Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


the new health care?

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2009, 10:25 PM   #46
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
This is not about political views, this is about "I hope Obama fails" and host of other offensive things he has said in the past. My feelings towards Rushbo shouldn't be narrowed in scope.
This is about political views. Rush has done nothing but state his political opinion. Has Rush said offensive and stupid things in the past, yes. However being on live, unscripted radio for over 20 years I'm sure he regrets some things he said. However to me this isn't about Rush Limbaugh.

This is about liberals being able to say whatever they want to crush any opposition to their ideals and then casting the opposition as the "evil, racist, hate-mongering right-wing extremists". Look at the venom toward Ms. CA, you may not agree with her views but what she said had no ounce of hate towards gays. Yet the "open-minded", "all-inclusive", "tolerant", "empathetic" liberals spewed every kind of insult at her with no backlash in the mainstream media. Rush makes a comment that is taken completely out of context and it's OK to wish death upon him. Flat-out, this mind-set is bullshit. Maybe we should just suspend the 1st ammendment for all conservative speech.

What's even worse is the President who said he would work to end the partisanship in DC got a great laugh off Sykes' comments.

Here's the complete transcipt of what Rush said:
HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you — you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his world view.
So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?
LIMBAUGH: Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question.
HANNITY: I'm glad to.
LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans. Yes, we wanted — they have laid down. They have totally — they're drinking the Kool- Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism, they're afraid of being called racists, they're afraid of not having gotten with the program.
Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier I don't know about this guy. I really don't. I've got my — I've got my suspicions, and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes.
HANNITY: Yes.
LIMBAUGH: If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?
Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. I — if he is going to implement a far left — look it. I think it's already decided. $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.
If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.
Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great.
So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

The bolded part is what liberals fail to consider. The programs FDR implemented are one of the main reasons our government is so far in debt. Collectivism / socialism has left a trail of tens of millions dead in the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. it doesn't have a great track record. European countries that have trended socialist for the most part have ridiculous tax rates and worse problems than we do. My belief is that Obama's agenda/programs may do irreperable harm to our country. I don't wish death upon him though.

I agree with Rush 100% on his statement, do you wish a painful death on me as well?
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-11-2009, 10:45 PM   #47
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Perhaps it's also time to privatize the military as it is currently inefficient and sustainable to fraud. Instead of blaming the government how about blaming the fraudsters? Your argument is no different than that of people who want to ban guns because they kill people.
Your logic sucks and you've said nothing to refute my point. This isn't about the military or banning guns. This is about government programs with little to no oversight. These government programs get bloated because the people running them are not spending their own money and there is no RoI or cost-justification to their jobs. All this is present in the private sector. Corporations do not have morals they exist to make money. Just like going to buy a car, you get what you can negotiate. If a corporation sees a chance to make money with no negative reprecussion it will. Is it morally right, no. But you wouldn't assume a car dealer will give you the best deal they can because they're moral, nice people. Put a private corporation in place to run oversight on government health programs and incentivise them to get better rates and find savings and you'll have a more efficient program.

Quote:
I am sorry but I can't bring myself to respect people who think this country is heading down the toilet because of the new Administration and Congress. There's nothing to respect about these people's views. Nothing! What's disappointing is that somehow you think they should be respected.
Ironic?

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

Last edited by Slingin Sammy 33; 05-11-2009 at 10:52 PM.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 10:49 PM   #48
The Starter
 
budw38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern,Va.
Posts: 2,478
Re: the new health care?

Great posts Slingin Sammy !
budw38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 11:20 PM   #49
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Your logic sucks and you've said nothing to refute my point. This isn't about the military or banning guns. This is about government programs with little to no oversight. These government programs get bloated because the people running them are not spending their own money and there is no RoI or cost-justification to their jobs. All this is present in the private sector. Corporations do not have morals they exist to make money. Just like going to buy a car, you get what you can negotiate. If a corporation sees a chance to make money with no negative reprecussion it will. Is it morally right, no. But you wouldn't assume a car dealer will give you the best deal they can because they're moral, nice people. Put a private corporation in place to run oversight on government health programs and incentivise them to get better rates and find savings and you'll have a more efficient program.

Ironic?

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

I don't have to refute anything, I'm playing by your rules and applying the same principles with respect to military spending. As far as the gun control analogy I don't see how that's an invalid reflection on your government is bad stance. Yes, the government is inefficiencies and wasteful...that's the cost of doing business.

I am liberal with limits. I only respect the respectable. I am open minded to those ideas that are rational. You have similar stance I imagine otherwise you would be open to my take on things.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 11:30 PM   #50
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 36
Posts: 8,734
Re: the new health care?

Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 11:36 PM   #51
Playmaker
 
WaldSkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Age: 32
Posts: 2,726
Re: the new health care?

