Monday, 22 March 2010 Healthcare bill passes. (I think) quote [ WASHINGTON – Triumph in their grasp, President Barack Obama and House Democrats demonstrated command of the votes needed to pass landmark health care legislation Sunday night, a climactic chapter in a century-long quest for near universal coverage. ] Make of this what you will. I hope it marks a change in US healthcare, and people get what they need, without getting their lives destroyed in the process. [politics] [by afrasr@2:10amGMT] [+10 Good]

Mr. Langosta said @ 2:16am GMT on 22nd Mar Awesome.

Spaceloaf said @ 2:20am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:3 Insightful] It seems like this bill is better nothing, but it's still a dud compared to having a public option. Just looking at general principles, if you need a law forcing people to buy your product in order to turn a profit, that should basically tell you that your business model is screwed up. The only thing that makes sense to me is to have a public option, and if companies go bankrupt it means they were not offering a product that people wanted at a price they could afford. Isn't that capitalism?

BergZ said @ 2:31am GMT on 22nd Mar I figured the purpose of the insurance mandate is to motivate voters to support a public option in future healthcare reforms.

sythe said @ 2:54am GMT on 22nd Mar The mandate is a backdoor way of increasing the medicare/medicaid threshold. By giving subsidies to lower income households the government will be paying for the vast majority of new insurance policies.

mrklipp said @ 2:35am GMT on 22nd Mar As much as it sucks, how would you avoid an individual mandate if you are going to force the coverage of pre-existing conditions? If you could not bother to pay for insurance until you got sick enough to need it, what business model exactly would make people want to pay for it anyway?

Spaceloaf said @ 2:44am GMT on 22nd Mar I agree with you. That's why I think that ultimately single-payer will probably be the only rational choice. But starting with the public option will at least give those businesses a chance to see if they can offer something compelling.

mrcucumber said @ 6:11pm GMT on 22nd Mar I'm no expert on tax law, and am not privy to the goings on in congress and such as far as where our (tax)money goes, but I would venture to say that we've already paid for a great deal it (hypothetically). We have all the money in the world to give tax breaks and subsidies all kinds of business like farmers etc, and over a trillion dollars we gave to wall street and detroit, but somehow everybody has their hair on fire when it comes to paying for health care. It's not about the money.

tiemy said @ 5:08pm GMT on 22nd Mar There are several alternatives, all less regressive than the individual mandate. And they've been established facts in most of the developed world for decades. One would be imposing a "mandate" on big business, requiring corporations to provide coverage to their employees or face stiff penalties. This was quickly dropped, for reasons I think most people can come up with. Another would be imposing a "mandate" on government, expanding existing federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare to cover the uninsured. The official debate ruled that one out, because healthcare reform is really part of a larger agenda of fiscal austerity: cutting costs, deficits and entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security that -- according to Bush, Obama and the like -- are "bankrupting America." Interesting thing: in the healthcare bill that just passed, roughly half the number of uninsured able to get coverage - 16 million IIRC - will do so by expanding Medicaid. At the same time, the legislation creates a new panel of presidential appointees that will propose new cuts to Medicare (above the several hundred billion being cut now) in the name of fighting "waste and abuse." You have to just laugh at the absurdity in Obama and the Democrats making this $900 billion reform bill, basing it on "market solutions" to fix problems created 100% by the market, then using a government program to get half of the good results all while making a committee designed to rationalize cutting back government even more. Another alternative is the one todde mentioned, a socialized system that uses government to provide universal coverage. Already used in most of the developed world with far better results than the US system, this one was ruled out from day one in the official "debate" because it, again, infringed on the big corporate interests that run healthcare now.

mrcucumber said @ 6:23pm GMT on 22nd Mar .....infringed on the big corporate interests that run healthcare now Its an ideological battle, and we the people lost. Or should I say, capitalism won. I also get a kick out of the "reform" bill. There's nothing really "reformed" about how the system works. It's been a run away freight train, and this bill just put on the brakes a bit. One thing I wish they had included in the bill was to reverse ronnie reagan's policy on big pharma and advertising. It's the only industry where they are advertising to the end user, only the end user can't buy it themselves because they are not the experts. Slimy. It's the biggest scam all the way around, because it fuels industry, causing all kinds of problems. Again I say, big pharma spends more on advertising than R&D. While I'm at it, are you aware that there were over 4000 lobbyists involved in this bill? Something like 6 or 7 per congressman. Including the likes of Dunkin' Donuts, because they don't want a sugar tax to pay for it. Funny, they contribute to the obesity of the populace, but damn straight they will protect a supply of disease at great profit. The irony is astounding.

tiemy said @ 3:29am GMT on 23rd Mar Sounds like you're ahead of most on this issue.

todde said @ 3:07am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:3] Fuck the "public option". The only thing that makes sense is Single Payer. But the government has swallowed the corporate prick right down to the balls.

theolypse said @ 3:48am GMT on 22nd Mar I agree with you. But you aren't helping, and never have.

todde said @ 4:05am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:5 Underrated] Aren't helping and never have? Listen you ignorant turd-burping cock-socket I spent dozens of fucking hours on the phone banks, calling my reps and senators, writing letters, going to teabagger-infested town hall meetings to get this piece of crap passed. I have infinitely more right to complain about it than you do to flap your gangrenous cake hole.

theolypse said @ 5:00am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1 Overrated] Hm. I should have been more specific. You aren't helping by your blathering on here. I'm glad you're doing more meaningful things in the real world. I'm not glad you froth at the mouth at such small provocation.

arctan said @ 2:36pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:2 Underrated] How much "helping" of anything do you think anyone actually does by posting on comment threads here?

serenitynow said @ 9:21pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful]

ring riot said @ 5:09am GMT on 22nd Mar Underrated, just for "cock-socket" and "gangrenous cake hole".

lost said @ 5:28pm GMT on 22nd Mar you just got some renegade points there.

theolypse said @ 8:20pm GMT on 22nd Mar Fuck. I had you confused for tiemy. I retract everything.

Naruki said @ 11:35am GMT on 22nd Mar You agree with him but modded the same comment you "agree" with as troll? I think I smell a revenge mod...

theolypse said @ 8:17pm GMT on 22nd Mar You keep forgetting that I scold presentation regardless of intent.

Naruki said @ 4:45am GMT on 23rd Mar If that were true you would be required to downmod yourself frequently, such as where you said he never helps. You certainly don't downmod all other comments that are "presented" the same way as his, not even when their intent or content differs from your own. I.e., it's not true. I.e., you are a liar and hypocrite.

theolypse said @ 3:49pm GMT on 23rd Mar I reserve the right to be human, and wish you luck in your robotic ambitions.

profetscott said @ 4:28am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1] hope the mod works

drzapato said @ 7:19pm GMT on 22nd Mar yeah, but a significant portion of the country doesn't agree with you. that sort of all or nothing approach is what makes it so difficult for lawmakers to compromise. Why would you negotiate and try to find middle ground when half of your base is going to revile you for it?

tiemy said @ 7:16pm GMT on 23rd Mar Except the "compromise" was never from a starting point of single-payer or socialized medicine. The official "debate" began from an already very right-wing consensus -- the need for "reform" centered on cutting costs, protecting private profits and reducing deficits -- and moved even further right. Single-payer and most other public interest measures were excluded from the media-political discourse from day one. For the political establishment, Democrat and Republican, these were zany ideas from some distant universe where it *isn't* accepted as "reality" that the ultra-rich and big corporations don't dictate every aspect of government policy.

mrcucumber said @ 9:35pm GMT on 23rd Mar It should never be about simply satisfying half of the populace half of the way. Especially on this issue. Compromise works for many things, but survival, when there are viable options to extend life to it's fullest, is not one of them. None of the real options were ever really debated. The real issue is whether or not it's civilized, humane, and forward thinking to care for each other or make it every man for himself. You can't have it both ways, yet we are led to believe we can. The two party, conservative vs liberal, free market vs socialism all dictates the outcome simply by trying to appease their own side, divide common ground, and stake their claim. 50-50, as though it were a good thing.

