Bolas

She's married. You're wasting your training skills on someone who'll never use them. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

From a battering standpoint - A sammich AND a beer?! What do think I am? I'm only a doctor... not made of money. Counter offer with: PB & J So a PB&J & BJ? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So a "free" system that can only survive via the kindness of doctors from other countries volunteering? Sounds perfect. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

The problem here is different - basically nobody but doctor could tell if the case is an emergency or not. To do so the doctor needs to see the patient, and in some cases see the lab exams results, like x-ray or MRI. At this moment the costs are already added up, so even if the case is non-emergent, treating is would add only a tiny fraction comparing to the costs already spent. This is where the doctor would need to ask themselves, "Based on initial assessment only, is this person in danger?" If a patient presents with the sniffles, a sore back, low fever, etc. really all they need is an Aunt Agnes test, "You'll be fine until normal clinic doctor hours."

Currently hospitals are not allowed to. If allowed they could come up with some sort of plan such as "no walkups" or having one nurse or doctor assigned to assess all walkups. If non emergency direct them to visit whatever is their new source of care. As for tort reform, a large portion on the high cost of care is the high cost of malpractice insurance. Reformation of tort laws to enable more judgements and less settlements would help as well. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Personal responsibility? Shit, we're fucked. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That worked pretty well in the American Revolution, and many right-wing fundamentalists are quick to point it out. But I would argue, with modern warfare technology, it could not happen today. It barely happened then, and only because we had a lot of help from the French. I think the opposite. Should just a few of the "wrong" people get control of some modern warfare technology... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

You already mentioned it: Offering an alternative while at the same time allowing ER's to close off except for actual emergency cases. Tort and EMTLA reform will help as well.

It'd be interesting to see what the source of those numbers are: * Was the total cost $125 billion or was that just the feds portion? * Is the $65 billion the total cost or only the feds portion? * Are they factoring in the increase in usage now that there is an established system vs. a pseudo one? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

The profit motives are predictable. Political motives are not. Just somthing to consider. Also corporations have greater interest in keeping you alive so you can keep paying them. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

How do you fight using logic against something illogical? Most religious people have that doubt already, but just throw the "faith" card on it. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Open mindedness is not belief. Open mindedness just means they want others to prove what they believe. Re: your 4 year old bed monsters example. The parent knows that there are no monsters, but rather than just telling the kid there aren't any and shutup and go to sleep, let the child try and prove it. When they fail or it turns out to be a pet or a weird shadow, they're more likely to accept your response. (Disclaimer: Not a parent) Ah yes, the old argument that if you can't prove it not to be it must be. I could claim to be able to jump 30 feet in the air on Earth but until I do, it's assumed I can't, vs. just because I haven't done it yet, means I can.

And this would be the result of an anarchistic state - one in which the powerful abuse the weak. Whether or not it's considered defense or retribution, it amounts to not much more than a tribal community, and results in gang warfare. Until the weak majority unites to fight an overwhelm the powerful minority. At that point they either lose and/or die and try again later or win and become the new powerful minority to start the cycle again. It's the same process but like everything else with government involved it's just much slower. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

These days? Obviously, it could not just be totally removed without some form of replacement. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Not correct. People try too hard to define atheism, and in the process, they often wind up over-defining it. True atheism is not "believing in doubt" (although that's a common misconception); indeed, it is not a type of belief at all. Rather it is, simply, an absence of any type of religious or spiritual belief. While that may be the case, they defend their belief with doubt. Otherwise, they are just as close minded as any religious group. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Hindu terrorsts. Sri Lanka should have remembered to keep church and state separate. Of course that brings up an interesting question, how many religions would violently revolt if they were simply officially removed from government? I'm speaking more of countries that have official religious ties, not countries like the US or others that have pseudo ties. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

From this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3656074#3656074 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxRwQoNv4qA He does make some valid points, but is the call for athiests to rise up realistic? * Atheism in itself is a paradox: believing in doubt. This requires more intelligence to grasp as questioning is harder than just believing. * People can't just blindly accept it like they can do with religion. * Atheism has no afterlife reward or punishment structure. How would you even organize athiests? Ironically to really do it, atheism would have to start acting like a religion. Organizing and recruiting, using a fear and reward system, possibly picking a book to use. Of course any fear (religious wars, bigotry, etc.) or rewards (acceptance, tolerance, etc.) would be limited to a persons finite time alive vs. religions eternity promises. Maybe we need to hire a marketing group. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

One could also argue that without any government you could not do that either as people would attempt tob defend themselves, or their friends and family would attempt to avenge as they too did not have any fear of government reprecussion.

