CTH Public Relations

• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• China by CO2HOG [August 23, 2011, 12:41:08 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Torture by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 12:40:39 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40600
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 27
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 32
Total: 32

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

Hypocrite Harry Reid’s Filibuster Flip Flop

Ol' Harry was singing a different tune in 2005.

Are the republican's in favor of filibustering now or do they still oppose it?

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

Prez's newest idea: Simply outlaw reality

Charles Hurt

WASHINGTON -- Included in President 0bama's latest stab at health-care reform released yesterday is one of the more astonishing admissions of political deception in recent memory.

After months of swearing that his health legislation would lower the skyrocketing costs of insurance premiums, 0bama finally acknowledged that actually it would not.

So, instead, he has included a new provision that can simply outlaw premium increases his administration deems "unreasonable and unjustified."

This, in lieu of literally years of promises and proclamations about transforming the American hospital-industrial complex in a way that would drastically lower the cost of medicine in this country and leave insurance companies scrambling to lower the premiums they charge customers.

During his campaign, 0bama flatly promised to lower families' health-insurance premiums by $2,500 every year.

Then, after he ascended to the throne, 0bama repeatedly insisted without any reservations that all the health-care alchemy inspired by him would magically lower those premiums.

Even in the face of congressional accountants who repeatedly raised doubts about those promises, 0bama insisted.

Now the comes the truth.

Of course, having so easily slid into the sordid ways of Washington, Obama does not admit this in so many words. In fact, the White House continues to broadly insist that the latest proposal lowers premiums.

So, why, then, create a whole new federal law to cap premium hikes?

There is only one reason: Even this White House can no longer keep up the charade

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/prez_newest_idea_simply_outlaw_reality_A9lsWAXwaEQj2UheOJojIK#ixzz0gM5YV6y2

The 17th Amendment has to go!

http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgcihYQI%2Em4v

Stafford Hospital caused ‘unimaginable suffering’

Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.

An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.

The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7039285.ece

Benefits of the 3rd payer system

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/sH2YQ6djxTE&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/sH2YQ6djxTE&rel=0</a>

Treat me like a pet!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/nasHbuizvwE&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/nasHbuizvwE&rel=0</a>

Lowering the Cost of Health Care

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates.  The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums.  The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law.  As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws.  Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer.  But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world.  Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time.  America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral.  The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down.  As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

You posted this piece  -- are you willing to defend it or do you agree with me that it is stupid and dishonest?



'For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world."


I'm sorry but I don't believe this statement. What is the evidence for it?

"America had the finest doctors and hospitals..."

Notice the use of the past tense implying that we no longer have the finest doctors and hospitals. What is the evidence for this?

According to one ranking the top 10 hospitals in the world are:

1     University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston      
2    University of Michigan Health System    
3    University of Kansas Medical Center    
4    NYU Langone Medical Center New York, NY       
5    University of Virginia Health System    
6    Vanderbilt Medical Center    
7    Chang Gung Memorial Hospital *    
8    Johns Hopkins Medicine        
9    Taipei Veterans General Hospital
10    University of Rochester Medical Center    

Source: http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp

Notice that 9 of the 10 are in the United States.

This little jerk Ron Paul should make an effort to do a simple Google search before he makes more of a fool of himself.

"The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral.  The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down.  As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high."

What is the evidence for this? -- any idiot can make false and unfounded claims.

Our current system is the most expensive system in the world. The rest of the developed world has a socialized system of paying for medical care. Where is the evidence that our current system is better than the cheaper socialized system?

You posted this piece  -- are you willing to defend it?

Do you want me to respond to

Stupid...dishonest...little jerk...fool...idiot

or your argument that we have the most expensive system in the world, but 9 out of the top 10 hospitals?

Do you want me to respond to
Quote
Stupid...dishonest...little jerk...fool...idiot

or your argument that we [DO NOT] have the most expensive system in the world, but 9 out of the top 10 hospitals?

It would be best to respond to every critical point.

I believe I presented evidence for my conclusion that he acted like a stupid dishonest foolish idiot jerk in writing this piece. If you think my evidence fails to support this conclusion, by all means point out how it fails.

I will be happy to revise my beliefs and concede that I was mistaken.

Am I confused

You now seem to be presenting arguments against reform, contrary to past posts.

Apparently you are confused. Maybe Ron Paul is simply confused too. I was of the opinion he was either stupid or a liar. Perhaps he's just confused.

OK, I've pointed out this simple distinction in the past. I'll do it again.

Point 1: The U.S. has some of the best hospitals, medical schools, medical research laboratories, doctors, and medical researchers in the world. On the whole, the United States is far superior to other nations in these categories.