Vampire_X said @ 6:10am GMT on 22nd Mar um, if theres no public option but there is a mandate, wheres the reform? real healthcare is single payer, reform is a public option, this might just be called the insurance mandate act.... look forward to seeing what the young turks have to say...

sanepride said @ 6:16am GMT on 22nd Mar The 'reform' is relatively modest, but IMO mostly in the new controls that will be imposed on the insurance industry. Banning limits on coverage for pre-existing conditions, or getting dropped if you get sick, just to name a couple for example.

spite48 said @ 2:26am GMT on 22nd Mar I'm just glad that the united states didn't encroach on Canada's awesomeness by providing healthcare to all of its people.

mrklipp said @ 2:36am GMT on 22nd Mar Eh, give it time. The Canadian health care system started with small steps too.

dietcoke said @ 2:50am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-4 Flamebait] If canada is so awsome then why are american waiting rooms full of canadians that need to see a doc now , not in 3 month wait? I left canada and became an american to get away from that bullshit. Looks like both countries will suck now.

mrklipp said @ 3:06am GMT on 22nd Mar Yeah, um, no. I've been to plenty of emergency rooms, and I've never seen one full of Canadians. I've also been to Canada several times, and got a minor injury and had to see a doctor on one of those trips. I saw the doc the same day, with no hassle whatsoever.

G. W. Bush said @ 3:37am GMT on 22nd Mar 100% true, if you have an emergency you will see a doctor on most days within an hour. Growing up I have been in on numerous occasions and every time its been a reasonable wait time and process.

spite48 said @ 3:07am GMT on 22nd Mar Why are you arguing with satire?

Ronin.ca said @ 10:17am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1 Underrated] So you left Canada to go to the US over healthcare? Pray tell, did you let the door hit you in the ass on the way out?

psychotim said @ 11:53am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1] I'm sure you're going to go right ahead and provide actual figures on that, too!

brat#3 said @ 2:26am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:3 Informative] I'm watching this on C-Span, they're just ending the debate. What the numbers in the article refer to is the vote to start the debate. So they should have the votes when the debate concludes, but it hasn't been taken yet.

sythe said @ 2:52am GMT on 22nd Mar It's just started now.

brat#3 said @ 3:05am GMT on 22nd Mar And we're done.

drunk said @ 3:49am GMT on 22nd Mar It passed. For those who were wondering.

swiggy said @ 2:28am GMT on 22nd Mar The sad thing is that whatever good this does will be completely ignored by the people against it, even as it benefits them, but any downside, real or imagined, will be distorted to huge, "oh mah gawd mah gubmen's a commie nazi muslim" proportions.

swiggy said @ 2:32am GMT on 22nd Mar apologies for my heartless abuse of the comma.

sanepride said @ 2:48am GMT on 22nd Mar Maybe in the short term. If it works as it's supposed to, and even expanded as it should be, in the long term it will just become as routine an entitlement as Medicare, accepted by all. No one, even Republicans (assuming they still exist) will remember what all the fuss was about.

bbqkink said @ 2:50am GMT on 22nd Mar It will be interesting to see if the Dems can twist this back as a political advantage. After all there aren't going to be any death panels.No one is going to cart of grandma. The Bolsheviks aren't taking over the congress. President Obama hasn't grown that little Hitler mustache or painted his face like the "Joker". In fact what few changes anybody will notice will be helpful and dare I say it welcome... If the Dems don't show these clowns in front of their teabag buddies carrying crazy signs and saying the same biz are rhetoric they don't have a hair on their collective asses ..and we will all miss out on some really funny political theater.

bbqkink said @ 3:01am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:3 Funny] There are a lot but here is my favorite image .

f00m@nB@r said @ 2:28am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Informative] republicans - classy as ever

bbqkink said @ 3:43am GMT on 22nd Mar It was just reported one of the members of the house yelled "Baby Killer" at Bart Stupack when he was making his speech.

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:56am GMT on 22nd Mar /facepalm

bbqkink said @ 10:55pm GMT on 22nd Mar Give me a fuckin break. Oh I am sorry I wanted to lie about that, not lie about what he said or what I said. GOP lawmaker apologizes to Stupak for 'baby killer' outburst Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Texas said his remark, shouted during Rep. Bart Stupak's floor speech, was 'mistakenly interpreted' and referred to the White House agreement on abortion funding.

sanepride said @ 2:28am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Underrated] 10:07 PM EDT - no it hasn't quite passed yet, only procedural votes have been taken. But it looks exceedingly likely it will pass.

f00m@nB@r said @ 2:30am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Funny] unrelated: this headline made me look twice

Krutz said @ 3:39am GMT on 22nd Mar Do they sell t-shirts?

Ankylosaur said @ 7:18am GMT on 22nd Mar What did Eric Estrada do?!

ring riot said @ 2:48am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Underrated] Post is a bit premature...but it might as well be updated once it passes in a few minutes (fingers crossed).

dietcoke said @ 2:49am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-4 Flamebait] Where will americans go for health care? Canadians come here for health care that does not take a 3 month wait, there will be no place for anyone to go,everyone will have to sit home and die waiting to see a doc. Everytime I go to doc now the waiting room is totally full of canadians, wonder if mexico will offer the usa the same care we are going to give its citizens for free, at least the canadians pay their bills.

sanepride said @ 2:51am GMT on 22nd Mar Everytime I go to doc now the waiting room is totally full of canadians what is your doctor, a hockey injury specialist or something?

Aidentas said @ 3:02am GMT on 22nd Mar Hey, don't make fun of Canadians, eh? Most of their injuries may have been curling injuries.

sanepride said @ 3:04am GMT on 22nd Mar Sorry - the derision was aimed at dietcoke's dubious claim about his doctor.

Aidentas said @ 3:31am GMT on 22nd Mar Two things: 1) I was using bad humor. Don't take me seriously when I make unfunny jokes. :) 2) dietcoke's female.

sanepride said @ 3:43am GMT on 22nd Mar Well then, dietcoke's doctor must be a gynecologist for curlers.

brat#3 said @ 4:17am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:3] You know females have to go to regular doctors, too.

sanepride said @ 4:25am GMT on 22nd Mar I guess you missed the part where I and Aidentas were trying to be funny. Which means I guess we did not entirely succeed.

brat#3 said @ 4:47am GMT on 22nd Mar I guess you missed the part where Aidentas was trying to be unfunny :P

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:55am GMT on 22nd Mar Wait. So girls DO or DON'T go to regular doctors?! I'm so confused...

sanepride said @ 5:05am GMT on 22nd Mar Well I was trying.

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:38am GMT on 22nd Mar Really?!

spite48 said @ 5:40am GMT on 22nd Mar Why?

brat#3 said @ 5:43am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:5 Funny] To find husbands, silly.

lilmookieesquire said @ 6:01am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] >:( You made me snort! :D

Joe_Luma said @ 3:10pm GMT on 22nd Mar regular doctors? you mean ones that drink prune juice?

b said @ 3:34am GMT on 22nd Mar you're so silly. sure, some things have a long wait- MRIs and such, but at the same time, i can break a thumb, get an x-ray and have a surgery to fix it all within a week and not get stuck with a multi-thousand dollar bill at the end of it. true story.

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:40am GMT on 22nd Mar Aye, and thar be dragons an' wee faireyfolk too?

Ronin.ca said @ 10:21am GMT on 22nd Mar When my mom was alive and they found a new indicator for Cancer, she had tests within 12 hours. Some within the hour. When I was found to have a lump on my leg I got checked out within 3 days (son of a cancer survivor + lump = warning bells)... There are going to be mistakes, but my guess is that b and I's experiences are more common than not. Oh and another thing that never gets mentioned: Canadian socialized medicine (called Medicare up in Canada) is provincial, so it varies from province to province.

cb361 said @ 3:42am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:2 Underrated] If so, many would still argue that having to wait three months for a non-critical operation is a small price to pay for not going bankrupt when a vital lifesaving operation is required. In Britain, you might well have to wait for a operation that you are able to wait for, but nobody dies because they can't afford operations that can't be put off.

blindnerd said @ 5:48am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:2 Underrated] Same thing in Canada. If you're waiting 3 months for an MRI or an elective surgery* it is because the doctors feel that the wait won't cause any long term harm. If you're in a situation where critical care is needed immediately then you are taken care of immediately. (Side Note: In the extremely, extremely rare case that a Canadian Citizen needs to be sent to another country because an urgently needed procedure is not available in Canada, then the government foots the bill for the procedure and the travel.) *Elective surgery = surgery that is not urgently required due to an emergency.

maryyugo said @ 7:12am GMT on 22nd Mar It's always the same semantics. It won't do any harm to wait. Except of course for your comfort, your personal security, your mental health, and your pain level. Maybe your job and personal relationships as well. There's no reason for there to be long waits to get treatment. It's often inhumane. But of course it doesn't threaten your life so it's OK. Unless someone made a mistake and that benign lump they were going to remove in three months turns out to have a tiny nest of malignant cells in it which metastasize before the surgery has been scheduled. Medicine is complicated. Lawmakers and the average person are exceedingly simplistic and ignorant about it. For example, people still think House and the much better but still silly ER television shows portray any semblance of what really goes on. People still think a crude measure like life expectancy (median time to death) and a plainly inappropriate one like infant mortality are measures of medical care quality. How stupid is that? We are all going to get some very rude surprises, a few probably good and a whole lot of them bad.

