Rctlfy's Blog

My Cheap Trick

TrickyVic|3.27.10 @ 1:05PM|# Politicians are professional liars.
One of the biggest scams right now is republicans getting people to believe they are against a health care mandate. It was orignially a republican idea. The lastest is that they want to repeal and replace.
I’ve been saying for the past couple of weeks that the republicans are just pissed that the dems brought in a more universal health instead of them. That’s why they want to do away with the current law, so they can replace it with their own version.

Every once in a while I read a comment that makes me say QUOI???????????? Ok, boys that’s a WTF in your language.  http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/26/the-partisan-wisdom-of-the-pol#commentcontainer

Cookie Kwan|3.27.10 @ 4:28PM|#…Well, one can argue that there has to be some sort of a mandate, otherwise people would just be buying healthcare insurance when they got sick and the whole system would collapse. I believe that their proposal gave tax credits to those who bought their insurance privately, they also endorsed taking insurance out of the employment sector — something I for one support.
There has been a lot of talk about this today, that this is the Republicans idea come to fruition and I find it laughable to be so naive as to think that the Democrats are soooo altruisitic that they just took one for the team.
It’s been no secret that both sides have their own idea of how healthcare reform should work. It’s been no secret that the R’s support healthcare reform, it’s about which reform gives individuals more freedom, more money in their pockets and rewards hard work.
After all, a totally free market system would dictate that a person without insurance who gets diagnosed with cancer, simply die and let’s be realistic, the Repubicans would fail if that ran on that platform.
Thoughts?

Fatty Bolger|3.29.10 @ 9:58AM|# Um… Republicans could have passed universal health care any time they wanted from 1995 to 2006, and could have done it with minimal help from Democrats during 2001 – 2006. Maybe you’ve also forgotten the battles over Hillarycare in the 90′s? Seriously, this has to be the lamest argument I have seen on this subject.

Cookie Kwan brings up a creditable point; not only for its anti-libertarian connotation but practically speaking, a mandate is likely the only fair solution.  I disagree with Tricky Vic’s declaration that Republicans intended to implement health care reform. Fatty Bolger’s argument completely refutes TV’s assertion. Certainly, if HCR can be initiated in less that a year, it could have been previously consummated in eight!

Undoubtedly, both sides have an interpretation of health care reform, and for this reason, Tricky Vick has a point!  I know it kills me to write that, I suspect he’s that Ringo  gynecologist

How’d you like that man’s hand up your vagina? I certainly wouldn’t thank him for the thrill, like I do Dr. Tacunafight!

Lacking political will is evidently a Republican trait, and foolishly it cost them control of this tortoise and hare race.  Whether or not, they can regain dominion through the courts, does not change the analysis of the facts: They were unwise to think that the Democrats were too stupid to do a Hillary 2.0

Republicans played the short-sighted fools, and focused on the methodology of Democrats, not their goal.  More importantly, The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.  Sadly, even terrorist don’t pull that rookie mistake;  Al Qaeda learns from their failures, and refocuses on their ground zero.

Yes, Cookie,  I do have a thought on your question:  Can any party state that the uninsured should drop dead, and still expect electoral success? Hell, no!  Aside from the libertarians-OK, they have the Charity Fairy solution™, AKA Virginia, you’re too fucking old to believe in Santa.   I suspect that the CK has inadvertently explained why the Republicans never seriously pursued HCR.

PapayaSF|3.27.10 @ 9:00PM|#I could moderate my libertarian tendencies and support some version of an individual mandate, but not the idiotic one in Obamacare. It should be for low-cost/high-deductible/HSA policies, which instead the Democrats are making illegal. So they are making insurance more expensive and forcing everyone to buy it. Brilliant!

PapayaSF offers what I think is the most logical strategy for any party’s political solution:  An individual mandate which would bring about the death of Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, umbilically tied to employment, and the use of high deductible insurance which would lead to a free market race in basic health care. 

