well we asked what the Republicans offered as an alternative HC plan, and already it saves money just by not using as much paper LOL

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091103/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

---

1. We go out and hit people in the mouth.
2. We are Not a charity, we cannot give them the game.-Mike Singletary 10/26/2008
-Member of the Caleb Hanie Fan Club
-Ignorance can be fixed with a book, Stupidity needs a shotgun and a shovel.

"...focuses on bringing down costs rather than extending coverage to nearly all Americans."

Shoot...why didn't anyone think of this before?

---

This is how a Bears RB should run. Like Walter said..."never die easy."

Mechanic, Left Tackle Mafia.

Here to fix the ones that break down.

it's not a bad strategy.  the GOP can draft a bill that nobody is going to vote for and then continue the "we were left out of the process" line that they've been touting all summer long.  they can have it on record that they worked on a countering plan and tell their moderate constituents that they care about health insurance reform.  win win for the party of no. 

cnobody:

it's not a bad strategy.  the GOP can draft a bill that nobody is going to vote for and then continue the "we were left out of the process" line that they've been touting all summer long.  they can have it on record that they worked on a countering plan and tell their moderate constituents that they care about health insurance reform.  win win for the party of no. 

I think most peoples distaste with the GOP is that they've done alot of bickering without any substance.

We'll see what happens, but I do like the sensible approach of  lowering cost instead of extending coverage.

You should only extend coveage when you realize where the cost is coming from.

---

This is how a Bears RB should run. Like Walter said..."never die easy."

Mechanic, Left Tackle Mafia.

Here to fix the ones that break down.

From reading the article this plan sounds like poo.

jester:

From reading the article this plan sounds like poo.

Should we roll this into ITHB's thread?

---

This is how a Bears RB should run. Like Walter said..."never die easy."

Mechanic, Left Tackle Mafia.

Here to fix the ones that break down.

lolol..that thread is wow.

---

1. We go out and hit people in the mouth.
2. We are Not a charity, we cannot give them the game.-Mike Singletary 10/26/2008
-Member of the Caleb Hanie Fan Club
-Ignorance can be fixed with a book, Stupidity needs a shotgun and a shovel.

onebud34:

jester:

From reading the article this plan sounds like poo.

Should we roll this into ITHB's thread?

I could use the 200+ pages to start my grill. The Dems plan would feed my fireplace :)

jester:

onebud34:

jester:

From reading the article this plan sounds like poo.

Should we roll this into ITHB's thread?

I could use the 200+ pages to start my grill. The Dems plan would feed my fireplace :)

You can tell where most of the lawyers are.

---

This is how a Bears RB should run. Like Walter said..."never die easy."

Mechanic, Left Tackle Mafia.

Here to fix the ones that break down.

onebud34:

cnobody:

it's not a bad strategy.  the GOP can draft a bill that nobody is going to vote for and then continue the "we were left out of the process" line that they've been touting all summer long.  they can have it on record that they worked on a countering plan and tell their moderate constituents that they care about health insurance reform.  win win for the party of no. 

I think most peoples distaste with the GOP is that they've done alot of bickering without any substance.

We'll see what happens, but I do like the sensible approach of  lowering cost instead of extending coverage.

You should only extend coveage when you realize where the cost is coming from.

Yes, a sensible approach would be to only cover those who do not get sick and drop them if they do. That way the insurers can ensure very large profits. That's an excellent idea.

jester:

onebud34:

cnobody:

it's not a bad strategy.  the GOP can draft a bill that nobody is going to vote for and then continue the "we were left out of the process" line that they've been touting all summer long.  they can have it on record that they worked on a countering plan and tell their moderate constituents that they care about health insurance reform.  win win for the party of no. 

I think most peoples distaste with the GOP is that they've done alot of bickering without any substance.

We'll see what happens, but I do like the sensible approach of  lowering cost instead of extending coverage.

You should only extend coveage when you realize where the cost is coming from.

Yes, a sensible approach would be to only cover those who do not get sick and drop them if they do. That way the insurers can ensure very large profits. That's an excellent idea.

So that profit can be transferred to the pharmaceutical companies?

---

This is how a Bears RB should run. Like Walter said..."never die easy."

Mechanic, Left Tackle Mafia.

