Should we discuss healthcare?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Should we discuss healthcare?

    Seems to be the only major issue not currently being discussed on this board.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from JAR59. Show JAR59's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    We must keep up the pressure to stop this monstrosity.

    Contact your Congressman and urge him to oppose the Democrat bill currently being debated in the House.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    u.d.

    Correct me if I'm wrong (I think this was when I first started reading up on bdc posts), but wasn't the last health care/medical insurance thread degenerate into a senseless knock-down, drag out fight over who knew more about this....or am I wrong (wouldn't be the first time that I'm wrong)?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    You know, I might have been a part of that.  LOL.  Good memory.  I believe someone may have been calling me a commie without first asking me what my political thoughts were.

    At any rate, I thought I would throw it out there, more to be flippant about the discussions on other threads than to actually discuss the topic. 

    Currently there is a roundtable discussion taking place on CNBC wth the following:
    Bill Frist
    Michael Milkin
    Governor of Michigan (don't know her name)
    Cleveland Clinic doc
    Head of AMA
    Angela Braly - CEO Wellpoint (Indy company)
    John Lechliter (sp) CEO of Eli Lilly (Indy company)

    I have interest because I am a group benefits consultant and because a couple of indy execs are on the panel.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    In Response to Re: Should we discuss healthcare?:
    You know, I might have been a part of that.  LOL.  Good memory.  I believe someone may have been calling me a commie without first asking me what my political thoughts were. At any rate, I thought I would throw it out there, more to be flippant about the discussions on other threads than to actually discuss the topic.  Currently there is a roundtable discussion taking place on CNBC wth the following: Bill Frist Michael Milkin Governor of Michigan (don't know her name) Cleveland Clinic doc Head of AMA Angela Braly - CEO Wellpoint (Indy company) John Lechliter (sp) CEO of Eli Lilly (Indy company) I have interest because I am a group benefits consultant and because a couple of indy execs are on the panel.
    Posted by underdogg


    Except for the governor of michigan (jennifer grantholm), the group seems to be a well-matched (on paper) for the subject of discussion.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    No...

    .. you should go to the politics forum and talk about it there.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonnyCorlione. Show SonnyCorlione's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    The President of the United States can't even communicate specifics of the plan.  I don't see the point in getting in a fight about this.

    When they explain how they're actually going to reduce cost AND provide more coverage I'll get involved.  Until then don't drop your plan.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    She gets to be one of the backers of the Obama effort, plus she gets to be there by virtue of the Big 3 failures that had as much to do with healthcare active and legacy costs as it did poor management and auto design. 

    She also just got to throw out that she was born in canada where outcomes are better than the US - puhleaseee!

    Angela Braly is failing miserably - but many were worried about her ascension to the CEO office.  Lechliter (sp) who just took over the CEO post at Lilly is doing a very good job. 

    Braly had an opportunity to identify the actual number of uninsured who have no viable access to it (which is dramatically lower than the number commonly noted). 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    The liberal cleveland clinic doc first brought up transparency.  Yet he talked about outcomes transparency not cost transparency.  What an effing double speak puppetmaster. 

    The Obama effort is to provide coverage for those who don't have it because it is too costly, yet this guy (obama supporter) conveniently leaves out the importance of cost transparency and only focuses on outcome transparency.  

    Sounds like just as much of a propagandist as anyone else at the table. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    The NFL healthcare plan is abominable.  Many football players leave the profession in great pain, and stay that way the rest of their lives.  Some bankrupt themselves dealing with medical issues. 

    What do you expect from a sport of watching millionaires wantonly getting their knees broken?  What a great way to win a divison title.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    In Response to Re: Should we discuss healthcare?:
    The President of the United States can't even communicate specifics of the plan.  I don't see the point in getting in a fight about this. When they explain how they're actually going to reduce cost AND provide more coverage I'll get involved.  Until then don't drop your plan.
    Posted by SonnyCorlione


    Sonny - No one can explain that because it is a macro impossibility (IMO). 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    In Response to Re: Should we discuss healthcare?:
    The NFL healthcare plan is abominable.  Many football players leave the profession in great pain, and stay that way the rest of their lives.  Some bankrupt themselves dealing with medical issues.  What do you expect from a sport of watching millionaires wantonly getting their knees broken?  What a great way to win a divison title.
    Posted by Paul_K


    Well - my original point was larger than the NFL plan.  But - Just as the country grew as a result of many suffering, so did the NFL. 

