Friday open thread
Wikimedia Commons
Most people would rather defend to the death your right to say it than listen to it.
What’s on your mind today?
March 22, 2013 - 6:06 AM
March 22, 2013 - 6:06 AM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
41 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
Three years in to O-care, let’s review:
Deficit nuetral
No new taxes (“not one thin dime”)
Create jobs
Keep your doctor, keep your policy
Universal coverage
Any one else remember the dialogue while back about lying?
Anyone…..anyone?
(Sub)headline, pg. 6, today’s RT:
Though U.S. oil output has increased, so has the demand from developing countries such as China
Wait a minute! How can that be?! Isn’t demand for oil constant?
Who needs other bloggers when you so cheerily converse with yourself? Why does the constant demand for oil bother you so much? Or is the problem that you refuse to let words have more than one connotation?
BTW, http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/218001-obamas-health-law-is-proving-successful
“…based on what the nation has now seen of the law, the pig is looking like a blue-ribbon winner, a good deal for seniors and the middle class. The only question is whether a good idea can survive bad-mouthing from GOP politicians…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-levi/affordable-care-act-third-anniversary_b_2916409.html
“The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a historic law and its third birthday should be celebrated.”
Maybe the problem is people expecting a quick fix to a dire and huge problem that had been left festering for so many decades. Three years is nothing, especially for a tiered, phased in plan of action.
Not that you would prematurely judge or condemn.
“Wait a minute! How can that be?! Isn’t demand for oil constant?”
You might to explain why you would think that, Jim Lucas. As an informed liberal, I’ve known for years now that demand from countries like China has been rising. Were you unaware of this?
I guess the Bidens aren’t sleeping together….
On a recent London trip in February, the VP/others rented out 136 hotel rooms at a cost to the UStaxpayer of $460,000. The cost came out to be over $500/room per night.
The dollar just doesn’t go as far as it use to..to leave the light on for you!
Be afraid, be very afraid…A girl can surely hope!
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/a-democratic-age/309258/
“Has Obama Turned a Generation of Voters Into Lifelong Democrats?
The prospects for a new liberal age”
Scarborough said on Morning Joe this morning that he believed that the position and mood of the country was being misread by the Republicans over the gun control issue. I sure hope he is right there too. 2014 and 2016 are shaping up to be a real bell weather IMO.
I think instead of complaining about right wing myopia, I need to be celebrating it and thanking you all, sincerely.
A quick fix to a huge and dire problem..left festering for so many decades…
I don’t know who was looking for a quick fix, but with 3/4 of the nation satisfied with their insurance coverage, I know the citizenry wasn’t looking for the “problem” to be made worse.
#5 Bud (or is that really Michelle Bachmann in disguise), how about travel expenses for presidential and vice presidential entourages during the Bush 2 administration? According to CNN they were significantly higher.
–
“bellwether”
gdad…..have you considered vitamin E?
#5 Well, Bud….I certainly couldn’t blame her.
#8 NW, think you’re onto something. Michelle B. does look like Joe in drag. (Wish I hadn’t gone there).
NW..I don’t believe we were running $1 Trillion deficits during the BUSh years…. I don’t believe we were trying to reduce spending under a sequestration, you know furloughing employees, cutting military education benefits, etc… But go on defending the current admin.
gdad…..ex post facto smiley face.
Go on pretending the economic crisis and near collapse did not happen on Bush’s watch, go on believing Bush’s spending and lowered revenues mean nothing, go on pretending, for it is truly all you can do…
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-politics-of-misperception/273583/
“Almost no one knows this, but the budget deficit is going down, not up.”
Throwing mud, does not make it stick.
#11 Bud, but the causes of those huge deficits were the unnecessary wars and the tax pandering and the oil subsidies of the Bush years. You’re the one who brought up presidential travel expenses. You just don’t want to admit that your guy spent even more.
NW..I did?? IS Biden President?
And you SAY Cheney spent more than Biden? It’s hardly been proven.
If you have a legit source stating Cheney spent more on hotels than Biden did in their first four years comparatively, I’ll be happy to admit to it.
And the cause of the huge deficits were the unnecessary wars and such..??
REALLY? I don’t buy that. Oct 2007 deficit was around $160 B and Oct 2008
the deficit was around $460B. The wars were going on THEN weren’t they?
Those horrible subsidies- totaling about $4 billion/yr were going on THEN weren’t they? Yet the deficit in Oct 2009 was around $1.2T and the following year even higher. Gee whiz NW…even as both wars have winded down, we still had an Oct 2012 deficit of $1.1T. Your version of history doesn’t match that of reality.