Here to fix the ones that break down.

onebud34:

jester:

onebud34:

cnobody:

it's not a bad strategy.  the GOP can draft a bill that nobody is going to vote for and then continue the "we were left out of the process" line that they've been touting all summer long.  they can have it on record that they worked on a countering plan and tell their moderate constituents that they care about health insurance reform.  win win for the party of no. 

I think most peoples distaste with the GOP is that they've done alot of bickering without any substance.

We'll see what happens, but I do like the sensible approach of  lowering cost instead of extending coverage.

You should only extend coveage when you realize where the cost is coming from.

Yes, a sensible approach would be to only cover those who do not get sick and drop them if they do. That way the insurers can ensure very large profits. That's an excellent idea.

So that profit can be transferred to the pharmaceutical companies?

That makes no sense.

Decatur Staley:

onebud34:

jester:

onebud34:

cnobody:

it's not a bad strategy.  the GOP can draft a bill that nobody is going to vote for and then continue the "we were left out of the process" line that they've been touting all summer long.  they can have it on record that they worked on a countering plan and tell their moderate constituents that they care about health insurance reform.  win win for the party of no. 

I think most peoples distaste with the GOP is that they've done alot of bickering without any substance.

We'll see what happens, but I do like the sensible approach of  lowering cost instead of extending coverage.

You should only extend coveage when you realize where the cost is coming from.

Yes, a sensible approach would be to only cover those who do not get sick and drop them if they do. That way the insurers can ensure very large profits. That's an excellent idea.

So that profit can be transferred to the pharmaceutical companies?

That makes no sense.

Elaborate...

---

This is how a Bears RB should run. Like Walter said..."never die easy."

Mechanic, Left Tackle Mafia.

Here to fix the ones that break down.

Decatur Staley:

onebud34:

jester:

onebud34:

cnobody:

it's not a bad strategy.  the GOP can draft a bill that nobody is going to vote for and then continue the "we were left out of the process" line that they've been touting all summer long.  they can have it on record that they worked on a countering plan and tell their moderate constituents that they care about health insurance reform.  win win for the party of no. 

I think most peoples distaste with the GOP is that they've done alot of bickering without any substance.

We'll see what happens, but I do like the sensible approach of  lowering cost instead of extending coverage.

You should only extend coveage when you realize where the cost is coming from.

Yes, a sensible approach would be to only cover those who do not get sick and drop them if they do. That way the insurers can ensure very large profits. That's an excellent idea.

So that profit can be transferred to the pharmaceutical companies?

That makes no sense.

whew thought it was just me lol.

---

1. We go out and hit people in the mouth.
2. We are Not a charity, we cannot give them the game.-Mike Singletary 10/26/2008
-Member of the Caleb Hanie Fan Club
-Ignorance can be fixed with a book, Stupidity needs a shotgun and a shovel.

As they say...it's doesn't matter how big your pen is...it's how many pages you write with it.

---

This is how a Bears RB should run. Like Walter said..."never die easy."

Mechanic, Left Tackle Mafia.

Here to fix the ones that break down.

onebud34:

cnobody:

it's not a bad strategy.  the GOP can draft a bill that nobody is going to vote for and then continue the "we were left out of the process" line that they've been touting all summer long.  they can have it on record that they worked on a countering plan and tell their moderate constituents that they care about health insurance reform.  win win for the party of no. 

I think most peoples distaste with the GOP is that they've done alot of bickering without any substance.

We'll see what happens, but I do like the sensible approach of  lowering cost instead of extending coverage.

You should only extend coveage when you realize where the cost is coming from.

so, are you of the opinion that this GOP bill is in earnest?  i see it as no more than a stunt; too late in the game to be anything but a stunt. 

cnobody:

onebud34:

cnobody:

it's not a bad strategy.  the GOP can draft a bill that nobody is going to vote for and then continue the "we were left out of the process" line that they've been touting all summer long.  they can have it on record that they worked on a countering plan and tell their moderate constituents that they care about health insurance reform.  win win for the party of no. 

I think most peoples distaste with the GOP is that they've done alot of bickering without any substance.

We'll see what happens, but I do like the sensible approach of  lowering cost instead of extending coverage.

You should only extend coveage when you realize where the cost is coming from.

so, are you of the opinion that this GOP bill is in earnest?  i see it as no more than a stunt; too late in the game to be anything but a stunt. 

