Saturday, March 24, 2012

Miscellaneous 122

1) I'm still not entirely certain why Bill O'Reilly has guests on his program. a) He doesn't let them talk and b) he always seems to think that he knows more than them. Now, granted, some of those altercations (that classic blow-up with Geraldo Rivera, for example) that he's had over the years have made for some compelling television at times. But, really, folks, has that in fact become the standard for cable-news this era? I sure as hell hope not, for Christ. We have more than enough of that already on "Jersey Shore" and "Mob Wives".............2) Yeah, I'd say that it's well past time that they took another look at that "Stand Your Ground" law down there in Florida (this, in obvious response to the gunning down of that poor unfortunate black kid down there). I mean, the way that the frigging law is now, it sounds like you can basically murder a person and, if there isn't another individual to witness it, you're either not going to get arrested, or get arrested and ultimately acquitted. It's like, yes, I can understand if somebody has broken into your dwelling, or if they're trying to stab you or something but in the vast, VAST, percentage of other scenarios, it would seem to me that the person should at least try and extricate themselves - this, as opposed to channeling Marshall Matt Dillon, Duke Wayne, etc..............3) I had a spate of correspondences lately with a retired physician. Here is how the woman reacted when I told her that I was probably going to vote for Obama again; "Are you on something? Booze? Pain meds? BOTH? Obama-care is a disaster. Do you know how much bullshit is in that bill? It is killing medicine in this country. Docs are leaving left and right (this area is really starting to suffer), and we’re not talking rich docs...docs who like to go one-to-one with their patients; doc who can’t keep up with the outrageous paper work with their current staff; docs who can’t afford yet another cutback in reimbursement. We will soon be divided into 2 camps of health receivers: Most of the population will be left with: the idiot docs who stay and take DC healthcare. And the GOOD healthcare, in good hospitals with good equipment and staff, will be, by default, reserved for those who can pay out of pocket, like Rush did. I don’t care for him or listen, but I do know that he paid for his last hospital procedure at about 1/3 of what it would have cost through insurance."...The fact that the lady sounds like a bitch aside, something perhaps to consider moving forward.

22 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

You might have your good doctor comment on this article. It would appear that doctors are more concerned about uninsured patients than they are about Obamacare.

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

A good doctor will make money no matter what the Obamacare situation is.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Just for the record, gents, here was my response to the biotch - "And I'm (probably - I'm also looking at Johnson) going to vote for Obama because I presently have no burning desire to give the entirety of Washington back to a party that gave us 2 idiotic wars, burgeoning deficits, who apparently wish to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens, and who want to pass a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortions even in the case of rape and incest. I believe in checks and balances and this instance divided government as well.......Yes, I'm aware of the problems inherent in the health-care bill and have spoke out extensively on them (believe me, I have the scars from the left to prove it). But this is hardly a radical proposal (stupid perhaps but certainly not radical - in many ways it mirrors the Republican alternative to Hillarycare in 1993 and the bipartisan Wyden-Bennet plan from 2007) and I doubt seriously if the Republicans have all that many constructive alternatives. Me - I support the Dr. Ezekial Emanuel plan, "Healthcare Guaranteed". It involves vouchers and various minimum standards of care. Google it.

dmarks said...

"...burgeoning deficits..."

They're been burgeoning a significant amount more under the current President.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: They're been burgeoning a significant amount more under the current President.

Allow the bush tax cuts to expire. Problem solved.

dmarks said...

Will said: "It involves vouchers and various minimum standards of care. Google it."

Vouchers? Sounds excellent. Puts the decision making in the hands of the real 99%. Not the 1% who are the richest, or the less than 1% who rule.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Sounds like a cost cutting measure that will leave a lot of people screwed... if it's anything like Paul Ryan's plan, the voucher will be worth less then the cost of the insurance, and therefore be worthless to lower income Americans.

Or, if it is enough to cover the cost, then it's cost PLUS profit. Either way it also sounds like a way to enrich the wealthy elites. I'm opposed. Single-payer is the way to go, IMO.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Sounds like a cost cutting measure that will leave a lot of people screwed."

I agree, if it means less money for the healthcare. I would only support the change to vouchers if it meant at least the same amount of money.

"Or, if it is enough to cover the cost, then it's cost PLUS profit."

Require the providers to be non-profit. Problem solved.