But getting back to Biden and travel, and government spending as a whole.
Everyone talks ENTITLEMENT REFORM and it’s done in the context of SS/ Medicare and Medicaid reform. Well I say there is also an ENTITLEMENT mentality on those running the fed gov and how our tax dollars are spent. These people hardly view themselves as public servants but more like an aristocracy. In this case a group ENTITLED to $500+/night hotel rooms and I doubt they dined at Applebees. At a time when as a nation we spend some $3.7T a year while taking in less than $2.7T/yr- I don’t THINK that’s wrong, I KNOW it to be wrong.
What do YOU say? Wait you already have.
QUESTION of the DAY:
What’s the difference between “an informed liberal” & a liberal?
Constant diligence. (double smiley face)
#15 And Bud, Obama has owned the “war” in Afganistan for 4+ years now (including troop increases & mission creep).
Whether one thinks we should have gone into Iraq….in many ways Obama has squandered what was spent, blood & treasure.
His mid-east “policy” is disintegrating….thus his (late) trip to Israel.
#15 that was easier than i thought. phew!!
The federal budget includes expense accounts and a salary for the president. From 1969 to 2001, the President’s (taxable) salary was $200,000. In 2001, the salary increased to $400,000, where it remains today. Unchanged since 1949, the federal government has provided a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 entertainment account for the President.
—
All in all, “[f]or necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by law, including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services…[are] subsistence expenses…[the] hire of passenger motor vehicles, newspapers, periodicals, and travel (not to exceed $100,000…); and not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment expenses…and for necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 107, $56,974,000.” [Citation]
—
THEN there are expense accounts for the maintenance and staffing of the residence, assistants to the president, Office of Administration, the various councils (such as National Security, Economic Advisors, Environmental Quality, Office of Management and Budget, etc.) that total around half a billion dollars (just a quick-glance-over-the-numbers guesstimate, could be off by a few million).
—
Most importantly, these expense accounts do not include expenses rendered by the Secret Service (which has its own operating budget each year), the Air Force (Air Force One), the Marine Corps (Marine One), and local police, fire and EMS expenses (when the president is traveling).Often times, when political commentators want to make it look like the President or Vice President is shamelessly self-indulging with lavish amounts of (YOUR) taxpayer money, they lump together all sorts of half-baked estimates of expenses from many different accounts (almost all of which the Pres has no command over)–sometimes they even throw in estimated losses incurred by local business from Presidential security–to make it seem as though the Pres or VP personally spent whatever total the commentator came up with.
—
All of this is to say that when the President or VP travel, it isn’t simply like they can just draw millions or billions of taxpayer dollars from the treasury to spend on personal indulgences and entertainment,
#19 Sorry (really) but looking for a point.
Where would all that money go if not spent? Does the fact that it’s “budgeted” mean it goes away if not spent? Like some pumkin at midnight.
I would suggest that it is just this type rationalizing that gets us where we are. Broke. Yes, I know that can be rationalized also.
20 i think the point is that there is better stuff to wring your hands about
The `left` will fall silent when they are devatated by the ACA….it will be deafening, and oh so sweet.
Awood, this is primarily for you buddy.
Somewhere among all these posts, I think I read “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”…
Well, I’ve got a hot news flash for the Bachman and her look alikes in this blog and all across the country. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed. Those on the right have bitched and moaned that the ACA will be self destructive to health care and that by its very existence, the government will be determining the level of care that the elderly, women and children get (at least according to the mouth known as Michelle Bachman in her latest tirade on the floor of the house).
Well I can tell you from first hand experience that there are medical review boards in every insurance company that do exactly that on a day in and day out basis. Why no screaming and squalling about those groups? Is it because that is considered capitalism and we all know that capitalism favors everyone? (Sarcasm in case there are some of you who don’t get it).
In November of 2011, I was to start my chemo and radiation treatment for colon cancer. I was sitting in the infusion area of the cancer center about to have the infusion apparatus injected into my port when the folks who were going to be giving me my first radiation treatment that same day came running over and said to stop everything because BCBS of AL had denied my treatment protocol.
Imagine the feeling knowing all the while that I had lost my sister to the same type of cancer 5 years ago and already having enough anxiety for 1000 people. Yes, BCBS of AL had made that determination…not the government. I had to fight like hell to get their review board off their asses to get the treatment protocol approved but still delayed my treatment for a week. If that ant broke, I don’t know what is.
