Ha-ro from North Korea!

[olyclimber]

Would guys like to see my polemic?

[rob]

[Pete_H]

Not as liberal as Senor Chavez or that Karl Marx guy. But its all quite relative, so you've got a point there.

 

Are these the only "liberals" you have for a frame of reference? No wonder.

 

It must be a simple world you live in.

 

Well I try to keep my world simple. But then again, I don't have to spend most of my time at work, so I've got that luxury.

 

Obama fundamentally believes that more government involvement is the answer to all of our problems and that our collective debt and the productive / successfull members of our society should pay for it. That paradigm indeed falls on the liberal end of the American policy spectrum.

 

To be equitable, I think most Republicans are dumbfucks too.

[rob]

Obama fundamentally believes that more government involvement is the answer to all of our problems and that our collective debt and the productive / successfull [sic] members of our society should pay for it.

 

Citation, please.

 

 

[glassgowkiss]

 

both parties got it all wrong.... spend spend spend. i wish i could spend my troubles away.

 

If there is one thing the government should never do, it's spend. My ideal government would be so small, it would be non-existent, and would be so broke, nothing would be spent -- ever.

 

= prosperity!!!

well, in Somalia there government is non-existant. I don't think many people want to relocate there. Also I don't think their economy is thriving. So there goes that argument.

[rob]

well, in Somalia there government is non-existant. I don't think many people want to relocate there. Also I don't think their economy is thriving. So there goes that argument.

 

The government that governs least governs best!!!

 

[Pete_H]

Obama fundamentally believes that more government involvement is the answer to all of our problems and that our collective debt and the productive / successfull [sic] members of our society should pay for it.

 

Citation, please.

 

 

Just my simple opinion. Though I would have to say the preschool policy the administration is pushing right now is a good example.

 

And while I'm on my soapbox, I'll opine how Obama really shit the bed on the health care thing - and I'm totally in favor of socialized health care.

[rob]

bama really shit the bed on the health care thing - and I'm totally in favor of socialized health care.

 

What do you think he could have done differently, given the congressional atmosphere during his administration?

[Pete_H]

I think doing nothing would have been better than passing bad policy.

 

I don't think Obama could have passed universal health care legislation. However he may have been able to reduce health care cost by focusing on reducing health care providers' exposure to med mal liability. Also could have pushed for more standardization of health care delivery, which reduces unnecessary procedures.

 

In formulating policy, he completely ignored the most interesting and relevent studies coming out of the University of New Hampshire that proves there is no static demand for health care; that it is the same as any other product on the free market. I'll try and find a link / citation for you.

[rob]

I think doing nothing would have been better than passing bad policy.

 

Agreed. Though, what about "Obamacare" do you think is so bad? The mandate?

 

However he may have been able to reduce health care cost by focusing on reducing health care providers' exposure to med mal liability. Also could have pushed for more standardization of health care delivery, which reduces unnecessary procedures.

 

Hmm, didn't the CBO find that tort reform would only reduce overall healthcare costs by something really small, like 0.5 percent? I'm not sold on the idea that reducing patients' rights to sue for iatrogenic damages is really worth that.

 

In formulating policy, he completely ignored the most interesting and relevent studies coming out of the University of New Hampshire that proves there is no static demand for health care; that it is the same as any other product on the free market. I'll try and find a link / citation for you.

 

I'm not sure I follow; what are the functional ramifications of this? Also, to be fair, studies rarely "prove" anything. They usually just suggest Would love to read what you've got.

[pink]

Not as liberal as Senor Chavez or that Karl Marx guy. But its all quite relative, so you've got a point there.

 

Are these the only "liberals" you have for a frame of reference? No wonder.

 

It must be a simple world you live in.

 

Well I try to keep my world simple. But then again, I don't have to spend most of my time at work, so I've got that luxury.

 

Obama fundamentally believes that more government involvement is the answer to all of our problems and that our collective debt and the productive / successfull members of our society should pay for it. That paradigm indeed falls on the liberal end of the American policy spectrum.

 

To be equitable, I think most Republicans are dumbfucks too.

 

Edited February 19, 2013 by pink

[Pete_H]

Huh?

[Pete_H]

Agreed. Though, what about "Obamacare" do you think is so bad? The mandate?

 

Yeah. I just think its way outside the role of government to require businesses to provide healthcare; and it doesn't seem very efficient or make much sense.

 

Hmm, didn't the CBO find that tort reform would only reduce overall healthcare costs by something really small, like 0.5 percent? I'm not sold on the idea that reducing patients' rights to sue for iatrogenic damages is really worth that.

 

There's no way that could be correct. A very high percentage of patient treatment decisions are motivated by liability concerns (lots of unnecessary tests, treatments, procedures). Tort reform is really only going to damage one interest group and that's the aggressive, profit-driven plaintiffs' attorney industry. By capping damages, perhaps a very occasional deserving party won't get as much remuneration as they deserve, but so goes the interest of public policy.

 

I'm not sure I follow; what are the functional ramifications of this? Also, to be fair, studies rarely "prove" anything. They usually just suggest Would love to read what you've got.