"George Bush doesn't like black people"-Kanye West


Wait, is the idea to write off topic remarks?
__________________
"I would change that around, Jesus isn't Cutler. I guarantee you Jesus couldnt thread the ball like Jay does."-Monksdown
WaldSkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2009, 11:47 PM   #52
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 53
Posts: 10,525
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.

well, since i started this diaster, yes, i would like to know your opinion on it
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 01:48 AM   #53
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
This is about political views. Rush has done nothing but state his political opinion. Has Rush said offensive and stupid things in the past, yes. However being on live, unscripted radio for over 20 years I'm sure he regrets some things he said. However to me this isn't about Rush Limbaugh.

This is about liberals being able to say whatever they want to crush any opposition to their ideals and then casting the opposition as the "evil, racist, hate-mongering right-wing extremists". Look at the venom toward Ms. CA, you may not agree with her views but what she said had no ounce of hate towards gays. Yet the "open-minded", "all-inclusive", "tolerant", "empathetic" liberals spewed every kind of insult at her with no backlash in the mainstream media. Rush makes a comment that is taken completely out of context and it's OK to wish death upon him. Flat-out, this mind-set is bullshit. Maybe we should just suspend the 1st ammendment for all conservative speech.

What's even worse is the President who said he would work to end the partisanship in DC got a great laugh off Sykes' comments.

Here's the complete transcipt of what Rush said:
HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you — you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his world view.
So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?
LIMBAUGH: Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question.
HANNITY: I'm glad to.
LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans. Yes, we wanted — they have laid down. They have totally — they're drinking the Kool- Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism, they're afraid of being called racists, they're afraid of not having gotten with the program.
Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier I don't know about this guy. I really don't. I've got my — I've got my suspicions, and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes.
HANNITY: Yes.
LIMBAUGH: If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?
Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. I — if he is going to implement a far left — look it. I think it's already decided. $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.
If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.
Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great.
So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

The bolded part is what liberals fail to consider. The programs FDR implemented are one of the main reasons our government is so far in debt. Collectivism / socialism has left a trail of tens of millions dead in the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. it doesn't have a great track record. European countries that have trended socialist for the most part have ridiculous tax rates and worse problems than we do. My belief is that Obama's agenda/programs may do irreperable harm to our country. I don't wish death upon him though.

I agree with Rush 100% on his statement, do you wish a painful death on me as well?
With Rush the ballgame is entirely different. It's part political, part dickishness, part racist, part homophobic, part hypocrisy, etc, etc. The man is loathsome creature. Detestable to the bone due to reasons that one would hope are obvious. There's nothing to like about him that I can think of. His whole shtick boils down to this...."he's not my guy and I want him to fail. His ideas and policies are retarded. I'm for America and democrats are not."

Like Joe said, I'm a jerk just like Rushbo though I do believe my thoughts here more reasoned than El Rushbo. I could be wrong on that though and I request to be excused for not caring about this man's wellbeing.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 08:35 AM   #54
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 36
Posts: 8,734
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
[/b]
well, since i started this diaster, yes, i would like to know your opinion on it
I of course am waiting on the details like everyone else, so until we see said details it gets tough to weigh in. But I will say that addressing the increasing costs is absolutely the right answer. Giving everyone in America health coverage is a nice thought, but if the underlying costs aren't addressed, then all you're doing is cutting up the pie in different size pieces and handing them out to more people.

Addressing costs would actually take a bite out of the pie (lemon merengue, please).

That said, you have to be wary of this particular plan because it was prepared by the insurance industry. They of course are looking out for number one. They make valid points, proposing legitimate ways to reduce costs. But it's all designed to preserve their own profits.

Obama needs to listen to the insurance industry here, but also listen to physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, nursing homes and all the others. They'll all have great ideas as to how to cut costs, it's just they'll all look at other parts of the industry to cut costs. Hospitals will have tons of ideas for how insurers can cut costs. Insurers will have tons of ideas for hospitals to cut costs. But nobody will volunteer to cut their own costs and put their employees out of work.

As long as Obama listens to everybody he can probably put something together that makes sense, cutting costs fairly for everyone.

I am of course very interested to hear what Obama ultimately decides to push for. This insurance industry proposal is nice, but it's just one lobbying group raising their hand to volunteer another lobbying group to cut expenses. I'm waiting for Obama's plan.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 08:47 AM   #55
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 86,392
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
Boy has this thread gotten retarded. You guys are going down the path that led the Warpath to once put a moratorium on all political threads.

You're not quite all-out bashing each other, but you've gotten into a pissing match over generalized political ideology and consequently gotten so far off topic that now the thread is near meaningless.