arctan said @ 2:42pm GMT on 22nd Mar So, in other words, you think "quality of medical care" should be measured by how easy it is for rich people to pay extra to cut to the front of the line. Not by how many poor people are dying early, preventable deaths because they can't get into the system at all -- yeah, median life expectancy is such a "crude" measure, given that it factors in the experience of all these filthy plebes who don't matter, right, mary?

maryyugo said @ 4:42pm GMT on 22nd Mar Life expectancy is a measure of life style choices, environment and heredity. Except at the extremes, it has little if anything to do with medical care quality. The proper measurement of medical care is done by studying individual conditions in carefully controlled, matched sets of populations treated by different methods or in different medical care systems. The measure is the outcome for the particular condition being treated. It has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, poverty or political systems. Duplicitous ignorant arguments like yours simply obfuscate the issues and complicate solutions. As for jumping ahead of the line, rich people will always be able to do this in any system and they do in every system. It's irrelevant.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:20am GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:3 Insightful] Life expectancy is a measure of life style choices, environment and heredity. Except at the extremes, it has little if anything to do with medical care quality. Ever heard of preventative medicine? Healthcare isn't just about fixing things that are already broken.

cb361 said @ 3:12pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:3 Insightful] So, your argument is that if it's not possible to provide every conceivable elective procedure to everybody with immediate effect, it's better to provide elective faster to those who can (barely) afford it, than to concentrate on critical procedures for everybody. This is not a 'semantic argument'. From outside the US looking in, I can see that it's a critical issue. Of course we'd all like elective procedures carried out without queuing, but the US system's illusion of efficiency by concentrating on this had produced the expensive, inefficient and frankly callous system that you've got now. This isn't an inherent problem with insurance-only healthcare. It would be perfectly possible to build a humane healthcare system along these lines, but the thing that screws up US healthcare and will probably screw up any other model you guys adopt is rampant self-interest. Americans aren't any more greedy and callous than any other nationality - if fact you're probably less so, but somehow you've allowed overwhelming self-interest to be socially acceptable and ingrained in your institutions. Maybe it's an inevitable symptom of trying to promote a very pure type of democracy and free-will, when what most us really want deep down is to keep the best stuff for ourselves. But how the fuck did 'socialism' come to be seen as a bad thing?

Anti-fuites said @ 3:48pm GMT on 22nd Mar This socialism = evil thing is just a holdover (I hope) from the cold war days. It's been so ingrained in certain parts of American culture that I don't really think there's much that can be done to change it. Except wait for them all to die out, of course. The US has been so Polarized for the last 10 years though I fear we got at least another generation or two to wait out. For a while it seemed like "terr'ist" was going to take up the torch for "commie", but now that a Democrat is back in office it's way too easy to revert to the old thinking.

mrcucumber said @ 5:36pm GMT on 22nd Mar Socialism = evil will never go out of style in this county. It has been ingrained in the popular culture and as a diametrically opposed ideology to capitalism and "individual freedom(democracy)." I don't expect it to go out of style anytime soon.

Anti-fuites said @ 2:50am GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:1 Underrated] I think we're pretty much in agreement. When I say we'll have to wait it out another generation or two take that to mean not in our damn lifetime.

maryyugo said @ 4:47pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-2] Socialism is a bad thing. Most implementations have been extremely corrupt and badly implemented. Class distinctions have been increased, not eliminated. Entire economies, example: Cuba, have been decimated. It's not about "every conceivable" elective procedure. It's about allowing doctors and not bureacrats to decide such things. And it's about having enough resources to cover the needs. Every socialized medicine system thus far devised has insufficient resources to deal with the need for high technology medical care delivered quickly and correctly. I don't know the solution but I doubt that it consists of dumbing down the system so everyone gets mediocre, slow, sloppy care in dirty environments -- you know, like the US Veteran's Administration before the recent scandals and reforms. Voluntary population control and availability of elective abortions would help. Education about overpopulation would help. Discouraging religion would help. Funneling of more money away from entertainment, overcompensation of CEO's and politicians and towards health science research and education would help. None of that will happen in my life time.

arctan said @ 5:33pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] Entire economies, example: Cuba, have been decimated. You either have no clue or just don't care what Cuba was like under Batista. It's not about "every conceivable" elective procedure. It's about allowing doctors and not bureacrats to decide such things. And it's about having enough resources to cover the needs. Every socialized medicine system thus far devised has insufficient resources to deal with the need for high technology medical care delivered quickly and correctly. Is that a fault of the systems, or is it the fault of the fact that the resources you're talking about simply don't exist -- ANYWHERE, including here -- and won't exist unless the economy in general gets a lot bigger? Yes, most places, including here, can't afford to have an MRI machine in every small-town hospital. That's a simple fact that's the result of the fact that MRI machines are a scarce resource. They're less scarce in the USA than in other countries because the companies that make the damn things are here and the USA has, in general, more money. Making this somehow instead be the product of the USA's totally awesome enormous tottering private insurance bureaucracy wisely creating technological advances is total nonsense. I don't know the solution but I doubt that it consists of dumbing down the system so everyone gets mediocre, slow, sloppy care in dirty environments -- you know, like the US Veteran's Administration before the recent scandals and reforms. The VA is true "socialized medicine". Medicare is "single-player" medicine. The new bill is neither of the above -- it's a universal mandate for what is still a private system. I wish people would get this basic terminology shit straight before claiming to be experts. Voluntary population control and availability of elective abortions would help. You mean shit that progressives wanted to keep in the bill and that your shrieking Republican friends stripped out, flinging epithets like "death panel" and "baby killer" the whole time? Education about overpopulation would help. Discouraging religion would help. Funneling of more money away from entertainment, overcompensation of CEO's and politicians and towards health science research and education would help. None of that will happen in my life time. Okay, see, first you turn up your nose at "socialism" and now you're invoking Wilt Chamberlain and singing the praises of a command economy to "funnel" money toward more MRI machines. I'm having a really hard time keeping track of who you think you're arguing with.

cb361 said @ 6:33pm GMT on 22nd Mar You seem to be talking about communism, whereas most people are using socialism to refer to a degree of state intervention in private matters. I wouldn't want to live in a 100% socialist state any more than a 100% Free Market state, but that doesn't mean that I think that either of those things are evil. The trick is finding the right balance, and that's what we're arguing about. Your description of "every socialized medicine system" reminds me a lot of Jaxtraw railing against trains because people keep getting raped on them, and frankly you deserve the same level of scorn. "mediocre, slow, sloppy care in dirty environments" is certainly not my experience of social healthcare, although you can find outlier anecdotes against any system. Unfortunately the problems with the current American system that concern us aren't outliers, and even having this debate seems surreal from outside the US because the issue was addressed and settled years ago. It's like a country having vitriolic arguments about planting crops under a full moon, or whether potatoes must be poisonous because they're a member of the nightshade family.

EPT said @ 9:20pm GMT on 22nd Mar The problem is that there aren't enough political words in the lay lexicon. It seems that what most anglosphere lefties want is Social Democracy, not socialism. That term describes my country far more aptly than any of the 'big name' terms.

mrcucumber said @ 6:34pm GMT on 22nd Mar Socialism is a bad thing. I was gonna stop here, and not bother, but really, WTF do you know? Entire economies, example: Cuba, have been decimated. You don't know a lot about Cuba, I see. Have you any idea what influence both the United States and the USSR had it its demise? Socialism has nothing to do with it. It's about allowing doctors and not bureacrats to decide such things. yeah, ok. I'll give you that one. .... ...dumbing down the system so everyone gets mediocre, slow, sloppy care in dirty environments... I see you've never really experienced health care supplied by a government. You keep propogating this idea and it's plainly wrong. Granted, some shit may slip through the cracks, but nothing like what goes on in the U.S, like refusal of care because of money, or delays in compensation, etc, etc. etc. You know the list, mary. Don't be an idiot. Every socialized medicine system thus far devised has insufficient resources to deal with the need for high technology medical care delivered quickly and correctly. Well, if those countries that MAKE highly specialized machines and equipment wouldn't want to suck every penny from those that need it, then maybe it would be more widely available.

maryyugo said @ 8:41pm GMT on 22nd Mar [quote]I see you've never really experienced health care supplied by a government. [/quote]Unless you count the VA. I once worked for the VA medical system. It's nothing to be proud of for the most part. It's supposedly improved recently after a lot of public outcry over mistreatment of Iraq vets but I have not been involved in it for some time.