    That said, over the last 30 years, players obviously understood that they were putting their bodies on the line to play the game they loved.  And for the last 30 years, compared to general society, they have been paid handsomely for it.  I listen to Sirius NFL radio and this comes up frequently and I find myself turning the channel when it does. 

    If I can't stand the way unions hold corporations hostage to the point of bankruptcy over healthcare, I certainly have no stomach for millionaires doing the same to the profession that made them that. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    Of course, this is the health care version of speaking the unspeakable, describing the indescribable, and trying to prove what's beyond the great wall of shining light!

    Even European countries with the best combination of socialized healthcare/ low corruption (i.e. Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland) admit that their systems are expensive to maintain and require: a/ a national culture where this type of system has been inbedded for decades if not centuries; and b/ a social contract between all of the major interest groups required to keep such a system going (i.e. labor groups, consumer groups, political parties, business federations etc.) where each side knows their role and location as a spoke on the wheel. In addition, these countries (except possibly Germany with over 80 million people) are small enough (i.e. the whole of Scandinavia doesn't exceed 25 million people; Switzerland, I believe is about 10 million population).

    In contrast, the United States: a/ has had a polar opposite tradition from Europe regarding social issues in general, and health care in particular; b/ our power groups galaxy is much broader and deeper in terms of special interest groups than in these individual countries mentioned above (but even stephen when taking the EU as a whole); and c/ the US, in terms of size of territory and population, is a virtual continent by itself - thus, the difficulty in imposing a euro style system here (in terms of logistics and having all of the "opinion leaders" singing from the same hymnal sheet) will be monumental.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Grogan77. Show Grogan77's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    We should certainly address the Healthcare issue!

    If Brady is healthy all season, that Pats win their 4th Superbowl!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    Well, the opinion leaders don't need to be on the same page.  Only just enough congressmen need their pockets greased/reelection guaranted to get something done. 


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    Point well taken. I was one of the many who got caught up in the whole racial topic and am not sorry in what I said but do regret somewhat saying it on this board because it is a Pats site. When we talk NEP ball we get along a lot better! :)  Being a Conservative from NE makes me the minority on Poloitical topics most of the time anyway. I am ready to talk FOOTBALL!

    Go Pats!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    You know after some thought, other than the time off due to the actual injury and recovery, a QB may be the "best" player to have a knee injury.  Every other position on the field requires more from the knee than the QB.  IMO. 

    Other than a poor reaction to surgery, I think this bodes well for pats fans and Brady.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    The Pats need better health care.  that is they need better preventative health care.  I hope Reiss's Pieces got some facts messed up, because it says Crable and Warren will be put on one of the PUP lists.  Aren't we pinning our hopes on Crable stepping up to the plate?  And the injuries are already starting...

    Obama will be holding a news conference tomorrow night to discuss the Pats injury situation and how this is but one more example of why our healthcare needs to be fixed :^)
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    Hasn't Obama commented one too many times on Mass. News recently?  LOL

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    In Response to Re: Should we discuss healthcare?:
    Well, the opinion leaders don't need to be on the same page.  Only just enough congressmen need their pockets greased/reelection guaranted to get something done. 
    Posted by underdogg


    underdogg:

    It's not just the legislative branch that needs to be in sync with the rest of the "establishment"....it's like the old adage that on some race tracks you can drive your way to victory, on others its pit crew strategy that wins, but at Indy everything has to right or you lose....health care reform is like that...alll of the pieces have to fall in place otherwise it will (over the long term) fix nothing and satisfy no one.

    Who, whether a group or individual, can galvanize all of these disparate parts and elements into a coherent policy that can achieve a consensus? That remains to be seen.

    If we, the regulars at bdc play it straight, this can be a very interesting discussion.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    When they explain how they're actually going to reduce cost AND provide more coverage I'll get involved.  Until then don't drop your plan.

    This is nearly impossible. To acheive that doctors would have to become government salaried employees, and the drug companies would have basically have to become non-profit. Somehow I just cannot see this happening. Doctors like their fancy cars and country clubs too much, and the pharmecutecal companies have too much money invested in DC. Even in places like the UK, although there is less cost per capita, there is also less coverage. After a certain age you become ineligible for certain procedures, they simply let you die rather than try to prolong your life as long as possible. People with "bad habits" such as smoking, drinking, obesity are denied treatments due to this (I got that one from a doctor himself). Most of the cost for healthcare comes in the last ten years of a person's life. These types of things are what get "cut" in the European style systems. So the "more coverage" does not apply to the actual care you receive, it will simply provide coverage for those who cannot afford insurance, and most likely include millions of illegal aliens. The price will be paid with tax money, so those who pay none (such as the extremely rich and the extremely poor) will get the breaks, while middle class working stiffs will likely pay more in the end than they do now. I doubt such a thing will ever be implemented, as doctors (and drug companies) like the wealth they now enjoy.

