Obamacare cost...

[VirginiaCougar]

She made the decision to not waive the rule. Her decision was to let the girl die.

Of course, Sebelius' decision to let the girl die is only a part of the article I linked. Do you want to address the part about a panel that is appointed by the POTUS, confirmed by the Senate and answers to practically nobody?

You don't understand the problem there? Acting to replace a long, long standing rule IS the epitome of Death Panel, with individuals deciding who lives or dies. That is the very reason the donor system was set up the way that it was.

Second, what conservatives call a death panel is absurd. For all the faults of Obamacare (and there are many) that kind of boogeyman politics is silly and not helpful. Sadly most of our politics today have degenerated into the politics of scandal as opposed to policy. Its politics of emotions, politics of the lowest common denominator (and it is quite a low number) - the sign of not standing for anything.

[il Padrino Ute]

You don't understand the problem there? Acting to replace a long, long standing rule IS the epitome of Death Panel, with individuals deciding who lives or dies. That is the very reason the donor system was set up the way that it was.

Second, what conservatives call a death panel is absurd. For all the faults of Obamacare (and there are many) that kind of boogeyman politics is silly and not helpful. Sadly most of our politics today have degenerated into the politics of scandal as opposed to policy. Its politics of emotions, politics of the lowest common denominator (and it is quite a low number) - the sign of not standing for anything.

Lots of progressive drivel, especially about what conservatives call a death panel. There's no sense in either of us discussing any of this, as I can't convince you of anything and there's no way in hell you'll ever convince me that your points are valid.

[Topper]

You don't understand the problem there? Acting to replace a long, long standing rule IS the epitome of Death Panel, with individuals deciding who lives or dies. That is the very reason the donor system was set up the way that it was.

Second, what conservatives call a death panel is absurd. For all the faults of Obamacare (and there are many) that kind of boogeyman politics is silly and not helpful. Sadly most of our politics today have degenerated into the politics of scandal as opposed to policy. Its politics of emotions, politics of the lowest common denominator (and it is quite a low number) - the sign of not standing for anything.

The Left plays the same game, if what you say is true. But in reality, what you're saying is you will decry the political rubric, when it is used against the Left, but ignore it when the Left uses it against the Right or libertarians.

The argument that it is silly really ignores the tools politics uses to achieves the results. Politics is not a fine instrument, even though you can find people who the blunt instrument of political persuasion deftly. To remake this demonization process, you would need to remake humanity.

How many times have we heard the President demonize the opposition, in a silly and dishonest manner, by decrying their politicalization of an issue? Almost every time he speaks about legislation which isn't popularly supported by each side. In other words, this form of rhetoric is standard fare.

[VirginiaCougar]

The Left plays the same game, if what you say is true. But in reality, what you're saying is you will decry the political rubric, when it is used against the Left, but ignore it when the Left uses it against the Right or libertarians.

The argument that it is silly really ignores the tools politics uses to achieves the results. Politics is not a fine instrument, even though you can find people who the blunt instrument of political persuasion deftly. To remake this demonization process, you would need to remake humanity.

Many on the left do make the same argument, very true. It is also unhelpful. However, the most virulent and problematic cult of ideology today is on the right, not on the left. That hasn't always been the case historically, nor necessarily will it be in the future - but it certainly is now.

[Topper]

Many on the left do make the same argument, very true. It is also unhelpful. However, the most virulent and problematic cult of ideology today is on the right, not on the left. That hasn't always been the case historically, nor necessarily will it be in the future - but it certainly is now.

Really? You're not much of a student of political history if you say that. I could go back to Machiavelli, or even further back, to find this form of rhetoric engaged against one's rivals.

Sometimes the rhetoric is for retail politics, and sometimes, more rarely, for wholesale politics. I remember meeting a brand new politician introducing himself to a lobbyist. "Hi, I'm Tom, I'm different because I'm not going to be political about this, but rather I intend to make the right decision." He became the most political in his machinations from day one.

[VirginiaCougar]

Yes, really. As far as political history goes, I am more than happy to have that conversation.

It is odd you go back to Machiavelli as it is not directly related to my point. If anything, it may actually be somewhat consistent with the point I made. Even more ironic is that you seem to forget his solution to bad human nature among citizens. Did you forget the prince?

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

[Topper]

Yes, really. As far as political history goes, I am more than happy to have that conversation.

It is odd you go back to Machiavelli as it is not directly related to my point. If anything, it may actually be somewhat consistent with the point I made. Even more ironic is that you seem to forget his solution to bad human nature among citizens. Did you forget the prince?

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

I love the Prince. I like Matthews.

I disagree the simplification then exaggeration process differs from era, if in anything other than degree. Politics is about obtaining and maintaining power by whatever means. Sometimes it is by force, other times through rhetoric and manipulation. We will not remake the base nature of human nature in its political endeavors.