Genji007 said @ 2:45am GMT on 24th Mar In the medical community we say "The VA, yesterday's care today." True story.

ring riot said @ 7:04pm GMT on 22nd Mar Sorry, I actually shouldn't have downmodded you just because what you're saying is ridiculous. My bad.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:15am GMT on 24th Mar [Score:-2] You might find Japan interesting.

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:53am GMT on 22nd Mar Well, we'll see.

fhufi said @ 7:09am GMT on 22nd Mar I don't really know what I'd prefer, sit home or sit in the waiting room. Bet she would have liked to be a rich white Canadian, too.

maryyugo said @ 7:15am GMT on 22nd Mar I remember this typical bullshit isolated and entirely unique case. The patient was a psychiatric patient and had a severe mental disorder. The nursing staff missed a concomittant physical condition. There is no excuse for it but it was an isolated incident of incompetence and as an indictment of American medicine, it means absolutely nothing. Damn, I hate the duplicitous, deceitful, misleading, total asswipe morons that keep dragging this and other irrelevant shit in front of people all the time. They're exactly as bad as the conspiracy theorists with their moon hoax, UFO's, suppressed cures and an overwhelming desire for high colonics. Damn, people are dumb.

fhufi said @ 7:50am GMT on 22nd Mar Wow, you must be really angry that bill passed. If I may just remark that it would be much easier to acknowledge the obvious truth in the first half of your comment if you didn't add such an incredible amount of incoherent fail after it.

maryyugo said @ 7:57am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] No, I'm not angry about the bill passing. Probably, it will improve things somewhat. I'm puzzled because I have no idea what the unintended and unanticipated consequences will be. I'm angry at distortions such as those represented by the video in the context in which it's presented and in the context of your accompanying remarks. Either you didn't know what the video was in which case you should have determined it before posting, or you posted it to mislead. Deception and duplicity, ill will, distortion and bad faith all make me angry. Very.

Ronin.ca said @ 10:22am GMT on 22nd Mar Just like I"m angry at Canada being depicted as some kind of medical gulag

maryyugo said @ 4:55pm GMT on 22nd Mar Medical care quality in Canada is basically good. Unfortunately, it's also very uncomfortable in many instances and for many people due to a lack of high technology equipment which makes for long waits. Sometimes, and I have read detailed technical reports about it, those shortages require the use of less than ideal diagnostic techniques and treatments in emergencies, for example the substitution of CT scans and even plain X-rays for MRI scans when the MRI scan would be much better. And it is true that an appreciable number of Canadians try to expedite care by getting it in "border" US states. Most Canadians like their system. The National Health System in England, by contrast, is pretty much awful. It's slow, dirty and often provides criminally bad care and obsolete treatments. It is the butt of jokes and the subjects of thousands of complaints. The current system in the US is also unconscionable. Too many people have no way to get care, no way to pay for medication, and no hope of getting help. I have no idea what this new bill will do and neither do most people. It's way too long and complicated to figure out.

Ronin.ca said @ 5:57pm GMT on 22nd Mar Define "appreciable".

ring riot said @ 6:00pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Underrated] I have no idea what this new bill will do and neither do most people. It's way too long and complicated to figure out. Once again, you're confusing your own ignorance with people who actually care enough to educate themselves. If you "don't know what this new bill will do", you simply have no excuse for that other than your own intentional disregard for knowing what's in the bill in order to preserve your paranoia about it. Those who care enough to educate themselves about these things do know what it will do. It is not "way too long" - that comment is a ridiculous right wing talking point. Is that an admittance that you have trouble reading things over a certain amount of pages? Aside from the detailed summaries of what it will accomplish and how it is accomplished that are available all over the place, and have been, it took less than a week for me to read the entire bill, a couple of hours each night, coupled with looking up the previous bills referenced in the legislation - all available online - for three nights - to understand what's in it, and what it does. "It's way too long and complicated to figure out" is what people say when they don't want to learn. If you want to learn, learn. If not, don't. But don't assume that everyone thinks it's "too long" or "too complicated" to grasp.

mrcucumber said @ 7:15pm GMT on 22nd Mar From : SEC. 1413. NURSING HOME COMPARE MEDICARE WEBSITE. (d) Guidance to States on Form 2567 State Inspection Reports and Complaint Investigation Reports- (1) GUIDANCE- The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘Secretary’) shall provide guidance to States on how States can establish electronic links to Form 2567 State inspection reports (or a successor form), complaint investigation reports, and a facility’s plan of correction or other response to such Form 2567 State inspection reports (or a successor form) on the Internet website of the State that provides information on skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities and the Secretary shall, if possible, include such information on Nursing Home Compare. (2) REQUIREMENT- Section 1902(a)(9) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(9)) is amended-- (A) by striking ‘and’ at the end of subparagraph (B); (B) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ‘, and’; (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph ‘(D) that the State maintain a consumer-oriented website providing useful information to consumers regarding all skilled nursing facilities and all nursing facilities in the State, including for each facility, Form 2567 State inspection reports (or a successor form), complaint investigation reports, the facility’s plan of correction, and such other information that the State or the Secretary considers useful in assisting the public to assess the quality of long term care options and the quality of care provided by individual facilities;’. Which successor form do they refer to? Are there specific requirements on the website, and if so, where would I find them? What useful information? Can you tell about Social Security Act section 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(9)? And what is Form 2567 State inspection report? Is it substantially different? Does the existing form even work? How about this one from the mental health section : (4) AMOUNT OF PAYMENT- (A) IN GENERAL- Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended-- (i) by striking ‘and’ before ‘(X)’; (ii) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ‘, and (Y), with respect to mental health counselor services under section 1861(s)(2)(HH), the amounts paid shall be 80 percent of the lesser of the actual charge for the services or 75 percent of the amount determined for payment of a psychologist under clause (L)’. (B) DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO CONSULTATION WITH A PHYSICIAN- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, taking into consideration concerns for patient confidentiality, develop criteria with respect to payment for mental health counselor services for which payment may be made directly to the mental health counselor under part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.) under which such a counselor must agree to consult with a patient’s attending or primary care physician in accordance with such criteria. (5) EXCLUSION OF MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR SERVICES FROM SKILLED NURSING FACILITY PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM- Section 1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)), as amended by section 1307(a) and subsection (a), is amended by inserting ‘mental health counselor services (as defined in section 1861(kkk)(1)),’ after ‘marriage and family therapist services (as defined in subsection (jjj)(1)),’. (6) COVERAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR SERVICES PROVIDED IN RURAL HEALTH CLINICS AND FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS- Section 1861(aa)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(1)(B)), as amended by subsection (a), is amended by striking ‘or by a marriage and family therapist (as defined in subsection (jjj)(2)),’ and inserting ‘by a marriage and family therapist (as defined in subsection (jjj)(2)), or a mental health counselor (as defined in subsection (kkk)(2)),’. Can you please explain to me what that means, what effect it will have on the industry as it stands now, and what articles, etc it refers to in making changes to syntax, and or content? Seems simple when you just gloss over the big picture stuff, but the devil is in the details, so they say.

mrcucumber said @ 7:48pm GMT on 22nd Mar Never mind.....

ring riot said @ 8:06pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Informative] It sounds complicated, but it's not. A Form 2567 is the state inspection report for a nursing home, a state survey. By law it must be "readily accessible" to all residents and visitors. It's usually near the front desk or hanging on the wall by the front desk. Surveys are conducted about every year to 15 months by state inspectors who work on behalf of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. You can find instructions on how to read one and what to look for at the consumerreports.org website. The relevant portion of the bill's text which you're referring to is talking about putting the state's nursing home inspection reports (a From 2567) on a website so that rather than having to find one at the home itself at the front desk, on a wall or in a binder, someone looking for a nursing home for their parents or whomever can easily check most recent and updated Form 2567 of that particular nursing home. It's saying that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will help states with the implementation of this new way of making the information available for consumers on a website. The existing forms work - but as some nursing homes, if their report is filled with criticisms (usually a long report means that you should probably avoid that nursing home, as it means there are most likely numerous problems) have posted older Form 2567's or "hide" them from potential customers, this will make the updated forms readily available for anyone to see. As to the syntax issues, they refer to language parsed by lawmakers for specific reasons, obviously - you would find the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)), which is available online, go to section 1902(a)(9) and see how the language reads as compared to when it had the 'and' or the semi-colon in question. As to the second section about mental health, it's the same process. The legislation it mentions is all available online. The language isn't really as complicated as it looks. For example, in (6), go to the section of the Social Security Act it's dealing with, and note the difference between 'or by' and 'by' in those subsections. It definitely takes time - as I said, it took me a week and a half - but it's worth it. Legal language like this can be intimidating until you actually find that it's just a lot of back-and-forth between this section and that section, etc.

