Quote :

"If that company is making its money from non-preventable diseases and injuries from freak accidents, then no, I have no problem telling them how much they can make."

So you're prefer to restrict their incentive to cure and treat these problems?

8/22/2009 5:17:22 PM

I could be wrong, but I think insurance companies make more money when their customers don't get non-preventable diseases and injuries.

If everyone got cancer next year, I think BCBS would be forced into bankruptcy.

GSK would make a killing though.

You may not believe this, but pharma doesn't spend millions of dollars on researching new drugs out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 5:19:58 PM

JCASHFAN,

I think a better question is how much screentest thinks these companies should make. Nothing helps a person realize how poor their argument is until they try to attach numbers to it.

8/22/2009 5:21:51 PM

I don't think they should make anything.

8/22/2009 5:24:40 PM

Some people think they have a right to something that someone else created.

Since it looks like there is a "right" to healthcare", I wonder if I have the "right" to make the N&O publish an article that I want to write.

8/22/2009 5:25:16 PM

screentest, they shouldn't make *anything*? If we're talking about drug companies, how are they supposed to afford research and materials? If we're talking about doctors (who also treat unpreventable diseases) how are they supposed to make a living?

And if doctors can't make a living curing people, why would they do it???

Obviously, you don't mean they shouldn't make anything. You probably mean they should be paid with govt funding (the question then would be how much they should be funded). Please clarify.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 5:31 PM. Reason : ``]

8/22/2009 5:30:45 PM

Stop being a fat fucking douchebag, Socks. He thinks they shouldn't make runaway profits -- that doesn't commit him to knowing the actual dollar amount.

8/22/2009 5:33:12 PM

Quote :

"I don't think they should make anything."

I also read that as they should make $0 in profit.

^runaway profit. How much profit is runaway. Is there a limit per quarter or year? Or is extra profit allowed one year if the company loses money the previous year?

And, if they are able to make so much money, and it was easy to do so, why aren't there more companies doing it?



[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 5:33:56 PM

^ That's how I read it as well. McDanger, how do you know how much profit is too much profit if you don't have a figure in your head of the "right amount" of profit?

8/22/2009 5:36:44 PM

Quote :

"that doesn't commit him to knowing the actual dollar amount."

It commits someone to knowing an actual dollar amount. Since he is the one who proposes the idea, I'm sure he has a guess.

8/22/2009 5:42:45 PM

Clearly people who work in these fields should make a living. Should they make a living that involves summer homes and boats? Probably not. Feeling that way doesn't commit somebody to writing out a policy plan / action statement for you slobbering internet retards.

8/22/2009 5:53:28 PM

What about people who make boats? Don't they deserve to make a living?

What field does one need to work in in order to have a boat?

8/22/2009 5:55:09 PM

Also not committed to enumerating that. The simple opinion is that people that profiteer off of inevitable misfortune shouldn't get filthy rich doing it.

8/22/2009 6:03:50 PM

Perhaps we have a different definition of filthy rich.



Considering it takes 12+ years to complete the education needed to become a doctor, compared to what I'm earning with my B.S, they don't appear overpaid to me.

8/22/2009 6:20:08 PM

I'm sure there's some percentage of doctors that do it because it pays money, but I wonder how high of a percentage that really is. If high, that's pretty sad.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 6:23 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2009 6:23:42 PM

I bet its higher that you think

Quote :

"Just 8 percent of medical students go into family medicine now, said Dr. Steven Beck, vice president of the rural health institute at Texas Tech. Once, family doctors were the profession's mainstays. More go into specializations, where they can earn $300,000 to $900,000 a year in metropolitan areas. A family doctor in a rural community doesn't struggle. They make more than $100,000 a year on average, he said."

Note: I don't think anyone becomes a Doctor just for the money. I do think if they were limited to an amount less than they are currently making, there would be less people becoming Doctors.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 6:29:26 PM

nm

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 6:32:55 PM

There are a lot of unsupported morally judgmental statements in this thread.

8/22/2009 6:39:38 PM

Quote :

"Haha, are you kidding? To this day, people debate what the meaning of parts of the constitution are. The constitution is no where near as clear as you're making it out to be. The founding fathers even established an entire branch of the gov. whose job it is to interpret what the constitution actually means."

I could swear that I mentioned this. Yes, I'm quite sure that I said that to this day we still argue over its interpretation, let me see if I can find that for you ... ah, here it is:

Quote :

"The Constitution, the document which is the complete foundation of this country is easier to read, more concise and more specific than any of the bills being passed today by our law makers, and none of our law makers are founding a whole country. And even despite that, we have never ending battles over just what the constitution allows the government to do."