Fast forward to this past week wherein I was scheduled for a colonoscopy. I received a phone call from the group that would be administering the anesthesia for the procedure. I was informed that BCBS of AL had decided that it was no longer necessary to do a complete anesthetizing on the patient, but that it was more prudent to only do a state of “twilight” where in the patient is still semi conscious during the procedure. I’m not sure who among you have had this procedure, but I can assure you, twilight is not the state one wants to be in during the scope.
Again, I had to fight with BCBS of AL to get this decision of their corrected. It’s a joke.
So the next time you’re shinning and complaining about what the government review boards might approve or disapprove, look at the BCBC’s of the world and make an informed decision rather than listening to the irrational comments of the Michelle Bachman’s of the world. She’s hopelessly clueless.
Colonoscopy is a relatively simple and brief procedure as a rule, done as an outpatient in a clinic setting. If your insurance contract did not cover general anesthesia, then the patient could pay for a general anesthetic out of pocket if it was that important. The cost of 15 minutes of out patient general anesthesia would not break the bank.
The trouble is patients don’t want to take any responsibility for any portion of their health care costs. Third party payment for the total cost of health care drives the costs up. If patients were more responsible financially for their routine health care such as office visits, it would tend to keep costs down.
Under Obamacare, neither the patient nor the provider will not have any say in the quality or cost of health care or what is covered, it will be totally dictated by government regulation. At least before Obamacare, a patient could shop around for the health plan that suited them.
There will not be any appeals under Obamacare, the patient will have to take what government regulations dictate.
Jim Lucas,
My point is that the President or VP cannot and does not just personally spend millions of taxpayers dollars on personal indulgences and whatnot. That many of the expenses often lumped together as “President spends $1.3 billion taxpayer dollars on beach trip” is intentionally misleading and wrong–distractions from any real discussions on the national debt.
Of course we aren’t having any real discussions on the national debt because everyone seems to think it is analogous to household or personal spending and debt. It isn’t.
John R…
I don’t know how many colonoscopies you’ve had nor do I know if you’ve been treated for colon cancer; however, my surgeon and my endoscopy doctor have both treated me. The pencil pushers at BCBS have not. You may like having some kind do scope inserted into you anus and then maneuvered further into your colon under light anesthesia…but I don’t and I won’t.
I had the option of paying for the anesthesia out of my own pocket; however I chose not to. Instead I demanded, and in my opinion, rightfully so, that BCBS pay for the general anesthesia so that my endoscopy specialist would not have to be concerned with me waking or moving prematurely during the procedure. Had that occurred, the cost of care and treatment would have been significantly higher.
With me being under general anesthesia, he could concentrate on looking for anything suspicious, not worrying about anything else. At the same time, you have a patient that is much more at ease with a procedure that is intimidating in and of itself.
I trust my doctors before I trust a number crunching pencil pusher that is being driven purely by profit motivation. You claim there will be no right of appeal under ACA…where does it say that? Can you provide direct documentation to support your assertion?
I’ll wait.
By the way John R…have you read the Time Magazine article that I’ve made reference to in a few other posts? It speaks to the excesses in health care billings versus actual costs. You might find it capitalistically intriguing.
You talk about patient responsibility, lets take a look at what’s being charged for procedures in the absence of insurance.
Disgusting to say the least.
24 JohnR, you wrote:
–
“The trouble is patients don’t want to take any responsibility for any portion of their health care costs.”
–
One reason for that is that the costs are completely impenetrable and subject to wild fluctuation. Nobody can understand them or estimate them. Better to have bumper-to-bumper insurance for everyone and just lump the costs together. That’s a big reason why I am in favor a fully socialized, single-payer system.
–
“If patients were more responsible financially for their routine health care such as office visits, it would tend to keep costs down.”
–
Or would they try to save $50 by not having that questionable-looking mole checked out.
Will….your points are well taken as far as they go. However there are other places to go…..which is exactly my point. Individuals & groups change their policies often. Even when they choose not to change, they have the choice annually. Where do we go when the gov’t boards are the only “choice”?
You appealed & prevailed….will that option exist with the gov’t decisions?
With gov’t requiring more & more of dr’s & hospitals, for less money & more strings attached….what good will insurance be if there is no doctor willing to treat as such?
There will be a market for private care for those who can afford, and second rate rationed care for the rest of us. That plus higher premiums, higher taxes, fewer choices. There will still be 40-45 million people without coverage. How does this help your problems?
#25 WPGHSC, I think you mix apples & oranges in your two paragraphs.