ring riot said @ 8:16pm GMT on 22nd Mar In short, you shouldn't come at it as if you shouldn't know what it's saying. For example, you asked, "What is Form 2567 State Inspection Report?" You don't have to ask - just look it up. It's online. Be a detective. ;-)

mrcucumber said @ 8:25pm GMT on 22nd Mar I think that's part of my point. It takes exhaustive research to really get to the bottom of it, and most of the public relies on either the left or the right to tell them if they don't have the time, or the inclination (or the know how). I know perfectly well you have to do your research, and investigate things, but really, it can take upwards of half a day just looking up the shit that's relevant. Not to mention existing law, and or provisions. We also don't know what it means when it explains that the process is different for the appeal process, when in fact it might be just as aggravating and useless. But you understand what I mean, right?

mrcucumber said @ 8:33pm GMT on 22nd Mar ....Whew, sorry. And, I just cherry picked a few for impact, since there are syntactical changes and references to other documents that might exasperate other individuals.....

arctan said @ 8:51pm GMT on 22nd Mar No one can or should deny that the legislative process is complicated and requires a degree of expertise, as is, in fact, the case with most of the crap that experts deal with when making decisions that have billions of dollars on the line, whether in the private or public sector. What people react negatively to is the idea that our relative ignorance should terrify us into passivity -- or, worse, terrify us into *actively proposing a course of maintaining the status quo* out of some misguided precautionary principle -- rather than being a motivation to learn something -- however much you can fit into your schedule and brainspace -- about the issue, become somewhat less ignorant, and take the best-informed position you can.

ring riot said @ 8:36pm GMT on 22nd Mar Oh, totally. I'm admittedly a bit of an obsessive about process, politics and legislation, so I realize I'm not in the norm. I just wish more people knew that it's not as complicated as some make it out to be. The whole "this bill is 2700 pages!" meme on the Right is meant to intimidate the every day man or woman into thinking its filled with byzantine, impenetrable language, which incurs and feeds into the paranoia they try to instill about it. In reality, the bill is nowhere near that long - it's just that those letters, numbers and typeset, spacing and legal language makes something that should literally be as short as a sentence: "Secretary of Health and Human Services will help states implement Nursing Home inspection forms into websites accessible to all consumers" into all of that above text from the bill, which has to reference other pieces of legislation and at first appears very confusing. But yeah, it takes some time. it definitely takes time.

mrcucumber said @ 8:32pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] And....my issue with the way the system is set up is that there is nobody who can really deconstruct the bill where the absolute ramifications can be predicted. That's impossible. That is why I have such a problem with the media and government. Tow sides to every story, when there are many. This happens with any specialized field that requires interpretation. We all interpret it how we can. In this era of technology and availability of knowledge, it's practically impossible to educate yourself with everything. Hell, I still don't know some of the features my cell phone has or the specifics of how a digital camera works. You rely on others to fill in the blanks. Politics or economics are no different. Unfortunately, we all don't have the two weeks when you are researching the best school in your area, or developing a financial plan for yourself, or simply going to work, spending time with your kids or family. Priorities. You set priorities and for most taking the 2 weeks to figure it out might be our of reach, and that's not even taking into consideration that over half the populace is borderline idiot.

maryyugo said @ 8:48pm GMT on 22nd Mar Exactly. Unintended and unpredicted consequences of Medicare include that durable equipment companies can gouge the government for outrageous retail prices, overcharge grossly for rentals, use rentals when purchases would be vastly more economical, and generally cheat, rip off, and outright criminally overcharge even when no service is being given, the patient isn't a real person or is not sick, and the company is a sham. Sure, it's criminal, but nobody gets caught except rarely because enforcement is overhead and as I said earlier, government adminstrators get their jollies from minimizing overhead REGARDLESS of what it costs in the end for tax payers. They simple don't give the slightest damn for tax payers. Personal anecdotal example (an elderly relative): Medicare rented her a TENS unit for $40 a month for several years. Discount house price for same make and model: $99 (made in China, of course). I finally bought her one and stopped that tiny bit of abuse.

fhufi said @ 12:11pm GMT on 22nd Mar To be honest, I didn't know the full background of the video, it was more like a stupid provocative reply to diet's trolling. Sorry if I crossed the line. I didn't participate in past healthcare debate threads where it has probably been discussed at nausea because to me as a European, public healthcare is a no-brainer and I don't really get all the fuss about it. And of course a lot of things will turn out to be wrong with the bill. It's in the nature of law.

herra turpa said @ 12:54pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1 WTF] if you are a filthy rich, just set up a healthcare clinic for the "rich only". Gets their twisted ankles done without waiting and with ice cream. Profit. If you are on the middleclass and are worried that when you twist your ankle while doing your front lawn, and are afraid that you need to spend 3 months in a wait list before getiing it fixed? Negotiate a new insurance deal with your company that allows you to go to the "rich mans" clinic to get it done and fixed right avay while you eat ice cream. you need to spend few more bucks to that annually. Buuhuu.. (protip for rich fuckers: set up incurance companies that allow this to happen and be among the first to do so... Profit!!!) Hey middleclass welcome to the 21st century!! where you wont get a "freeride" anymore! you are the "poor suckers" that get´s pumped out nowdays. the poor under you aint worth a shit anymore, they are all squeezed out... not worth an effort to keep "forever growing economy" running out of their backs. there are back across the ocean that are more profitable then in Amerika (yes there is a land across the ocean). Then what about you poor people? Hello there! Welcome to a bit more equal world. you have earned it... (rich fucks homework, think of a new way we can collect the money spend on poor fucks, rhere must a be a way to do it? right?)

CapnSilver said @ 12:59pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1] I'm not even sure what you're saying

herra turpa said @ 1:11pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1] dont worry, im not either

psychotim said @ 12:13pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:2 Insightful] I know, it's worrying to see anecdotal evidence thrown around like that. Thankfully you're above stooping to posting sensational stories like this one.

ring riot said @ 1:10pm GMT on 22nd Mar SNAP.

psychotim said @ 5:05pm GMT on 22nd Mar Why the downmod? I'm on YOUR SIDE.

ring riot said @ 6:13pm GMT on 22nd Mar She downmodded you because she posted that exact story in her 3/8 post attacking the NHS (you know - the one with the grim reaper photo as the thumb?).

psychotim said @ 6:58pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:3] I'm aware, I just felt the best response to the downmod was further derision. I'm a classy guy.

arctan said @ 2:41pm GMT on 22nd Mar This bit of anecdotal evidence means absolutely NOTHING for the horrors of the American medical system, but your *totally unsupported claim* about "long waits" in Canada is a brutal indictment of theirs?

maryyugo said @ 4:59pm GMT on 22nd Mar Yes, it would be nice to make each post a properly referenced scholarly research report. It's not terribly practical. Long waits in Canada are well documented, if not by me in an SE post. It's why US border states have quite a bonanza from richer Canadians driving over the border to get care.

arctan said @ 5:27pm GMT on 22nd Mar No, they haven't, and no, they don't.

cb361 said @ 8:02pm GMT on 22nd Mar You're not an idiot so stop behaving like one. If you provide a reasonable level of state healthcare and then let people pay to go private if they want quicker service and blonder nurses with bigger tits, it's not an indictment of that system when some people do indeed choose to go private.

EPT said @ 9:23pm GMT on 22nd Mar That's how the system works where I am, no border crossing necessary. A safety net for *all* people, and those that will pay for it get faster treatment. I fail to see why people ask for only one or other of those two things.

Ronin.ca said @ 8:21pm GMT on 22nd Mar Hmm: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-burger/ugly-health-care-waiting-_b_55749.html < = this one is from Huffington and from the head of the RN union (or one of the Unions.. are there more than one?) and feels like a partial hit piece. God help me, but this one here I like quite a lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems#Wait_times (yes it's wikipedia)... the answer is a lot more complicated than people want to make out..

Ronin.ca said @ 8:24pm GMT on 22nd Mar Whoops! Missed this: references all sorts of studies, seems like your bonanza, you know, isn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Cross-border_health_care

lost said @ 5:37pm GMT on 22nd Mar Isolated? didn't this happen a few other times recently? Like the woman who sat screaming in pain in a waiting room and the hospital called the cops on her? She died. I seem to also remember a few cases where people died because of no insurance. So the hospital would not treat them.

lilmookieesquire said @ 2:55am GMT on 22nd Mar -1 too early.

sanepride said @ 2:58am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:2 Funny] Well he did add '(I think)'. For afrasr, a rare admission of uncertainty.

bbqkink said @ 3:07am GMT on 22nd Mar To chants of "yes we can" it has passed. votes being graveled in now.

lilmookieesquire said @ 3:27am GMT on 22nd Mar You waited a long time for this. Please enjoy. :)

bbqkink said @ 4:18am GMT on 22nd Mar My thought is, I wonder just how many everyday peoples lives were saved today?