It's the part right after you stopped quoting me, therefore completely leaving off an essential part of the statement to attack and argument I didn't make.

So let me try again, the argument is that the constitution, in its unclear and vague form that we fight legal battles every day over, is more clear than most of the bills being passed by our representatives today, and that is a problem.

Quote :

"What aspect of modern american history makes you think the gov. would remotely come close to ordering old people to die? "

Not order, pressure. I don't think we have anyone (yet) in the government that would have the guts to issue orders. But they can do like the state of Oregon and deny payment for cancer, but offer to pay for euthanasia. They can also have official government approved "health care directives" that you have to fill out at each of these mandatory end of life counseling sessions "to ensure that people's end of life wishes are documented and carried out". Of course, we all know how clear government forms are, and there would never be any temptation to implement a program that rewards doctors for having more patients that "choose" less burdensome, more natural (read less costly) end of life options.

Quote :

"Insurance companies have layers of policies that are designed to deter old people from getting health care, and it is the government that had to step in and bolster care for the elderly. ... Doctors already have to submit reports about procedures to insurance companies, this is not different than anything now."

There is a significant difference between an insurance company, and the United States Federal Government. Only one has the full force of law behind it, and I'll give you a hint, it isn't BCBS.

Quote :

"And this has been removed from the plan anyway, so it's a moot point."

Given that the point is that these bills are needlessly complex, and full of potential for abuse and further government encroachment into the lives of the american people, the fact that this specific example has ben removed from the bill does not make the original point any less relevant.

Quote :

"Claiming that the gov. was setting the framework to form death panels is as nutty as claiming that Bush wanted to declare marshall law and seize a third term. You could certainly twist things to interpret his actions to be going in this direction, but it doesn't make you seem sane really. "

I'm not claiming that they are laying the framework for death panels as I don't believe they are. I do believe they are laying the frame work to take health care options and choices further out of the hands of individuals and their doctors and into the hands of lobbyists and politicians, which is about as nutty as claiming that the Bush administration pressured the DHS to raise terror alert levels prior to elections ... oh wait.

Quote :

"The health care bill will in no way cause you to change the way you live your life "in a very large way.""

Right, and medicare is completely voluntary.

Quote :

"If that company is making its money from non-preventable diseases and injuries from freak accidents, then no, I have no problem telling them how much they can make."

Oddly enough, no one seems to have a problem with the profits home owners insurance companies make.

Quote :

"Stop being a fat fucking douchebag, Socks. He thinks they shouldn't make runaway profits -- that doesn't commit him to knowing the actual dollar amount. "

Define runaway profits.

Quote :

"Clearly people who work in these fields should make a living. Should they make a living that involves summer homes and boats? Probably not. Feeling that way doesn't commit somebody to writing out a policy plan / action statement for you slobbering internet retards. "

No, but it does commit somebody some where to making those decisions, and how will you know if the decisions they make are even close to correct unless you already have some idea of what you're thinking of. But I'm not even asking for a specific number here, just a ballpark, what do you consider runaway profits?

8/22/2009 6:40:29 PM

It's no wonder why nothing ever gets solved.....rather than say, "G'damn I don't understand wtf mtc is saying so clearly, she knows nothing" you could perhaps say "Gee, mytwocents must not understand shit because she says 'x' and it's been proven to be wrong'. Fallacies are fallacies for a reason.

8/22/2009 6:43:14 PM

Quote :

"So let me try again, the argument is that the constitution, in its unclear and vague form that we fight legal battles every day over, is more clear than most of the bills being passed by our representatives today, and that is a problem. "

I disagree this is the case. I've read maybe 2-dozen pages of one of the revisions of the health bill (and of a few other bills over the years for that matter), and the complexity is in how specific it is, not how ambiguous it is. It reads like any other legal document, which is not surprising, since it is a law after-all. The constitution has a lot of details left out (which was obviously intentional); bills generally do not have this luxury, because they are the basis of contracts, trials, etc..

Quote :

"I'm not claiming that they are laying the framework for death panels as I don't believe they are. I do believe they are laying the frame work to take health care options and choices further out of the hands of individuals and their doctors and into the hands of lobbyists and politicians, which is about as nutty as claiming that the Bush administration pressured the DHS to raise terror alert levels prior to elections ... oh wait. "

Every single new law, ever, has the potential to be abused and be taken "further". That's why the founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances... so that the forces of gov. and people can make sure that no one entity has runaway power. It's almost as if you are arguing against the concept of government legislation in general.