If you saw the election results tonight...It actually might be a pretty good stunt.

They beat the DFLer's at their own game which is dumbing themsleves down to their audience. Why read almost 2000 pages when you can read 230 pages?

---

This is how a Bears RB should run. Like Walter said..."never die easy."

Mechanic, Left Tackle Mafia.

Here to fix the ones that break down.

Call it a stunt, call it a ploy, a trick, whatever you want. It does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far...

"The measure would place caps on medical malpractice lawsuits, limiting the amount of damages that could be awarded as well as the size of attorney fees."-from the referenced article

Yes. It's a plan to take on lawyers. Perhaps the costliest of the HC system villains. That's a step in the right direction. Now, if they would take on Pharma Cos, HC Corporations, seek changes from the AMA on its protocols for treatment, then we'd be getting somewhere. Then you turn and tell the insurers, this is what you want. Now--no more waivering illnesses and denying coverage.

---

Shoot man... if you let this group of guys get under your skin you'll be butt naked in the crazy house eating cat poop with knitting sticks.
-K3YPlNlTR33L

jester:

From reading the article this plan sounds like poo.

No kidding.

jester:

From reading the article this plan sounds like poo.

No kidding.

MBM:

Call it a stunt, call it a ploy, a trick, whatever you want. It does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far...

"The measure would place caps on medical malpractice lawsuits, limiting the amount of damages that could be awarded as well as the size of attorney fees."-from the referenced article

Yes. It's a plan to take on lawyers. Perhaps the costliest of the HC system villains. That's a step in the right direction. Now, if they would take on Pharma Cos, HC Corporations, seek changes from the AMA on its protocols for treatment, then we'd be getting somewhere. Then you turn and tell the insurers, this is what you want. Now--no more waivering illnesses and denying coverage.

the CBO has stated that the impact of malpractice lawsuits is fairly minimal to the overall costs of health care.  is reform needed on that front?  certainly, but it isn't the big demon that some wish to make it out to be.  but anyway, have you read the bill, or are you basing your "it does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far" based solely on this one point? 
and further, look at the timing.  the major bills in both houses are going to be voted upon soon.  the GOP had said all summer that they had a bill and they wait until now to submit it?  it's a stunt, no more.  no health care bill submitted by the minority is going to be taken seriously by congress at this point in the game.  it does nothing to serve health care reform and does everything to serve the chess moves of the GOP.  like i said, it's a good move if that's all they're interested in.  and, as we have seen, that is all they are interested in.  they can tell their constituents that they "battled" the democrats by voting against the democratic bill, but still pull off the illusion that they support health care reform. 

MBM:

Call it a stunt, call it a ploy, a trick, whatever you want. It does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far...

"The measure would place caps on medical malpractice lawsuits, limiting the amount of damages that could be awarded as well as the size of attorney fees."-from the referenced article

Yes. It's a plan to take on lawyers. Perhaps the costliest of the HC system villains. That's a step in the right direction. Now, if they would take on Pharma Cos, HC Corporations, seek changes from the AMA on its protocols for treatment, then we'd be getting somewhere. Then you turn and tell the insurers, this is what you want. Now--no more waivering illnesses and denying coverage.

Exactly. Healthcare reform means nothing with insurance companies denying coverage, denying legitimate claims, and bankrupting people who get sick. If you attack lawyers that sue for malpractice on behalf of clients then you need attack the lawyers that deny claims for insurance companies.

cnobody:

MBM:

Call it a stunt, call it a ploy, a trick, whatever you want. It does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far...

"The measure would place caps on medical malpractice lawsuits, limiting the amount of damages that could be awarded as well as the size of attorney fees."-from the referenced article

Yes. It's a plan to take on lawyers. Perhaps the costliest of the HC system villains. That's a step in the right direction. Now, if they would take on Pharma Cos, HC Corporations, seek changes from the AMA on its protocols for treatment, then we'd be getting somewhere. Then you turn and tell the insurers, this is what you want. Now--no more waivering illnesses and denying coverage.

the CBO has stated that the impact of malpractice lawsuits is fairly minimal to the overall costs of health care.  is reform needed on that front?  certainly, but it isn't the big demon that some wish to make it out to be.  but anyway, have you read the bill, or are you basing your "it does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far" based solely on this one point? 
and further, look at the timing.  the major bills in both houses are going to be voted upon soon.  the GOP had said all summer that they had a bill and they wait until now to submit it?  it's a stunt, no more.  no health care bill submitted by the minority is going to be taken seriously by congress at this point in the game.  it does nothing to serve health care reform and does everything to serve the chess moves of the GOP.  like i said, it's a good move if that's all they're interested in.  and, as we have seen, that is all they are interested in.  they can tell their constituents that they "battled" the democrats by voting against the democratic bill, but still pull off the illusion that they support health care reform. 