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:20am GMT on 22nd Mar Not enough but more than before maybe :)

bbqkink said @ 8:16pm GMT on 22nd Mar Most of this including the mandatory buy in doesn't take effect until 2014. that will give them plenty of time to pass a medicare buy in or public option or what ever they will call it. The rational is now established and all it will take are the predictable yearly adjustments and by 2014 it will look much better than it does now. I did have high hopes that the 1st step would be ...more inclusive than this but it is obvious now that they have crossed the line. This thing is far from what was needed, it leaves a lot of cracks for people to fall through, like my wife for one all I have to do is convince my wife to stay healthy for 3 1/2 years. The insurance companies are still there taking their profit off the top(maybe a little less now) but they are now regulated..a big step. The big thing that I hoped the most is a definition of what is basic medical health care..what is the minimum level of coverage. never happened. I heard rumors that the "exchanges" would establish that but nothing yet. Bottom line this was a huge step, but it was just the 1st step.

tiemy said @ 3:35am GMT on 23rd Mar The Democrats had a greater political advantage when they set out to "reform" the system than they had seen in decades. If they were going to implement any real public interest reform, you would've just seen it passed. So, in short: you're engaging in some very, very wishful thinking.

HoZay said @ 7:56am GMT on 22nd Mar High Fives, bbq! You willed it to happen!

Anti-fuites said @ 3:05am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Informative] And now it's official

sanepride said @ 3:07am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Informative] Live coverage via C-Span, for those interested.

Betty said @ 3:10am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Underrated] it passed!

ring riot said @ 3:10am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Informative] Bill passes - 219 - 212.

sanepride said @ 3:24am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] 11 pm EDT - Republicans are trying to rescind the passage by sending the bill back to committee. Some great fiery rhetoric going on. This is as much fun as watching Congress gets.

Xiph0 said @ 3:34am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Informative] The motion to recommit has failed.

lost said @ 5:31pm GMT on 22nd Mar HA HA

ring riot said @ 3:51am GMT on 22nd Mar UPDATE: Reconciliation bill ALSO passes. That heads to the Senate now.

Xiph0 said @ 3:33am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Underrated] It passed. YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

delacroix said @ 4:55am GMT on 22nd Mar Who else read that as a Wilhelm scream?

ring riot said @ 5:12am GMT on 22nd Mar No, that would be more like: AaaaahhhhhwwwwoooH!!!

lost said @ 5:55pm GMT on 23rd Mar huh.. I read it as a Lil Jon YEAAAAAHHHHHH

bruceski said @ 5:25am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:2 Funny] I read it as CSI: Miami. Though for that it needs a bad one-liner like "This bill... *glasses* ...has come due." YEAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Xiph0 said @ 7:10am GMT on 22nd Mar It was intended as a CSI: Miami YEAHHHHH but I'm not witty.

ring riot said @ 3:45am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:5 Interesting] An analysis from former Bush speechwriter and staunch conservative, David Frum: "Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994. Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure. This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none. Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994. Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law. No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal? We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother? I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: the Republican party's."

sanepride said @ 4:06am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:3 Insightful] A remarkably insightful analysis. Though I guess you could call Frum a 'staunch' conservative, I think most of your current mainstream GOP/right-wing leaders would differ. He really represents the dying breed of Buckley-style 'intellectual' conservatives.

ring riot said @ 4:16am GMT on 22nd Mar TRUE.

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:48am GMT on 22nd Mar Thank you for posting that.

drzapato said @ 9:53am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] absolutely. Intellectualism is so detested by the loudest voices in the conservative movement these days that Frum might as well be a liberal as far as many of them are concerned.

Dalillama said @ 5:43pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] What intellectualism? Articulate != intellectual, and all this guy has is articulate. An intellectual article would actually weight the pros and cons of the legislation, and concern itself with the actual costs and benefits of the bill, other possible solutions, etc. (Note: I'm not that fond of the bill that passed, personally, but it's a first step towards actually efficiently providing health care to Americans). Instead, all he's concerned about is whether it's ideologically pure and whether it's good or bad for his team. This isn't intellectualism, it's the same ideological reality denying crap that Conservatives have been pushing for decades.

drzapato said @ 6:55pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] if he were intending to discuss the merits of the bill with that article, then yes that is what he would explore, but the point of the article is to discuss the political strategy of his party. Just because in this particular article he isn't discussing the topic you want him to discuss doesn't mean that he isn't an intellectual.

Dalillama said @ 7:32pm GMT on 22nd Mar You misunderstand me. The fact that he argues that his party should continue to base all decisions on whether they are ideologically pure, and evidently feels that the failure of the Republican party was in using the wrong bullshit, rather than their failure being that they rely on bullshit over facts. He makes no excuses for his insistence that market fundamentalism and "Republican Values" are what the party should base their campaigns on, not what's good for the country or the world. He is a ideologue who differs from the pundits he criticizes only in that he has more refined bullshit to sling.

drzapato said @ 8:07pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] Conservatives promote free-market economics and "Republican Values" because it is what they think is best for the country. You and I may not agree on that, but its ridiculous to criticize him for not using the vague but feel-good language of "what's good for the country." There aren't many people that aren't seeking "what's good for the country," so can we just lend each other that courtesy so we don't have to constantly and explicitly say that our political outlook is because we seek what's good for the country. Frum is criticizing that his party has taken the approach of shutting down the political process rather than taking part in it. I think he is less of an ideologue than you think. I've always disliked Frum in the past too, although he has won some respect from me over the past year. I don't mind people that ideologically differ from me as long as they are willing to seriously discuss issues and accept compromise so that progress can be made.

Dalillama said @ 8:50pm GMT on 22nd Mar I'm not saying that he doesn't sincerely want what's best for the country, I'm saying he shows very little evidence (in the columns I've read, I looked up a couple of his other ones for comparison), of actually applying facts and critical thinking to the process of determining what's good for America. This removes his credibility as an intellectual in my mind. The fact that he's more willing to acknowledge facts than the pundits he rails against makes him less anti-intellectual, but it doesn't make him one.

Naruki said @ 11:31am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] Tell me the truth: this guy is a Liberal deep cover operative, right?

sanepride said @ 2:35am GMT on 23rd Mar Most of the current GOP would probably think so.

tomintroy said @ 2:35pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1 WTF] Anybody that thinks that government involvement in any part of the economy is acceptable is no conservative, Period.

Naruki said @ 2:52pm GMT on 22nd Mar He's certainly no true Scotsman, that's for sure. About that...

Krutz said @ 3:18pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Funny] Ugh, the "true conservative" mantra. Y'know, ideological purity is just causing the Republicans to eat themselves alive. They've got no problem with it giving huge contracts to private industry, they've got no problem with corporate welfare, they've got no problem with it when it comes to their own districts, pet projects, or cash flowing to religious institutions. It's getting so the only "true conservative" could be some doughy guy on an island in the middle of a stream holding a shotgun shouting "git offa mah land!" while he mints his own currency by melting down his mother's jewelry.

Krutz said @ 3:15pm GMT on 22nd Mar So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. David Frum is an odd duck. He'll almost but not quite ever realize that a lot of the time, his party's favoring of tactics to gain power trump ideology every time. And for all his talk about free markets and what have you, he fails to realize that the GOP hasn't been about free markets since, well, ever, beyond their talking points. He also doesn't seem to even look at the policies involved here as to whether or not they're beneficial, or just, or anything: He's just concerned about his "side" losing, and that is a major part of the problem with his party in the first place. And even he doesn't see it.

drzapato said @ 7:07pm GMT on 22nd Mar the article has a narrow focus. He doesn't intend to discuss the merits of the bill. He's analyzing the political strategy of his party and the effect of right-wing pundits on that strategy. An analysis of the merits of the bill isn't especially relevant to that. He's not just lamenting his side losing. He's decrying a strategy and an atmosphere of such irrational hostility that kept Conservative lawmakers from seriously taking part in crafting the bill through negotiation and bargaining.