8/22/2009 6:53:05 PM

No, I'm arguing that in addition to disagreeing with the bill in general; the fact that we're being pressured to rush it through and to hell with what it really says (after all, no one has two days and two lawyers to help them read it all and understand it); the idea of pushing it through in a time when we are already massively in debt; and its constitutionality; another problem with it and most bills, is that they don't explicitly spell out the limitations of the powers it grants.

While it is true that those limitations could be overturned with a vote as easily as a vote to expand the powers of the bill in the first place, having limitations spelled out provides a framework to have the discussion of whether such an expansion of the powers was within the original scope and appropriate. It creates a psychological barrier to the expansion of powers, and anything which makes it more difficult for the government to expand its powers is a good thing.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 7:20 PM. Reason : lk]

8/22/2009 7:18:10 PM

Quote :

"Clearly people who work in these fields should make a living. Should they make a living that involves summer homes and boats? Probably not. "

-McDanger

Well, what do you mean by "make a living"? Maybe make as much as you do (I would guess $40-$50,000)? That wouldn't seem right. Doctor's have to go to school for almost a decade to work 50+ hour weeks in high stress environs where their decisions have immediate life-or-death consequences. It wouldn't seem fair to pay them the same amount someone who doesn't have to do any of that. It also wouldn't be a good way to attract people to the profession.

While we're on this subject of deciding how much other people should make, maybe we should ask some farmers in Tanzania whether they think its right that computer programmers (or whatever you do) make more in a year than they will ever see in their life times. I think they would have some pretty interesting comments to make.

I also love this....

Quote :

"I'm sure there's some percentage of doctors that do it because it pays money, but I wonder how high of a percentage that really is. If high, that's pretty sad."

That's one highly evolved moral sensibility you got there. Here's a couple of questions for you to ponder.

1) Does your moral righteousness extend so far as to actually lead *you* to help nurse people back to health in your spare time (since it wouldn't be about the money for you right)? Or are you content telling other people what they should and should not do based on your moral beliefs (I think that makes you a Baptist)?

2) Does your highly evolved moral sensibility take into account the consequences of your recommendations? For example, say that most doctors really are in it for the money. If you cap salaries, you will reduce the number of doctors available to treat the sick. And I'm sorry but that's going to reduce the quality of health care to some degree and may even result in deaths that could have been avoided. How many deaths do you think would be acceptable to ensure that doctor's are not "over paid"?

Of course, I won't hold my breath to hear your answers.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 7:34 PM. Reason : ``]

8/22/2009 7:23:02 PM

Quote :

"Well, what do you mean by "make a living"? Maybe make as much as you do (I would guess $40-$50,000)? That wouldn't seem right. Doctor's have to go to school for almost a decade to work 50+ hour weeks in high stress environs where their decisions have immediate life-or-death consequences. It wouldn't seem fair to pay them the same amount someone who doesn't have to do any of that. It also wouldn't be a good way to attract people to the profession. "

Talking about health insurance execs.

Quote :

"While we're on this subject of deciding how much other people should make, maybe we should ask some farmers in Tanzania whether they think its right that computer programmers (or whatever you do) make more in a year than they will ever see in their life times. I think they would have some pretty interesting comments to make."

I know you think you just BLEW MY MIND with that childish observation but you're probably right. It's really too bad third world laborers aren't paid in a way that reflects their contribution to global wealth.

Quote :

"1) Does your moral righteousness extend so far as to actually lead *you* to help nurse people back to health in your spare time (since it wouldn't be about the money for you right)? Or are you content telling other people what they should and should not do based on your moral beliefs (I think that makes you a Baptist)?"

I'm not talented at medicine. I do what I'm good at -- which is probably better for everybody than me trying to waste my time at something somebody else could do better.

Quote :

"2) Does your highly evolved moral sensibility take into account the consequences of your recommendations? For example, say that most doctors really are in it for the money. If you cap salaries, you will reduce the number of doctors available to treat the sick. And I'm sorry but that's going to reduce the quality of health care to some degree and may even result in deaths that could have been avoided. How many deaths do you think would be acceptable to ensure that doctor's are not "over paid"?"

I'm not really into the notion of capping doctors salaries for the reasons you've mentioned -- if it would actually decrease care then those aren't consequences I'm willing to live with. Health insurance execs though? Heh.