Single player is the worst way to go. It is the fascistic, one-size-fits-hardly-anyone solution. Ignorant people make choices for us that each of us should have the power to make.

BB-Idaho said...

"Require the providers to be non-profit. Problem solved."
Even Forbes endorses that concept.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: Ignorant people make choices for us that each of us should have the power to make.

What choices are you referring to dmarks? Medical decisions? Under single-payer those decisions would still be made by doctors and patients.

Also, how is it "one size fits all"? Single payer is insurance that covers your medical needs. Are you looking to have things covered that are medically unnecessary?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, no, Dr. Emanuel's plan isn't the same as Congressman Ryan's. It's better. And it's better (IMO) than a single-payer program that would concentrate all of the power with a bunch of dullard bureaucrats in Washington. As it stands now, Medicare is basically a check-writing enterprise that, according to "60 Minutes", now exceeds drug dealing as the number one criminal activity if Florida. Enough already with the fattening of Washington.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Also as it stands now, private insurance is basically subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid via better reimbursements. Take away private insurance and who in the hell would subsidize those programs then? The taxpayer?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: ...a bunch of dullard bureaucrats...

I think the civil servants that administer SS and Medicare would take offense of your characterization of them as "dullards".

Will: Medicare is basically a check-writing enterprise that, according to "60 Minutes"...

So, what you're saying is that there is nothing we can do about it? We just have to accept it? I reject that.

Will: Also as it stands now, private insurance is basically subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid...

I think we shouldn't be overpaying doctors, period.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I could give a rat's ass what they think. The federal government is incompetent and there isn't enough lipstick in the galaxy to make it look prettier. I mean, the idiots can't even buy a frigging toilet seat or a muffin without overpaying. And, really, what in the hell is their incentive? It isn't their money that they're wasting.......And as far as doctors go, they go to college for 8 years and follow that up with a 4 year internship. How much money do you think that they should make? The same as a Walmart greeter?

Jerry Critter said...

"I mean, the idiots can't even buy a frigging toilet seat or a muffin without overpaying."

Are implying that Medicare and the VA are overpaying for the healthcare they provide?

dmarks said...

"And it's better (IMO) than a single-payer program that would concentrate all of the power with a bunch of dullard bureaucrats in Washington."

That is how this program, and so many ideas of the Left hug, if not embrace the definition of fascism: by concentrating power into a central authority.

I strongly disagree with this.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: I strongly disagree with this.

You don't know what you're disageeing with. Calling it "fascist" proves it. You don't know what fascism is. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before strongly disagreeing with something?

dmarks said...

"Calling it "fascist" proves it. You don't know what fascism is."

I do, in fact, let's look at the definition:

"a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls

I have italicized the relevant parts. The policies you advocate of having the ruling elites make all our personal healthcare decisions for us of course don't meet all the definitions of fascism, but they meet a good part of it.

Why don't we instead decentralize and devolve power instead of concentrate it? Move away from the definition of fascism instead of toward it?

I know the facts, so I disagree with the policy.

By the way, I support the OWS movement to get people to pull money out of big banks and put it in credit unions. That's a step away from fascism. That's decentralization. The very opposite of nationalizing the banks.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

The top official in the US, the president, is democratically elected. He isn't a dictator. Even though it seemed that way when bush was president and he lied us into two wars.

dmarks said...

Your statement about Bush isn't true. But it is clear that you put it there to make your point that if you happen to disgree with someone's politics (or in your case have major misperceptions about them), they are a dictator.

Regardless, you are ignoring the fact that I pointed out that these policies meet a large part of the definition, not the entire definition. I already know this.

Now, why not advocate policies which meet no part of the definition of fascism? Instead of those that meet most of it?

dmarks said...

WD: Question: Would you find a health care solution similar to the credit unions to be acceptable? Non profit. Decentralized.

The OWS movement loves credit unions as an alternative to 'banksters', so do I.

Is this an evil idea also?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

I'm in favor of the thing that has the best chance of becomming reality. It would be easier to open up the Medicare system and let everyone buy in... then to pass legislation that mandated the health insurance companies operate on a not-for-profit basis.

Also, single-payer meets no part of the definition of fascism. That's a laughable claim. Providing health care insurance isn't "power", it's a service.

For-profit health care better meets the definition of fascism, as it involves turning over a necessary service to corporations. Corporations being in control is fascism.

I do understand the confusion comming from a person who doesn't know what fascism is though.