You have no idea if it was a stunt or not, it's complete conjecture on your part.

cnobody:

MBM:

Call it a stunt, call it a ploy, a trick, whatever you want. It does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far...

"The measure would place caps on medical malpractice lawsuits, limiting the amount of damages that could be awarded as well as the size of attorney fees."-from the referenced article

Yes. It's a plan to take on lawyers. Perhaps the costliest of the HC system villains. That's a step in the right direction. Now, if they would take on Pharma Cos, HC Corporations, seek changes from the AMA on its protocols for treatment, then we'd be getting somewhere. Then you turn and tell the insurers, this is what you want. Now--no more waivering illnesses and denying coverage.

the CBO has stated that the impact of malpractice lawsuits is fairly minimal to the overall costs of health care.  is reform needed on that front?  certainly, but it isn't the big demon that some wish to make it out to be.  but anyway, have you read the bill, or are you basing your "it does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far" based solely on this one point? 
and further, look at the timing.  the major bills in both houses are going to be voted upon soon.  the GOP had said all summer that they had a bill and they wait until now to submit it?  it's a stunt, no more.  no health care bill submitted by the minority is going to be taken seriously by congress at this point in the game.  it does nothing to serve health care reform and does everything to serve the chess moves of the GOP.  like i said, it's a good move if that's all they're interested in.  and, as we have seen, that is all they are interested in.  they can tell their constituents that they "battled" the democrats by voting against the democratic bill, but still pull off the illusion that they support health care reform. 

and the single largest monetary contributor as a group to the Democratic party in 2008 

I think they are only referring to the actual costs of the settlements.  Not including the costs of double and triple testing for relative minor illnesses to cover their butts, referring to specialists to cover their butt, and basically over treating just to cover their butts in the event of a lawsuit

 

trmwf:

cnobody:

MBM:

Call it a stunt, call it a ploy, a trick, whatever you want. It does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far...

"The measure would place caps on medical malpractice lawsuits, limiting the amount of damages that could be awarded as well as the size of attorney fees."-from the referenced article

Yes. It's a plan to take on lawyers. Perhaps the costliest of the HC system villains. That's a step in the right direction. Now, if they would take on Pharma Cos, HC Corporations, seek changes from the AMA on its protocols for treatment, then we'd be getting somewhere. Then you turn and tell the insurers, this is what you want. Now--no more waivering illnesses and denying coverage.

the CBO has stated that the impact of malpractice lawsuits is fairly minimal to the overall costs of health care.  is reform needed on that front?  certainly, but it isn't the big demon that some wish to make it out to be.  but anyway, have you read the bill, or are you basing your "it does a hell of a lot more than any plan offered up by Congress so far" based solely on this one point? 
and further, look at the timing.  the major bills in both houses are going to be voted upon soon.  the GOP had said all summer that they had a bill and they wait until now to submit it?  it's a stunt, no more.  no health care bill submitted by the minority is going to be taken seriously by congress at this point in the game.  it does nothing to serve health care reform and does everything to serve the chess moves of the GOP.  like i said, it's a good move if that's all they're interested in.  and, as we have seen, that is all they are interested in.  they can tell their constituents that they "battled" the democrats by voting against the democratic bill, but still pull off the illusion that they support health care reform. 

and the single largest monetary contributor as a group to the Democratic party in 2008 

I think they are only referring to the actual costs of the settlements.  Not including the costs of double and triple testing for relative minor illnesses to cover their butts, referring to specialists to cover their butt, and basically over treating just to cover their butts in the event of a lawsuit

 

Absolutely, cnobody is ignoring the other effects associated with malpractice. It's not surprising though, he only looks at issues from one angle, the left.