H E H.

Quote :

"Of course, I won't hold my breath to hear your answers."

It's too bad because maybe you'd pass the fuck out and stop posting.

8/22/2009 8:07:22 PM

Quote :

" The simple opinion is that people that profiteer off of inevitable misfortune shouldn't get filthy rich doing it."

Except for trial lawyers, of course

Quote :

"I'm not talented at medicine. I do what I'm good at"

If only you could be paid for being an arrogant douchebag. You'd make a killing!

8/22/2009 8:40:04 PM

if you take away the ability of making a profit, you take away the "American Dream"

that, in and of itself, is unamerican

it doesn't matter if you want to be a doctor, insurance CEO, lawyer, shit shoveler, ditch digger, a software developer, or a porn producer. the ability to own a business and make a profit is what separates capitalism from the rest.

Quote :

"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. --Thomas Jefferson "

8/22/2009 9:01:39 PM

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/industry.cfm

Obviously an unbiased source. It doesn't look like healthcare executive pay is out of line with other industries.

8/22/2009 9:06:13 PM

McDanger,

When the FUCK did we decide to focus this conversation onto Health Insurance Execs? Looking back I don't see it. Oh yah, you just now decided to narrow the focus of the conversation when the implications of your much broader statements became uncomfortable. That's why these conversations are good for you. They focus one's thoughts.

But now we're getting some where. You apparently have a very good procedure for deciding how much everyone should make. Health execs make too much. Tanzanian farmers make too little. Please elaborate this procedure...if you can. How do you decide when someone is making more/less than they should?

8/23/2009 12:21:00 AM

8/23/2009 11:31:35 AM

I did not read a bit of this thread, save for page 28. However, I can say that this one page closely mirrors what I've unfortunately observed to be the case in a wide variety of postings from other message boards, news sites, and blogs - an amazing amount of resentment towards physicians as successful individuals. I find it unconscionable that so many people would cheerfully turn physicians into indentured servants, doing so solely on the basis of some trumped up morality argument fashioned to make a desired service more affordable.

8/23/2009 5:08:06 PM

^no, ^^^^^ said we weren't talking about doctors. I too thought we were, but, we weren't

8/23/2009 5:59:08 PM

^^ lol

because physicians will be making less money from seeing more patients

8/23/2009 7:23:02 PM

^ yes, and teachers make so much more when they have more students

8/23/2009 8:07:56 PM

Quote :

" Except for trial lawyers, of course"

Holy Christ, could you be more ignorant. Trial Lawyers, despite your beliefs, aren't rolling around in money Studi0 54 style.

8/23/2009 8:08:57 PM

John Edwards begs to differ

8/23/2009 8:16:48 PM

^^^ principals do

I'm sure it washes down somehow though.

Not that that situation is at all similar to doctors.

[Edited on August 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM. Reason : ]

8/23/2009 8:20:59 PM

^^Do you know the difference between anecdote and evidence?

8/23/2009 8:25:16 PM

Quote :

"Also not committed to enumerating that. The simple opinion is that people that profiteer off of inevitable misfortune shouldn't get filthy rich doing it."

Is this douchebag for REAL!!!!

If you really think doctors are only in it for the money than you are sadly mistaken.

The only people that may potentially
be guilty of market manipulation also coercing favorable legislation via lobbying to increase profits, at the expense of patients,
are the pharma industry and health insurance industry.

8/23/2009 11:22:27 PM

^^ Anecdotes can be evidence, dummy. Ever heard of eyewitness testimony?

And. . .

Quote :

"There are a lot of unsupported morally judgmental statements in this thread."

JCASHFAN

Quote :

"The only thing 'justifying' government-operated health care is your own normative statements and ideology."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=25

. . .I made a similar point pages ago.

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 1:04 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2009 1:04:17 AM

Lieberman: Many health care changes can wait
He says Obama should postpone many initiatives because of the recession

Quote :

"WASHINGTON - An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn. 'I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession,' said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. 'There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms.'"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32531250/ns/politics-capitol_hill

8/24/2009 3:43:22 AM

joe lieberman always has been, and always will be a spineless pussy.

if health care reform isn't handled now, it never will be. political capital for democrats is at an all time high, and if they screw this over now, it won't happen. ever.

lieberman feels a little resistance, and true to form, sides with the group he feels is gaining momentum; this time the status-quo profiteers.

fortunately, for those wanting reform, lieberman has a history of always choosing the losing side of every battle he's ever fought.


fuck that guy.