Krutz said @ 7:55pm GMT on 22nd Mar I was speaking from a POV of not just having read that article, but from listening to him every so often on (of all places) NPR. He's a strategist by and large. He's got the usual meaningless talking points (free markets and privatization, no social spending, etc. that the GOP never seems to get around to actually following) but seems to never weigh the merits of actual policies. This was the guy who invented the "Axis of Evil" brand of cow patties, after all.

lost said @ 5:24pm GMT on 22nd Mar wow. Why they fuck have I not heard about this guy till now? insightful...

sanepride said @ 3:52am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Informative] 11:31 EDT Reconciliation bill just passed. bbqkink, my anxious friend, I'm clink my glass to yours, virtually speaking. Cheers!

Xiph0 said @ 3:56am GMT on 22nd Mar Fuck. Yes.

flat_michael said @ 4:07am GMT on 22nd Mar Obama triumphs at his Waterloo. His presidency is validated. For now. What's next?

nbob said @ 4:12am GMT on 22nd Mar A trip to Australia and then re-election.

sanepride said @ 4:23am GMT on 22nd Mar He's talking immigration reform. Which is not exactly scaling things back after this.

serenitynow said @ 8:40am GMT on 22nd Mar

ring riot said @ 1:15pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Informative] Fake. Photoshopped by the Arizona GOP.

serenitynow said @ 2:58pm GMT on 22nd Mar Hah .I suppose you're going to say this one is photoshopped too!

psychotim said @ 3:08pm GMT on 22nd Mar This is really begging to be made into a "gentlemen" image.

maryyugo said @ 5:02pm GMT on 22nd Mar Unfortunately, President Obama admits to still smoking. He has a stressful job. Apart from the image issue, it will shorten his life. Because of his race, it is likely it will shorten his life even more than if he were of so-called Caucasian origin. It shouldn't be a big deal whether he smokes or not. It's his choice and his consequences.

ring riot said @ 6:20pm GMT on 22nd Mar Admits to still struggling with it, having one occasionally. Having been a smoker myself and having quit, if you're down to that, you're fairly close to quitting for good.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:58am GMT on 23rd Mar Why on earth are they stooping to photochop? Are they unable to get actual photos of a smoker smoking?

Krutz said @ 1:37am GMT on 23rd Mar I'm guessing they needed a "tired" Obama photo and the ones they found with him smoking looked too "suave" or "relaxed" or what have you.

arctan said @ 5:49am GMT on 24th Mar I think he's actually been pretty careful about never lighting up when he can tell there's press around (and say what you will about the President living in a fishbowl, but the Secret Service protection probably means he has a much easier time being confident of no press when he really wants no press than someone like Hilary Duff). The uncharitable way to say it is he doesn't want his polls to go down from disapproving Americans; the charitable way to say it is he doesn't want one of his personal weaknesses that he's struggling to overcome to be a bad influence on kids who look to him as a role model. Either way I don't blame him.

f00m@nB@r said @ 4:18am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:4] http://didtheypasshealthcarereform.com/

Ebichuman said @ 11:57am GMT on 22nd Mar I can't stop clicking! It just gets better and better!

mrcucumber said @ 6:56pm GMT on 22nd Mar FUcking unicorns? Did some 10 year old girl do this?

cb361 said @ 7:23pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Funny] Sounds like someone needs a hug. A unicorn hug.

mrcucumber said @ 7:47pm GMT on 22nd Mar Hey, watch that bone, mate.

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:30am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:2 Underrated] All I can really say is it's quite nice to see Iraq-war-level spending spent domestically for a change. I think this is really the first time in my life I've seen that happen (am I wrong here?) That said, this is Obama's Iraq war. He needs to get re-elected to "finish the job" (or blame the failings on Republicans). Call me a dirty socialist, but I was never a big fan of the Starship Troopers' version of citizenship.

Ankylosaur said @ 7:28am GMT on 22nd Mar Buglover.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:38am GMT on 22nd Mar

Dioxin said @ 5:33pm GMT on 22nd Mar Wasn't this movie about how the amish were going to save the federation from a bug controlled sky marshal?

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:15am GMT on 23rd Mar This movie was awesome satire until the end when they forgot it was satire...

disc said @ 5:03am GMT on 22nd Mar I for one am happy that it passed. Not for the Americans, but for Canadians. more specifically, Albertan's . The Conservative Gov't has been for ever cutting back, and trying to privatize every aspect of public health care. Americans finally having a public health care option, and right to health care, might take some of the pressure of the Canadian system.

foobar said @ 5:57am GMT on 22nd Mar So... would you guys like Alberta? You can have it real cheap.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:59am GMT on 22nd Mar Isn't that part of California yet?

Xiph0 said @ 7:17am GMT on 22nd Mar Yes.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 8:14am GMT on 22nd Mar Throw in a free Albertasaurus and it's a deal!

Ankylosaur said @ 10:31am GMT on 22nd Mar Do you have Prince Albert in a can?

psychotim said @ 12:09pm GMT on 22nd Mar Disclaimer: Your mormon population may double.

lilmookieesquire said @ 12:45pm GMT on 22nd Mar Throw them in Utah. The Thunderdome is running out of fresh blood.

psychotim said @ 3:17pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] I think we only got the ones who were too backwards to find their way there in the first place, they'd probably just return them.

maryyugo said @ 7:08am GMT on 22nd Mar Biggest problem for the moment is that nobody really knows what got passed. If you download the actual bill, which a friend of mine did, it's 2700 pages in PDF format. Much of it references other sections. All of it is obscure, convoluted and cryptic. And the law won't be what's eventually enforced. Government bureaucrats will interpret the law into regulations. So what will the average person knows? If there was a God, she'd be the only one to know.

ring riot said @ 11:39am GMT on 22nd Mar Um. No. Not at all. It's you who doesn't know what got passed - because you choose to remain uninformed. But as I'm only interested in speaking to intelligent people right now, I'm just going to let that comment slide. Enjoy your evening.

mrcucumber said @ 5:26pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] It seems to me that you are actively involved in politics. At least by the tone and facility you have in presenting information that is not easily accessible to those outside the beltway (or ass deep in politics) - or those that look at every bit of news everyday. I think that's something you overlook. Not everybody has the time nor inclination(because you know, there's other stuff in life besides money and politics) to look into every detail, what anybody said at the moment, where it's only of interest to those who look at the news cycle every day(much of which is irrelevant political partisanship and posturing). Before you start slamming those that aren't making themselves "aware," consider that as a fault of democracy in a country this size - something you so staunchly defend as mans greatest creation. I guess if you're not "informed" then you must be stupid and ignorant - and you simply don't have the time to speak to them. Nice. Sounds just like Jaxtraw and donnie. Besides, you never answered my question if you read all 2400 + pages. Line by line, and how it will be implemented, if it even says so in the bill. Wait, and how it dovetails into existing law, or anything else for that matter. I guess you also know the business models and balance sheets of every insurer, hospital, and doctor, down to the last cent, 'cause you certainly talk as though you do. I think there are good things about the bill(as much as I know, at this point) but I also know that it is impossible to truly understand the thousands of pages in contains, and how it will ultimately manifest itself. You don't strike me as a constitutional lawyer, tax attorney, or an expert in law, or an economist writing books and such. Sorry, your arrogance, presumption and condescension is showing. Enjoy your day.

ring riot said @ 6:58pm GMT on 22nd Mar Point taken, but I think you might be missing some context. While it's very true that I'm much more interested in pouring through the details of these things (and to answer your question, as I said below in another comment - I have read the current bill - including the previous bills - as well as the reconciliation bill - it took me less than a week of 2 hours a night, with a couple of hours a night noting the older legislation it references, etc., and I've been following this more closely than many for the last year) than your "average" person who follows these events, I was specifically referring to mary and not anyone else - comments like "it's way too long and complicated and only God could know," etc. as it comes from her, is a classic, par for the course mary comment and resonant of her previous dismissals of things (things which she often doesn't want to know about) in the history of her presence here on SE. In other words - it was directed at her specifically - not people in general - as she is constantly "condescending, presumptive and arrogant" toward others. Also, keep in mind, we're talking about someone who has literally said, repeatedly, things like learning and understanding history, either American or World - is "stupid" because it's "old" and "who cares". That's what I can't stand. Willful ignorance. It doesn't mean they're a stupid person - it means they're choosing to be ignorant about a certain thing. I find that to be offensive and I always have. So forgive me if my remarks towards maryyugo occasionally veer into a bitter tone. We have a bit of a tense history on SE for that reason. Hope that makes sense. That and I have a nasty sinus infection right now which is making me a bit cranky.

ring riot said @ 7:13pm GMT on 22nd Mar Also, I'm active politically, yes, but I'm not "involved in politics".

mrcucumber said @ 7:17pm GMT on 22nd Mar Clarification understood. I hope you're taking something for that infection....

ring riot said @ 7:35pm GMT on 22nd Mar Antibiotics. Clearing up, but ugh...

gunthar said @ 7:50am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:2] thanks to this, i now know who to weed from my facebook friendslist... fuck yeah crossing out stupid people! i am drunk

maryyugo said @ 7:58am GMT on 22nd Mar i am envious.