This could have been a good thread too. If anybody actually wants to talk healthcare, I'm willing, it's my line of work.
Welcome to the parking lot where even the most innocent of threads gets thrown off track into political bashing.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 09:11 AM   #56
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,069
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
Welcome to the parking lot where even the most innocent of threads gets thrown off track into political bashing.
You damn hippie-socialist-liberal.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 10:51 AM   #57
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 53
Posts: 10,525
Re: the new health care?

schneed, im not sure why the insurance companies would have any say in the matter. it really is all about cutting health care costs, isn't it? one would think if the costs go down, everyone would benefit, no?
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 10:55 AM   #58
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
schneed, im not sure why the insurance companies would have any say in the matter. it really is all about cutting health care costs, isn't it? one would think if the costs go down, everyone would benefit, no?
Insurance companies employ people too. They can be part of the process but not the process.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 11:09 AM   #59
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 36
Posts: 8,734
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
schneed, im not sure why the insurance companies would have any say in the matter. it really is all about cutting health care costs, isn't it? one would think if the costs go down, everyone would benefit, no?
There are lots of places costs can come from, though.

When you pay your health insurance premiums, some of the money gets paid out to doctors to cover office costs. Some gets paid out to hospitals to cover costs of getting an operation and staying in the hospital. Some gets kept by your insurance company so they can pay their people and make a profit. Some gets paid to the pharmacy where you pick up the drugs your doc prescribed you. Etc.

So hospitals can play a role by: Being more efficient. Hospitals are big huge places and administration needs to be on top of doctors and staff to treat patients fast, get them healthy, and get them out sooner. The longer a patient stays in the hospital, the more it costs. Many times a doctor will order a MRI or a lab test to confirm a problem before he makes his next move, well if the hospital dawdles in getting that test done it delays the doctor, which screws up his schedule, and before you know it the weekend rolls around and he says well just keep the patient until Monday, I'll do a procedure then.

Doctors can play a role by: using more efficient staffing. Nurse Practitioners can address 90% of physical ailments, and they make right around $100K as opposed to $150K on up to god knows what.

Insurance companies can play a role by working to simplify their reimbursement agreements with providers. Make the payment system simpler so there are fewer denied payments and thus fewer appeals. The less you have of this kind of stuff, the fewer administrative support employees your insurance company has to pay.

The government can play a role by:

- Mandating and helping hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors get up to speed with Information Systems allowing seamless integration of medical records and information. This prevents deaths due to drug interactions and would cut workers out of the system. Each hospital and doc office needs filing clerks just to handle the massive files of charts. Imagine how much you could save doing away with those salaries.

- Forcing insurance companies to reimburse according to Medicare rules. It's a simple way of doing it. I'd suggest they add a pay for performance mandate too.

- Cap malpractice awards. Huge multimillion dollar payments to plaintiffs only drive up malpractice insurance premiums to doctors and hospitals, who just end up raising their charges and passing the hit along to all of us.

- Providing incentives for the poor and underinsured to use a primary care doctor. Preventative medicine saves us the most money in the long run. Poor people need to stop using the ER for the sniffles.

And the people can play a role by learning when you really need to see the doctor, and when you can let that sinus infection clear up on its own.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 12:02 PM   #60
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 37
Posts: 2,906
Re: the new health care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
There are lots of places costs can come from, though.

When you pay your health insurance premiums, some of the money gets paid out to doctors to cover office costs. Some gets paid out to hospitals to cover costs of getting an operation and staying in the hospital. Some gets kept by your insurance company so they can pay their people and make a profit. Some gets paid to the pharmacy where you pick up the drugs your doc prescribed you. Etc.

So hospitals can play a role by: Being more efficient. Hospitals are big huge places and administration needs to be on top of doctors and staff to treat patients fast, get them healthy, and get them out sooner. The longer a patient stays in the hospital, the more it costs. Many times a doctor will order a MRI or a lab test to confirm a problem before he makes his next move, well if the hospital dawdles in getting that test done it delays the doctor, which screws up his schedule, and before you know it the weekend rolls around and he says well just keep the patient until Monday, I'll do a procedure then.

Doctors can play a role by: using more efficient staffing. Nurse Practitioners can address 90% of physical ailments, and they make right around $100K as opposed to $150K on up to god knows what.

Insurance companies can play a role by working to simplify their reimbursement agreements with providers. Make the payment system simpler so there are fewer denied payments and thus fewer appeals. The less you have of this kind of stuff, the fewer administrative support employees your insurance company has to pay.

The government can play a role by:

- Mandating and helping hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors get up to speed with Information Systems allowing seamless integration of medical records and information. This prevents deaths due to drug interactions and would cut workers out of the system. Each hospital and doc office needs filing clerks just to handle the massive files of charts. Imagine how much you could save doing away with those salaries.

- Forcing insurance companies to reimburse according to Medicare rules. It's a simple way of doing it. I'd suggest they add a pay for performance mandate too.

- Cap malpractice awards. Huge multimillion dollar payments to plaintiffs only drive up malpractice insurance premiums to doctors and hospitals, who just end up raising their charges and passing the hit along to all of us.

- Providing incentives for the poor and underinsured to use a primary care doctor. Preventative medicine saves us the most money in the long run. Poor people need to stop using the ER for the sniffles.

And the people can play a role by learning when you really need to see the doctor, and when you can let that sinus infection clear up on its own.
What about just paying your doctor cash when you really need to see him?
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.51902 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25