    Braly had an opportunity to identify the actual number of uninsured who have no viable access to it (which is dramatically lower than the number commonly noted). 

    No big surprise there. Politicians add, substract, and multiply differently than regular people, and the end numbers always seem to support their particular position on the matter at hand. A lot of the "47 million" (a number I've heard thrown around, how accurate it is is anyone's guess) uninsured probably could have insurance, but do not want to pay for it.

    Even European countries with the best combination of socialized healthcare/ low corruption (i.e. Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland) admit that their systems are expensive to maintain and require: a/ a national culture where this type of system has been inbedded for decades if not centuries; and b/ a social contract between all of the major interest groups required to keep such a system going (i.e. labor groups, consumer groups, political parties, business federations etc.) where each side knows their role and location as a spoke on the wheel. In addition, these countries (except possibly Germany with over 80 million people) are small enough (i.e. the whole of Scandinavia doesn't exceed 25 million people; Switzerland, I believe is about 10 million population).

    Great point. Even without the problem of the sheer number of people, the chances of all these groups you mention coming to a consensus (and especially one in which they will basically see profits reduced) is maybe 5% of the chance that the Lions will go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl this year! I'd love to see the Veags oddsmakers' take on this happening (the healthcare, not the Lions)!

    We should certainly address the Healthcare issue!
    If Brady is healthy all season, that Pats win their 4th Superbowl!


    Now that is something we can all vote a big yes for! Of course, we'll always have the naysayers such as Bolt and Underdogg. Unfortunately (for them) they have no veto power here!!!

    Well, the opinion leaders don't need to be on the same page.  Only just enough congressmen need their pockets greased/reelection guaranted to get something done. 

    In this case I think we'll see more greasing being done to insure it doesn't get done!

    Point well taken. I was one of the many who got caught up in the whole racial topic and am not sorry in what I said but do regret somewhat saying it on this board because it is a Pats site. When we talk NEP ball we get along a lot better! :)  Being a Conservative from NE makes me the minority on Poloitical topics most of the time anyway. I am ready to talk FOOTBALL!

    I can relate to that! I used to think I was the only Republican who lived in MA! The worst thing about talking politics is that so many times (especially when you are just typing your thoughts) people misunderstand what you're trying to get across. It's surely a hot topic (like the discussions on racism). I remember a barmaid back in Burbank who told me she would never discuss politics or religion at her bar. She said she stuck to sex, because that was one thing most people could agree on! Although we do have our spats here discussing football, at least most of us are basically in agreement when talking about the Patriots. Of course, there are the dissenters like UD and Bolt, but they make for some interesting sparring sometimes. Then there's Leon (just released from his 30 day sentence for unnatural sexual acts with animals), but he's more of a "whipping boy" around here! Always good for a few laughs!

    Hasn't Obama commented one too many times on Mass. News recently?  LOL


    To my knowledge, he's only commented once on MA news...so I guess you're correct, that is one time too many!

    Who, whether a group or individual, can galvanize all of these disparate parts and elements into a coherent policy that can achieve a consensus? That remains to be seen.

    I wouldn't hold my breath. If a congressman stood up and said the sky was blue, one from the opposing party would spend millions trying to pass a law saying it was green! As for the chances of any real "consensus" on this issue, see my above response about the Lions and Super Bowl 44!!!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    B - agreed.  The reality is that there are too many players with their own special interest to protect that regardless of what is done, very little will be fixed.  Thus, the only effective response is the rationing of care. 

    I see that getting a positive response.  Not. 

    So much was left out of last night's discussion that was available to address.  For example: 

    the real number behind the uninsured - estimates are that the number could be cut by at least 1/3. 

    The fact that the US is the R&D engine in pharmaceutical development because we are the only industrialized nation without price controls. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonBobBlowhard. Show BostonBobBlowhard's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    In Response to Should we discuss healthcare?:
    Seems to be the only major issue not currently being discussed on this board.
    Posted by underdogg