[ERCougar]

Policymakers had hoped that programs aimed at treating some of these patients' conditions in doctors' offices would reduce the amount of money the program spent on costly emergency room visits and inpatient hospital care, but Joynt told Reuters Health that hasn't happened.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...95P0OU20130626

Duh.
Do any of these policymakers include physicians who actually see patients? Because anyone who does could have told them this.
I'm so frustrated by people seeing things the way they really really want them to be. There is not nearly as much redundancy and cost-cutting opportunities as "policymakers" think there are. Medicare fraud isn't nearly as prevalent as policymakers would like to think it is. Refusing to pay hospitals because a patient is readmitted within 30 days isn't cutting the fat--it's just not paying for what you owe. All this Medicare cost-saving nonsense does is squeeze out smaller hospitals/physician groups who can't afford to pay a compliance officer (yes, another cost).

[CardiacCoug]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...95P0OU20130626

Duh.
Do any of these policymakers include physicians who actually see patients? Because anyone who does could have told them this.
I'm so frustrated by people seeing things the way they really really want them to be. There is not nearly as much redundancy and cost-cutting opportunities as "policymakers" think there are. Medicare fraud isn't nearly as prevalent as policymakers would like to think it is. Refusing to pay hospitals because a patient is readmitted within 30 days isn't cutting the fat--it's just not paying for what you owe. All this Medicare cost-saving nonsense does is squeeze out smaller hospitals/physician groups who can't afford to pay a compliance officer (yes, another cost).

Yep. I agree. I think it's a total myth that access to preventive and outpatient health care saves money. The cheapest thing that can happen for our society is when people never see a doctor and die of something catastrophic when they are 65 that previously went undetected because they never saw a doctor. That's super cheap.

It's good for people to undertake preventive health care measures but it's crazy to think it saves much money in any kind of long-term sense. Since everybody eventually gets sick and dies, if anything preventive care just delays the health care spending that will ultimately be needed. It has always seemed to me that good preventive care could even increase health care spending -- if everybody lives a long time, they live long enough to need expensive orthopedic, cardiac, and often cancer treatments since all those problems increase exponentially with age. If you catch the cancer at age 60 and save a patient's life through preventive care, then that just gives the patient more years to consume health care resources and more years to develop chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, severe arthritis later in life that will like cost even much more money than if they had died earlier.

I've read and it seems accurate that 10-20% of people in any population incur 80-90% of health care expenses and I like the concept of an "Ambulatory ICU" that pours a lot of health care resources (nurses, social workers, therapists, home phone calls and visits, etc.) into outpatients that are high utilizers of ERs and other health care resources for whatever reason. That seems like a good idea and I think a lot of large organizations like Intermountain are planning on doing more to identify these patients that consume huge amounts of health care and try to do everything possible to keep these patients at home and out of ERs and hospitals.

[il Padrino Ute]

Word is, Sebelius contacted the NFL to help promote Obamacare and the NFL has stated that it has no plans to do it.

[Indy Coug]

UHC exiting individual California market.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,4370321.story

[Moliere]

UHC exiting individual California market.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,4370321.story

Sounds like they were a small player in the market but still, the impact is interesting.

[Goatnapper'96]

Methinks 2014 is beginning to rest heavily upon some Senators' minds:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...-care-mandate/

It has to be a tuffie to deal with the individual mandate. The administration can't delay, or do away with, that one or else insurance premiums will skyrocket even more than it is already apparent to every human save CaliCoug (lalalalalala...I am not listening! somewhere a Californian bureaucrat told me what I want to hear) as the individual mandate is what justifies insurance companies not assessing premiums based upon some component of risk and thus keep rates reasonable for those with pre-existing conditions.

Regardless, perhaps this could be the first step of dismantling employer offered insurance and a move to a rational model that consists of a low level socialized program (sorry po folk I don't think your falsies, teeth restoration or lasik surgeries are a social cost no matter how many think tanks assure me if you were proud of your smile your self-esteem would go through the roof and the economic impact would be limitless) and then those who want better coverage can purchase it themselves. Then again maybe not.

[Moliere]

Methinks 2014 is beginning to rest heavily upon some Senators' minds:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...-care-mandate/

It has to be a tuffie to deal with the individual mandate. The administration can't delay, or do away with, that one or else insurance premiums will skyrocket even more than it is already apparent to every human save CaliCoug (lalalalalala...I am not listening! somewhere a Californian bureaucrat told me what I want to hear) as the individual mandate is what justifies insurance companies not assessing premiums based upon some component of risk and thus keep rates reasonable for those with pre-existing conditions.

Regardless, perhaps this could be the first step of dismantling employer offered insurance and a move to a rational model that consists of a low level socialized program (sorry po folk I don't think your falsies, teeth restoration or lasik surgeries are a social cost no matter how many think tanks assure me if you were proud of your smile your self-esteem would go through the roof and the economic impact would be limitless) and then those who want better coverage can purchase it themselves. Then again maybe not.

I read through that release and it sounds more like they are so incompetent that it will take them another year to get it implemented. I mean, they apparently haven't even issued the rules yet, which are now promised to be delivered this summer.

[il Padrino Ute]

I read through that release and it sounds more like they are so incompetent that it will take them another year to get it implemented. I mean, they apparently haven't even issued the rules yet, which are now promised to be delivered this summer.

Either that or they think voters are dumb enough to forgive them for shoving this down our throats and won't toss them out on their backsides in the '14 elections.