I watched the movie last night.

Considering this boogie's previous history of scaring AAD's and late night fuckery... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

+1. "Hey you know all those people that really couldn't afford new homes that we provided risky loans for and they lost their ass? Let's get them into new cars they can't really afford!!!" The worst part is probably the overwhelming majority of the vehicles traded were fully paid for. All they've done is encourage people to take on more debt. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

lol. Your's too? I tell women when they see me when "sleeping" and/or cold that it only gets way better from here. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That's what the bill is for. Health insurers will not be able to dump sick people on the government (i.e. rest of us to pay). They won't dump them, they'll just screen new applicants more. Rather than not cover a preexisting condition for a new person, they won't cover them at all. True, it makes no difference for them, but it makes difference for the rest of us - who eventually will pay for his treatment. It makes huge difference for the hospital if they have to write off $10K bill or $1M bill, and multiple of those bills could easily lead to hospital closure. Again, you think you misunderstood the main point of the healthcare bill. It is NOT to provide health coverage for uninsured. They already have it via ER. The point is to make sure hospitals and ERs are paid. This is where the hospitals own insurance comes into play or they sell the debt to a collection agency. The same rules that should apply to individuals to protect their assets with insurance can apply to hospitals. Do you have any personal experience with those? Free clinics are good example of rationed care - cheap and good quality, but the availability is very low. It's low because the ER is always available. Take the ER option away... I'd say the scale is much larger, the costs of preventive care are likely to be 1/1000 and greater, depending on disease. Just consider the fact that someone who gets immunization or is early diagnosed with diphtheria will not be spreading it, resulting in fewer people to treat. We'd really need to see numbers. In the case of immunization, cost per person for visit and for the drug vs. the number that actual came in needed treatment later. It doesn't matter. If the plan could only cover its obligations relying on voluntary future payments or member involvements, it is not self sustaining plan already. By that definition, no insurance plan is self sustaining. Even banks aren't. Hell most businesses aren't. Look what happened last year when customers of WaMu and Wachovia made a silent run pulling out any money not FDIC insured. WaMu was bankrupted and Wachovia was bought in a fire sale. So people with insurance will be grandfathered in but new enrollment will become much tougher. Existing costs will skyrocket until people leave or they'll find another way around the system. No, new enrollment will not be tougher. It could only be more expensive. Remember, insurance companies cannot discriminate over pre-existing conditions, so basically there is no room for them to deny coverage. More expensive plan means people will join less expensive plan provided by another company. This is competition you want - in action. With the government mandates and restrictions there won't be cheaper plans as it's no longer worth the risk. Plus no company is going to just accept the loss of a profit stream. They'll find another way. It's just more cat and mouse games. Rather than deal with the root of the issue, they "quick fix" by forbidding something. This way the government looks like they are addressing the issue. Companies find another way or the loopholes and the process begins anew. Where did you get it? I've received multiple credit card offers in last month, and none of them had annual fee. Maybe it's time to cross-check with reality? Those regulations haven't gone into effect yet so of course they aren't charging fees. Right now they are trying to get as many people signed up as possible so when they do start charging annual fees (even if they have to "warn" everyone) they hope people will be lazy or just forget to cancel the card. Why then everyone else does not go to a doctor every time they have the sniffles? After all, those people have insurance. The wait will be more. As I said, it will move from ERs to doctors office. Hopefully there are more doctors than ERs. But as you said above, if the person cannot afford it, it doesn't really matter to them if it's $10K or $1M bill, so why would it change now? You gonna be treated anyway, no matter whether you have it or not. Which is why this government option is not necessary. People are being treated already. Let's call it "triage" care and billed on their ability to pay. Granted they aren't getting preventive care, but with that large a number of people is it really cost effective? Ex: a flu outbreak that takes a week or so to get past. Total cost per shot (visit and drug) $100. Using the same 40 million people number, it would cost $4 billion to immunize everyone. This does not include costs associated with adverse reaction to the immunization. Since a large portion of them don't work and others may get sick days even factoring in lost wages combined with flu complications expenses you're going to be hard pressed to come anywhere near the preventive costs. From a societal level, it just does not make economic sense to provide "free" insurance and preventive care to all. If it did, a private company would have already figure out a way to tap the market.