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 6:42am GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] Oh god I had one actually say "I'm an independent but I'm with the republicans on this one" She says that every single time, it is her catch phrase of undelayed republican support. Although I guess that is the whole point of the tea party thing: a whole group so shamed by supporting the most hated figure in the world that they feel the need to not even be associated with the same party as him while agreeing lockstep with all of his [& it's] current principles. Ask any one of them and they will proclaim their "independent" status so quickly that they won't even have time to pull Cheney's cock out of their mouth first. Let's just hope they take a piece with them, let us please.

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 8:38am GMT on 22nd Mar Oh man I bet Freerepublic is going ape shit.

assbastard said @ 10:01am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Underrated] Fuck Freerepublic, go read Rapture Ready. It's HILARIOUS!

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 12:09pm GMT on 22nd Mar How can you tell the difference at rapture ready?

Silent said @ 3:48pm GMT on 22nd Mar Oh god, oh god I tried, I really tried. I do not know who Bill Keller is, I do not care, all I know is I want to punch him in the face and then punch him in the face again... and again... MAKE IT STOP.

ring riot said @ 11:48am GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:5] Wanna know what Free Republic is saying? Here are some comments I pulled off of the site last night - and no, these aren't made up: "...Chase them up a tree and then throw rocks at them. Have the look of fear and terror show on their faces when they ask the press what happened. Surround their cars and rock them. A life filled with cold sweating nightmares and awakening to every little creak and knock in their house is what they deserve." "buy a gun... While you still can." "Naturally, My children, this light that they bear stands for Lucifer, and as such they have gone through the world secretly known as Luciferians. They have brought into your country, the United States, and your neighbor Canada, a group of witchcraft practices. Well have they laid their plan to destroy your children with drugs, using your school systems, your medias of communication, your newspapers, your televisions, your radios: every means of communication has been infiltrated by the member and sub-members of the Luciferians, a conglomeration of individuals and powers and principalities throughout the world, and banking systems. As you well know, My children, money has always been the root of all evil, and many have sold their souls to get to the head." "This is it. They're going to have to arrest a whole lot of people in the coming year." "I’ve said it would almost be worth it to miss the rapture just to see the looks on these satan lovers when Jesus kicks his butt. The key word being "almost". I do pray it happens soon. If not then I pray for a nuke to hit D.C. and take them all out. In fact, I’m at the point of helping the muslims take it over. Let’s see how Nancy would lie having to wear a rag over her stretched face." "Remember the good old days when militias were laughed at? Was Timothy McVeigh was right? Is it that bad?" Yes, you read that last one correctly. "I know that a few of their smoking carcasses hanging from a bridge maybe asking too much but it would be nice." "This POS deserves a UPS delivery of baby dolls with bashed in heads delivered to him. I hope he rots in hell." "Oil them up. Start e-mailing and contacting senior military officers. Ask them to uphold their oath to protect our constitution. Contact any kin you have in the military. Let them know what is going on,if they don’t already know." "I spit on those young one who support this and that includes my own children." Yes, you read that one correctly, too "It’s time for another revolution to throw out the Usurper and those who aided and abetted him in his Socialist takeover." "After a while more and more people will be hungry and the hoards will be coming after us. I have 500 rounds of ammo. Do I kill 499 and save the last one for myself?" That's what Free Republic is thinking.

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 11:56am GMT on 22nd Mar Consider that a +1 /Wrists

herra turpa said @ 12:31pm GMT on 22nd Mar care to explain what is this to a (clearly) sosialist eurotrash?

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 12:56pm GMT on 22nd Mar The down-syndrome side of the peanut gallery.

f00m@nB@r said @ 1:43pm GMT on 22nd Mar http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

Naruki said @ 2:55pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] It is apparently a website where homicidal maniacs can exchange ideas free from the interference of liberals.

Krutz said @ 7:58pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:1 Interesting] And by "liberal," they mean anyone to the left of Newt Gingrich. They also routinely cleanse the threads of any dissenting opinions or facts, so unless you want to time how long it takes to get banned, it's not worth posting there. I often wonder which board would have the most racial epithets per capita, freerepublic or 4chan?

Naruki said @ 4:46am GMT on 23rd Mar Is per capita a valid metric for web forums?

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 6:43am GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:1 Insightful] If "shit tonne" is, then I would say yes.

lilmookieesquire said @ 12:37pm GMT on 22nd Mar Is this like self satire? WTF.

Krutz said @ 3:22pm GMT on 22nd Mar 1. Holy shit, but not surprising. 2. You use the term "thinking" incorrectly, there. :) It's like someone has genetically engineered human-shaped ebola and allowed it to post on the internet.

pleaides said @ 8:57am GMT on 22nd Mar Thank fuck for that. Welcome to the civilised world guys ;D

serenitynow said @ 10:37am GMT on 22nd Mar

Quenadian said @ 7:53am GMT on 25th Mar +1 Michael Ironside... "This is for all you new people. I only have one rule. Everyone fights. No one quits. If you don't do your job, I'll shoot you. You get me?" "WE GET YOU, SIR!" :-D

granitewitch said @ 10:05am GMT on 22nd Mar Having broken my ankle the night before last, I can only say that I'm hopeful that something good will come of this...

ScoobySnacks said @ 6:55pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:3 Funny] http://www.aticketforrush.com/

maryyugo said @ 8:52pm GMT on 22nd Mar Part of the whole problem and part of the modern world is that we no longer seem to have programs like The Advocates. Not even on PBS. Instead we have talking heads, mostly aggressive and narcissistic morons on both sides. People like Limbaugh and whoever his liberal equivalent is. And they are given air time without appropriate opposition ON THE SAME PROGRAM. That way nobody learns anything. Health care reform should have been extensively studied by academics and scholars before it was carried out. It should have been extensively debated using calm and appropriate, comprehensible formats with BOTH SIDES represented at the same time. But this rarely if ever happened. Instead we have an overly complex, unpredictable, possibly to be partly repealed, largely not publicly understood or supported piece of arguable legislation. It's a mess. I read recently that the experiment in Mass. with public funding of medical care is going badly. Why was not a small trial of this proposed complex new system made before the whole country was involved?

pumpei said @ 10:10pm GMT on 22nd Mar [Score:-1 Troll] Even at the risk of the trolling mods, I'll just say it for everyone here, SHUT UP YOU STUPID CUNT.

serenitynow said @ 11:33pm GMT on 22nd Mar quote[ It's a mess.] But it's a mess in the right direction. Don't underestimate a mess in the right direction. :P

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:19am GMT on 23rd Mar [Score:2 Insightful] It goes well under private insurance because they can pass old people off onto government via Medicare/Medicade and drop liabilities (pre-existing conditions). The system won't hold under the weight of the aging babyboomers. The insurance companies' CEOs are obligated to their shareholders to milk what they can from the government while they still can. Managerial Economics and Organizational Architecture 4th Edition by Brickley, Smith, Zimmerman and some other amoral assholes. Read: "...managers have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the value of their firm- not to maximize social welfare. Regulation can have..." pg. 647 And THAT is why healthcare should NOT be run by private business. (My other books had ethics. I bitched out the teacher for using a shit book.)

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:21am GMT on 23rd Mar ps. The argument against that is focusing on longterm value, not short term gains. Ie. Obama vs. Bush.

gunthar said @ 6:15am GMT on 23rd Mar i am suddenly wishing i did not sell back my economics of healthcare book that illustrates why it is more efficient and cheaper for the US to switch to single payer

Krutz said @ 4:33pm GMT on 23rd Mar Hell, just cutting out the profit-driven middlemen (HMOs) and offering wellness (checkups, early detection) along with immediate care for injury so breaking your leg doesn't cost you your house would help immensely.

Misanthrope said @ 2:45am GMT on 24th Mar BBQKINK HAVE YOU EVER GAINED AN ERECTION AT THE THOUGHT OF A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM?

Misanthrope said @ 2:45am GMT on 24th Mar BECAUSE I HAVE

Barnabas_Truman said @ 3:11am GMT on 24th Mar WELL YEAH WHO HASN'T

Barnabas_Truman said @ 3:12am GMT on 24th Mar UM WHAT I MEAN IS SOME OF MY FRIENDS DO OR SO I HEARD

[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.