We got a bunch of things we do not need, and more was ground out of recognition (public option) in an effort to regain bipartisanship.

    Now all we hear are doomsday singers and naysayers that will not offer a viable solution to insure the uninsured or underinsured. While our system may never bring us $2 rogaine (god forbid) it may come to the point where so much money is not dangled above our heads with the man holding it asking us if we want to live.

  15. #315

    Default

    Why even buy health insurance until you need it? If you can't be turned down and there are going to be 'reasonable' premiums. What's the point of having it before you're in the Doctors office?

    Cured? Drop it.

Similar Threads

  1. Weill Cornell Medical College York Ambulatory Care Building - by Polshek Partnership
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2014, 08:52 PM
  2. New Yorkers' Health
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 29th, 2008, 08:26 AM
  3. Post-9/11 Health Hazards
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: July 30th, 2006, 07:40 PM
  4. Health Care Unprepared for Terrorism
    By Kris in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 25th, 2003, 01:40 AM
  5. Harlem Health Center - Perkins Eastman Architects
    By Derek2k3 in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 25th, 2003, 09:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software