Point 2: Americans are less able to gain access to medical care than people living elsewhere in the developed world.  This is because medical care is more expensive in this country and because the cost of medical insurance is more expensive in this country. The cost of medical care in this country is rough 2x-3x what it costs anywhere else in the developed world.

Most of this excess money goes to pay for

(1) redundancy in paperwork costs and the bureaucracy because of layers of health care insurers -some 1300 insurers competing for the healthy consumers while rejecting those with the slightest needs of medical care.

(2) Since 1970 the number of doctors in the U.S. has increased by roughly 3x. The number of administrative staff working on insurance paperwork has increased by roughly 25x.

(3) The costs of administering health insurance in the U.S. accounts for roughly 35% of  total health-care spending.

Our system of paying for health care is dying -- I say kill it now. --
The American people are easily fooled and the might again be fooled by the industry lobbyists this time.
Obama underestimated the simple power of TV propaganda.

At some point, the government and the voters will find it impossible to keep on subsidizing the private insurance industry.







 

Apparently you are confused. Maybe Ron Paul is simply confused too. I was of the opinion he was either stupid or a liar. Perhaps he's just confused.

I thought you were calling for civil discourse earlier?  This is why I'm confused.  Compare your post above to the following comment made previously

or your argument that we [DO NOT] have the most expensive system in the world, but 9 out of the top 10 hospitals?

Do you agree that the following significantly increase costs in the U.S.?
1. Culture of Consumerism/advancements in technology/functional life of medical equipment
2. Lack of clinics as in developing nations that provide minor outpatient treatment that do not require M.D.s
3. 3rd payer system.  No one is required to be vigilant of costs.  No one shops around, unless it is cosmetic (not covered by insurance)  Just like auto insurance, frequent claims for minor procedures raises costs.

Your points above proves that our health care system does not operate in a free market.  You admit that subsidizing the system creates problems, but you advocate more government involvement

(1)  -some 1300 insurers competing for the healthy consumers

(2) Since 1970 the number of doctors in the U.S. has increased by roughly 3x. The number of administrative staff working on insurance paperwork has increased by roughly 25x.

(3) The costs of administering health insurance in the U.S. accounts for roughly 35% of  total health-care spending.

At some point, the government and the voters will find it impossible to keep on subsidizing the private insurance industry.

Ron Paul said that we do not have the best hospitals and doctors.

This is simply false. So, he is either mistaken, lying, or confusing the fact that many Americans do not have access to good health care with the false claim that America does not have excellent institutions of medicine.
Take your pick: he is either mistaken, lying, or confused.

Calling him confused is being charitable.



Do you agree that the following significantly increase costs in the U.S.?
1. Culture of Consumerism/advancements in technology/functional life of medical equipment
2. Lack of clinics as in developing nations that provide minor outpatient treatment that do not require M.D.s
3. 3rd payer system.  No one is required to be vigilant of costs.  No one shops around, unless it is cosmetic (not covered by insurance)  Just like auto insurance, frequent claims for minor procedures raises costs.


-----------------------

No -- none of these significantly increase costs -- if 'significantly' means contributing more than about 30% to the cost of health care.

Yes, the United States has more more equipment costs/insured patient than any other country. It does not have more equipment costs/ per capita than other countries. The equipment is there -- it isn't used efficiently -- getting every American access to medical care would mean the existing technology would be used more efficiently. The rest of the world isn't smarter than we are -

it's an accident of history they just have a better system.

Sure, better access to medical care through local clinics will help but the cost saving potential is nothing compared to the waste created by investor-financed health care. 

Your 3rd point is a joke -- you're partly right -- no patient is required to be vigilant of costs. The irony is that if you make it a requirement then costs will rise significantly. Why? Because people will avoid the problem by avoiding getting the care they need.

Just placing a co-pay of $15 to see a doctor has thr effect of greatly increasing healthcare costs. Now you expect me to study the market and negotiate a price?


-- only a powerful 3rd party payer can negotiate prices. I have no such ability -- I can't go into Walmart or any other store and negotiate my own price. How could I go into a hospital and do it?
The medical system isn't like the grand bazaar in Istanbul. Doctors won't haggle. Try it the next time you're lying unconscious in the emergency room.


How come the rest of the world can afford the best equipment but we can't. It isn't the equipment that is expensive its the drive for profits on top of this equipment that's expensive.


About 30% of every health care dollar goes into the pockets of investors. The consumer, rather than benifiting from this, is actually harmed. For profit hospitals, nursing homes, dialysis centers and mental health facilities are far less efficient and provide a lower standard of care than non-profit institutions.