    The Gates-Crowley garbage is a major issue?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonBobBlowhard. Show BostonBobBlowhard's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    In Response to Re: Should we discuss healthcare?:
    When they explain how they're actually going to reduce cost AND provide more coverage I'll get involved.  Until then don't drop your plan. This is nearly impossible. To acheive that doctors would have to become government salaried employees, and the drug companies would have basically have to become non-profit. Somehow I just cannot see this happening. Doctors like their fancy cars and country clubs too much, and the pharmecutecal companies have too much money invested in DC. Even in places like the UK, although there is less cost per capita, there is also less coverage. After a certain age you become ineligible for certain procedures, they simply let you die rather than try to prolong your life as long as possible. People with "bad habits" such as smoking, drinking, obesity are denied treatments due to this (I got that one from a doctor himself). Most of the cost for healthcare comes in the last ten years of a person's life. These types of things are what get "cut" in the European style systems. So the "more coverage" does not apply to the actual care you receive, it will simply provide coverage for those who cannot afford insurance, and most likely include millions of illegal aliens. The price will be paid with tax money, so those who pay none (such as the extremely rich and the extremely poor) will get the breaks, while middle class working stiffs will likely pay more in the end than they do now. I doubt such a thing will ever be implemented, as doctors (and drug companies) like the wealth they now enjoy. Braly had an opportunity to identify the actual number of uninsured who have no viable access to it (which is dramatically lower than the number commonly noted).   No big surprise there. Politicians add, substract, and multiply differently than regular people, and the end numbers always seem to support their particular position on the matter at hand. A lot of the "47 million" (a number I've heard thrown around, how accurate it is is anyone's guess) uninsured probably could have insurance, but do not want to pay for it. Even European countries with the best combination of socialized healthcare/ low corruption (i.e. Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland) admit that their systems are expensive to maintain and require: a/ a national culture where this type of system has been inbedded for decades if not centuries; and b/ a social contract between all of the major interest groups required to keep such a system going (i.e. labor groups, consumer groups, political parties, business federations etc.) where each side knows their role and location as a spoke on the wheel. In addition, these countries (except possibly Germany with over 80 million people) are small enough (i.e. the whole of Scandinavia doesn't exceed 25 million people; Switzerland, I believe is about 10 million population). Great point. Even without the problem of the sheer number of people, the chances of all these groups you mention coming to a consensus (and especially one in which they will basically see profits reduced) is maybe 5% of the chance that the Lions will go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl this year! I'd love to see the Veags oddsmakers' take on this happening (the healthcare, not the Lions)! We should certainly address the Healthcare issue! If Brady is healthy all season, that Pats win their 4th Superbowl! Now that is something we can all vote a big yes for! Of course, we'll always have the naysayers such as Bolt and Underdogg. Unfortunately (for them) they have no veto power here!!! Well, the opinion leaders don't need to be on the same page.  Only just enough congressmen need their pockets greased/reelection guaranted to get something done.   In this case I think we'll see more greasing being done to insure it doesn't get done! Point well taken. I was one of the many who got caught up in the whole racial topic and am not sorry in what I said but do regret somewhat saying it on this board because it is a Pats site. When we talk NEP ball we get along a lot better! :)  Being a Conservative from NE makes me the minority on Poloitical topics most of the time anyway. I am ready to talk FOOTBALL! I can relate to that! I used to think I was the only Republican who lived in MA! The worst thing about talking politics is that so many times (especially when you are just typing your thoughts) people misunderstand what you're trying to get across. It's surely a hot topic (like the discussions on racism). I remember a barmaid back in Burbank who told me she would never discuss politics or religion at her bar. She said she stuck to sex, because that was one thing most people could agree on! Although we do have our spats here discussing football, at least most of us are basically in agreement when talking about the Patriots. Of course, there are the dissenters like UD and Bolt, but they make for some interesting sparring sometimes. Then there's Leon (just released from his 30 day sentence for unnatural sexual acts with animals), but he's more of a "whipping boy" around here! Always good for a few laughs! Hasn't Obama commented one too many times on Mass. News recently?  LOL To my knowledge, he's only commented once on MA news...so I guess you're correct, that is one time too many! Who, whether a group or individual, can galvanize all of these disparate parts and elements into a coherent policy that can achieve a consensus? That remains to be seen. I wouldn't hold my breath. If a congressman stood up and said the sky was blue, one from the opposing party would spend millions trying to pass a law saying it was green! As for the chances of any real "consensus" on this issue, see my above response about the Lions and Super Bowl 44!!!
    Posted by bubthegrub2

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonBobBlowhard. Show BostonBobBlowhard's posts

    Re: Should we discuss healthcare?

    Here is my concern on HealthCare:

    Are we really relying on a slowing 34 year old corner who has been seriously injured the past two years? I hope he regains speed and stays healthy.

    Are we vulnerable to up-the-middle pass rushers wiping out our possibly less mobile QB?

    Can Obama's Health Care Plan help here?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share