8/24/2009 4:56:33 AM

profiteers? hahaha. Go get in a drum-circle, hippie, and whine about the evil corporations, man.

8/24/2009 6:58:49 AM

^^ That's a typically gross mischaracterization of Lieberman's position and what he actually said in the interview at issue:

Quote :

"Senators leading the negotiations have told colleagues that they agree on the majority of what should be in the bill but are hung up on key points. 'They've said to me that they agree on about three-quarters of what needs to be done,' Mr. Lieberman said Sunday. 'Let's do the three-quarters and save the other quarter for a day when the economy is growing and maybe we've done something to turn down the deficit.'"

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/24/not-right-time-for-major-bill-lieberman-tells-demo/

8/24/2009 7:16:12 AM

Quote :

"sides with the group he feels is gaining momentum; this time the status-quo profiteers."

This is really starting to piss me off. Just because a person or group is opposed to a massive new government healthcare program does not mean that they are satisfied with the status quo anymore than a person being opposed to the death penalty is satisfied with the idea of murderers being sentenced to smaller terms than a guy with some pot.

8/24/2009 8:41:26 AM

Quote :

"joe lieberman always has been, and always will be a spineless pussy."

I prefer a little spineless pussy in my politicians, it beats pig-headed arrogance in the face of voter opposition.

Quote :

"if health care reform isn't handled now, it never will be."

Which would be the best possible outcome at the moment.

Quote :

"political capital for democrats is at an all time high"

And if this bill passes, it will be at an all time low. They will literally expend all of their capital on this one issue and be trounced in the mid-term elections.

Quote :

"The only people that may potentially be guilty of market manipulation also coercing favorable legislation via lobbying to increase profits, at the expense of patients, are the pharma industry and health insurance industry."

The drug companies are hugely in favor of this. Why? Because they see an opportunity to profit off government largess the same way the Defense Industry does. They'll no longer have any incentive to accomplish anything and every incentive to churn out mediocre products that continue their contract, but don't solve the problem.

8/24/2009 8:55:52 AM

Quote :

"^^ Anecdotes can be evidence, dummy. Ever heard of eyewitness testimony? And. . . "

Every trial lawyer is Edwards rich? Are you seriously going go along with that claim, fucknut.

Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is very specific testimony to a very specific set of factors. Speaking of trial lawyers in general is not a very specific set of factors in which anecdotes do not rise to the level of evidence. Dumbass.

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2009 10:16:06 AM

Quote :

"Trial Lawyers, despite your beliefs, aren't rolling around in money Studi0 54 style."

I'm confused. You did not say "most trial lawyers...aren't rolling around in money", you simply said "trial lawyers". That seems like a broad enough claim that could be disproven with a single example. At the very least, *some* trial lawyers are indeed "rolling around in money".

Now, of course, I can expect to hear you call me an idiot for not reading words you didn't bother to write.

If you want to make claims about the salary earned by the *majority* of trial lawyers, that would require you to provide some statistical evidence. Of course, I'm sure you have a litany of reasons for why you shouldn't be the one to google it. But someone should do it eventually.

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM. Reason : ``]

8/24/2009 10:26:30 AM

connotation, numbnuts. Quit trying to troll.

Do you honestly believe guardian ad litems, public defenders, etc. are rolling around in cash?

The only time a lawyer rakes in the cash is if they take a contigency case and those are few and far between because it is not a stable form of income. Sure they may get $50,000 at the end of it all, but that is $50,000 spread over a few years.

http://www.ehow.com/video_4970871_trial-lawyer-salary.html

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2009 10:48:43 AM

^ those sound like a lot of individual anecdotes, not evidence. Even the video provides a series of anecdotes and ranges, but not actual statistical evidence on the typical trial lawyer's salary. Isn't that what you were looking for when you were busting hooksaw's balls?

Now, if you do go looking for statistical evidence, ask yourself who aaronburro and hooksaw were actually talking about. Are they talking about public defenders and DAs? Or are they talking more specifically about lawyers focusing on medical malpractice lawsuits? Certainly, they did not say that. But I think that it in the context of a discussion on health care, that would certainly be more along the lines of what they meant.

And I think you know a thing about leaving some things unsaid, right?

[Edited on August 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM. Reason : ``]

8/24/2009 11:04:57 AM

Do you really expect someone to take them seriously when they throw out the talking point of trial lawyers, when they don't even know what constitutes a trial lawyer?

8/24/2009 12:37:19 PM