Ah the hypocrisy of religion once again... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Every plan could be self-sustaining if you are allowed to cherry-pick customers. The way those plans work right now is that as soon as you become too costly, the company forces you into the "government plan AKA ER/nopay" by dropping you. This is no different from a bank which gives bad loans and enjoys hefty profits, and as soon as the loan defaults, it dumps it on the government. Both such banks and such health insurance companies aren't benefiting the society; in fact they just create more burden. So is that totally the fault of the banks and insurance companies that the gov't takes the "bad" off their hands essentially rewarding this sort of behavior? If the government didn't do that, the market would eventually sort itself out. Credit and insurance might not be as cheap or easy to get, but it would be available. So what is your point? Do you agree that despite having the government-sponsored education, we still have private school as an option (but this is really an option only for minority)? Are you saying that as soon as health standards are met, it should be matter of choice whether a person choses government or private health insurance? Health insurance, however, is also different from for example auto insurance - everyone has some chance to become a public burden. With car insurance it's easy - don't drive, and you wouldn't have liability claims. With health insurance it is different - you might live healthy life, and then suddenly get brain cancer and require VERY expensive treatment. Health insurance is not health care. If someone is already barely making it financially or not making it the difference in a $10,000 bill, a $100,000 bill and a million dollar medical bill is neglible to them. If someone is doing a little better, they should take steps to protect their assets. Easy. Treating sore throat, bad cold or a fever in a doctor office is cheaper than doing it in emergency room. Currently those who cannot afford healthcare, have only one treatment option - which is also the most expensive one. By providing them insurance they would be able to go to a doctor office, and we the taxpayers wouldn't be paying for them in ERs. Preventive care is also important. This is not something uninsured could get in ER, and for a lot of diseases early detection decreases overall treatment costs dramatically, and often means less people to get infected from them. There are free clinics and other options but the truth of that matter is those that don't have to pay, generally don't care. Unless banned from doing so, the ER will still be the primary source of care for those not paying. While I agree that the costs of preventive care decreases overall treatment cost on a per incident basis, what that doesn't factor in is the cost of that care on a wide scale when everyone starts coming in for preventive care for everything because it's "free." Ex. If preventive care is now 1/5 of cost, but now instead of late stage treating 5 people for one thing, you're doing prevent care for 40, it's actually costing more. Existing claims are supposed to be covered by premium already collected. An insurance plan which relies on future payments to cover existing claims is by definition not self sustaining, and is pretty close to Ponzi scheme. Actually most insurance companies have insurance as well for larger claims and smaller ones are probably payed with loans, not the principle. Did you read the bill? Insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, nor they will be allowed to dump insured. This was required exactly to prevent the situation you described. As there is only a market for very few private hospitals and health insurance companies, most companies will be forced to comply and cut their own costs as well. This is where the rationing of care and the denial of service really starts. I do not understand this logic, as it assumes we'll suddenly get 40M more people to treat. We will not; those 40M uninsured are already receiving treatment, and that's why people have to wait 8 hours in ER to see a doctor. This will shift them from ERs to regular doctor offices, but I really do not see how it would significantly increase the amount of care. No, it does - mainly because people now will go to ERs for _emergencies_, so the overall bill will be smaller. OK for sake of argument, lets pretend that having a government plan is not going to eventually push private insurance mostly out of the system and not going to grow with mostly "castoffs" that will cost considerably more. Let's use your 40 million number and say it stays constant. While the number of people stays constant, the number of claims will rise dramatically as getting treatment gets perceived to be easier. Ex. If you have to wait 8+ hours in an ER you're most likely not going to go every time you have the sniffles. However, if that wait is less and is less of a hassle, people are more likely to use it more as well as get things looked at they may have been dealing with for years. This doesn't even cover the people who do riskier things because they now have insurance. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.