As to staying with the apples, is it your contention that the president & his entourage, etc., could not choose to spend less lavishly? Or they under some obligation to spend all available? Could they not elect to show some leadership by setting an example of some relatve austerity?
I have owned/opererated small businesses…..managed larger businesses. Do you know what happens if the “boss” shows up in his BMW (I drove a Dodge Diplomat & a van) in his $1000 suit (khakis & sport-shirt) and is known to stay at the Hilton (Super-8)?
I cannot fathom that anyone is unaware that “a market for private care for those who can afford, and second rate rationed care for the rest of us” has been the health care system in this nation for as long as we have had a health care system in this nation. If anything, the ACA will level the playing field and yes, by paying for the preventative care visits, the savings from catching things before they are “stage 4″ and cramming end of life herculean efforts for naught, will save money. Ask any doctor. Mine preaches that sermon on every visit.
I was treated recently for muscle spasms in my neck. Since I have a spinal issue, the doctor asked me to go take ex-rays even though he wants me to have an MRI or CT scan because the insurance will not pay for the CT scan unless they do the ex-rays first. Pretending that no one has been managing and deciding for us all along is just dishonest. IMO, there is even less pressure for the government overseer to say no than the for profit insurance company. You know, all those government “leeches” you all claim could not care less about efficiency or money spent….Can’t have it both ways fellas.
# 31 Mrs. Saunders, due to time & space limitations, what you “cannot fathom” aside, it is a matter of direction & degree.
Thank you for your illustration, if you like things now….you’ll love them later.
As a “matter of direction & degree”, I remain convinced I will love things later, as much as I love them now.
Jim Lucas…
Perhaps you too should take a look at the Time Magazine article that I mentioned.
The level of coverage provided by the monopoly that is BCBSS of AL is one topic. The cost of the service provided by my doctor(s), the hospitals, the cancer treatment center and the other supporting cast and crew are yet another.
As I mentioned in another past a few weeks ago, does it really cost a dentist twenty dollars to provide an ounce of fluoride as a wash after a dental cleaning when an entire 16 oz container can be purchased for less than twenty dollars?
My point is that private insurers will deny services because of the profit motive. That exactly what happened in the case of my colonoscopy. There is no valid clinical evidence that the procedure is more useful if the patient is only mildly sedated and the risks of error are much greater.
At the end of the day, you can’t simply lay the blame on the ACA because of the greed of the health care industry ang the insurers that claim to be on the side of the patient. That dog simply won’t hunt.
#33 Then what would be the point, aside from the last word?
#34 Will, two points please.
Payments are not always what they seem. Years of expensive education & large fixed costs affect what sometimes seem arbitrary…..and, anecdotally portrayed, prices. I am not justifying greed & gouging…..it is quite real….but.
…..but, how will the ACA fix this? Will it cost less to educate/train a doctor? Will it cost less to run a hospital? Will either provide the same level of service (such as it is…but as said, direction & degree) being subject to increasing (progressive) gov’t bureaucracy & less pay?
Will, and in general. I’m not trying to say I’m all right & you’re all wrong. That’s the trap here.
There are problems that need fixed. But, IMO the ACA not only does not fix, but will exacerbate. Also, regardless of, nevertheless, which “side” one aligns with….it has become a political question rather than a substantive one.
I personally blame the latter on Obama & the “progressives”….they are saying this is the answer. Is it?
The health care reform has in fact ushered in the most “substantive” look at and discussion of our out of control health care system and the millions upon millions it has left behind. It is simply incredible that anyone believes this is a “sides” issue and if that is your POV it is a choice you made, not one that Obama or anyone else put upon you.
The very idea of the ACA was a conservative notion of more responsible participants and better outcomes. Many of the items included were directly taken from the very Republicans who campaigned against it and refused to work on it or support it, but the reality of the legislation is that the principles and function is not political or partisan.
If you cannot discuss it that is fine, but there is no need to declare this a “sides” issue nor a “political” issue. Once legislation is enacted and in this case upheld in a Supreme Court decision, people need to learn how to discuss it without the blame, insults and partisan rhetoric that serves no one.
Like all efforts, whether this is THE answer or just one step in a longer effort remains to be seen, and discussed, and decided.
#38 My daddy can beat up your daddy. You say nothing other than prove my point. Thank you.
Say goodnight Jim.
“Goodnight Jim”.
Jim Lucas…
Please read the Time article and then get back to me.
As for The ACA…at least someone had the guts to step up and do something unlike the conservatives who prefer to do nothing but sit and wait.