 

Sorry. Not so much a study, but more like Dartmouth researcher John Wennberg's life work. Please look him up on wikipedia.

 

A great book that covers a lot of Wennberg's research and the inefficencies of our health care system is "Overtreated" by Shannon Brownlee. Finally, the book "Confidence Men" by Ron Suskind, is great. More about the financial crisis, but Suskind covers how the Obama admin was aware of Wennberg's highly credible research, but chose to ignore it in developing their health care policy.

[mattp]

Pete,

last I looked there were only a few high risk specialties where the tort risk added significantly to the cost of doing business. OB GYN was one.

 

The extra tests and extra procedures are driven by a number of factors. Yes, doctors may not want to "miss" something, but the business model appears to support extra tests and extra appointments to discuss the results quite apart from any concern for liability. The expensive and un-needed tests make money for the doctors and the testers. Providing an appropriate diagnosis and treatment without the tests does not.

[Pete_H]

Sure. Financial incentives are indeed a big factor in inefficiencies. Unnecessary technology is yet another. Obamacare doesn't address any of these issues.

 

I would also argue that the cost of liability management is much greater than you acknowledge. CYA (Cover Your Ass) is endemic in health care. For example, a doc may be 98% sure of a certain patient diagnosis based on a physical exam, patient history / interview, etc. But the doc is going to order extensive blood work, scans, and perhaps even invasive procedures because there's no downside for them; and they can show they covered all their basis if they ever get hauled into court.

 

In looking at other countries that don't have such legal concerns hanging over the heads of health care providers, there is absolutely no ststistical reduction in recovery or diagnosis rates.

[tvashtarkatena]

Tort reform is a smoke screen. It's in the noise when it comes to the true causes of spiraling health care costs.

 

The vast majority of doctors don't pile on tests to cover their asses - and they have plenty of incentives not to - their time being the primary one. Docs are expected to see a quota of patients per day. Each patient means paperwork at the end of the day. Both become more difficult with additional tests and procedures. Talk to a an actual doc sometime.

 

Cost transparency, which IS a major problem with health care costs, is on the rise. Lots of patients pay out of pocket for what they consume (catastrophic/high deductibles), and watch their docs like hawks. Technology is making cost transparency easier for the consumer. Obamacare's health exchanges will improve cost transparency.

 

There are many significant reasons for our high health costs, liability really isn't one of them.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[glassgowkiss]

With 70% obese or overweight, the raise of cost of healthcare is normal. Why people don't understand, that THIS IS WHAT IT TAKES TO KEEP FAT ASSES ALIVE! you want to lower healthcare cost? LOSE FUCKING WEIGHT! Otherwise STFU!

[olyclimber]

I'm with GlassgowSmooches on this. Lets get rid of social services for the fatties. The market can decide how long they live. I'm tired of their girth piling over into my airline seat!!!!

 

Thank you for saying this Smooches!

[rob]

I bet there is an awesome website at GlassgowSmooches.com but I'm afraid to check at the office

[glassgowkiss]

I am not for getting rid of services, but what people have to realize, that the raising cost of healthcare is on par with increased costs of providing medical services. The increase need for medical services is due in vast majority due to obesity related illnesses. Even chronic pain in most cases are due to shitty diet, access weight and lack of exercise. We are spending 200 billion dollars on unnecessary back surgeries. In more then 80% of cases all these patients will redevelop pain. There is zero preventiveness, people in general don't care about their health. THAT is a real reason for cost increase.

[ivan]

I am not for getting rid of services, but what people have to realize, that the raising cost of healthcare is on par with increased costs of providing medical services. The increase need for medical services is due in vast majority due to obesity related illnesses. Even chronic pain in most cases are due to shitty diet, access weight and lack of exercise. We are spending 200 billion dollars on unnecessary back surgeries. In more then 80% of cases all these patients will redevelop pain. There is zero preventiveness, people in general don't care about their health. THAT is a real reason for cost increase.

but, given that assuring access to healthcare is a fundemental requirement for a civilized nation, aren't you going to be the first to shit kittens when nefarious government agents call for "social engineering" by demanding excercise, control over diets, and the right to deny care to those deemed "unfit?"

 

you sure ever phatty out there just "doesn't care" about his health? no role for genetics? where they live (christ, good luck staying in shape in alabama in the middle of summer!)? their job? access to whole-foods n' la fitnesses? i mean i like to hate a man as much as the next guy, and fatties can't hardly chase you down, but seeing as how skinny folks drop dead of cancer n' heart problems too, i'm not sure that these guys should be public enemeies #1...

[Pete_H]

I think we should render the fatties down for their blubber and turn it into biofuel. That way we could solve the health care issue and the energy crisis.

[ivan]

I think we should render the fatties down for their blubber and turn it into biofuel. That way we could solve the health care issue and the energy crisis.

melting down santa though would be a major setback in the war against christmas though

[olyclimber]

I think we can all come together on this universal message though: this problem is because of someone else, and someone else should fix the fucking problem. FIX. IT.

 

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is though. What are you guys discussing in this thread?

[olyclimber]

Also, I have this question: what is the highest documented ration of body fat to other matter that has ever been documented in a living human?