Tricky’s declaration seems ridiculous on the surface.   Liberals promised HCR and delivered on their pledge.  Would Conservatives adopt a homogeneous sacred cow?  Are not Conservatives the party of business first? Let’s rate it

individuals who choose a health insurance plan in the individual market face no tax penalty. All Americans should receive the same tax benefit.    Equitable, and it has a bonus effect for SBOs. (Small business) by nulling their inability to compete for talent due to insurance buying power. This statement is coincidently topical paralleling the current tax debate, isn’t?  The Republicans intend to hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire on extending the impending death of inheritance tax-relief for all Americans, AKA, the wealthy.  I  agree that post-tax property and monies should revert to heirs free of double-taxation. This statement is neutral on TrickyVic’s claim, but clearly, both parties do not agree on tax benefits.  Score + 0

Individuals with pre-existing conditions must be protected; we will help these individuals by building on the experiences of innovative states rather than by creating a new unmanageable federal entitlement.  We strongly urge that managed care organizations use the practice patterns and medical treatment guidelines from the state in which the patient lives when making medical coverage decisions. Do you need a shovel for that remark?  What a load of bullshit.  Yes, both parties want pre-existing conditions subjected to exclusionary protection but the Republican’s solution does not involve federal protection, and relies on HMO’S expertise (we all know they are as useful as a an STD).  The Reps and Dems are diametrically opposed on this point.  Score + 0

Because the family is our basic unit of society, we fully support parental rights to consent to medical treatment for their children including mental health treatment, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, and treatment involving pregnancy, contraceptives, and abortion. This is code for no more abortions.   Teenagers will be out of luck on attaining prescriptions, or even making a physician’s appointment.  Indubitably another differentiating policy aspect between the parties. Score + 0 

 Chronic diseases …in many cases, preventable conditions … consuming three of every four health care dollars. We can reduce demand for medical care by fostering personal responsibility within a culture of wellness, while increasing access to preventive services, including improved nutrition and breakthrough medications that keep people healthy and out of the hospital. To reduce the incidence of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and stroke, we call for a national grassroots campaign against obesity, especially among children.  We call for continuation of efforts to decrease use of tobacco, especially among the young….Hmm. This does sound like the Democrats.  Holy crap, TrickyVick was right on this point. Score +1

Clear information about health care empowers patients.  It lets consumers make better decisions about where to spend their health care dollars, thereby fostering competition and lowering costs.  Patients must have information to make sound decisions about their health care providers, hospitals, and insurance companies. Unless they intend to take control from the AMA, and standardized open source medical billing code, it is a useless statement. Not addressing this issue was a huge fail on the part of Obama’s HCR, but essentially both parties spew consumer protection, and fail to pursue this sensible policy.  Score +0           A neutral but I’m tempted to say TV should receive a point for Politicians are professional liars.

Advances in medical technology are revolutionizing medicine. Information technology is key to early detection and treatment of chronic disease as well as fetal care and health care in rural areas – especially where our growing wireless communications network is available.  The simple step of modernizing recordkeeping will mean faster, more accurate treatment, fewer medical errors, and lower costs.  Closing the health care information gap can reduce both under-utilization (the diabetic who forgets to refill an insulin prescription) and over-utilization (the patient who endures repetitive tests because providers have not shared test results).                  I have declined to sign agreement notifications for electronic record keeping, but it should be a personal choice for the privatly insured. Some patients will choose the convenience over the very real potential of a permanent loss of privacy. If you are the forgetful diabetic, and you agree to have your disease managed by your HC professional, then it should be an option.  Repetitive test are a waste of medical dollars but when the patient becomes responsible for their own medical care, such incidents will be reduced. I do favor electronic record keeping for those who receive medicare, and medicaid.  This technology can be applied to data searching for anomolies that could indicate medical fraud, and secondly medicaid patients are likely unable to properly manage their HC treatment. Score +1

 Every patient must have access to legal remedies for malpractice, but meritless lawsuits drive up insurance rates to outrageous levels and ultimately drive up the number of uninsured…the cost of health care as health care providers are forced to practice defensive medicine… ordering unnecessary tests. Many leave their practices rather than deal with the current system….. One of my favorite red herrings is medical tort reform; it already exists in Texas, and California and it has made not difference in the cost to the consumer.  Sure Doctors are as thrilled as malpractice lawyers are pissed, but the money never trickled down on this one.  Both Texas and California have one of the highest insurance rates. Another DNA  Score +0

Providers should be paid for keeping people well, not for the number of tests they run or procedures they perform…This seems like nonsense talk to me. Have a plan, or STFU. Neutral  Score +0

A state-regulated national market for health insurance means more competition, more choice, and lower costs.  Families – as well as fraternal societies, churches and community groups, and small employers – should be able to purchase policies across state lines.  The best practices and lowest prices should be available in every state. Purchasing across state lines?  WTH, I need a why Conservatives and Libertarians agree scorecard. Democrats don’t.  Score +0

 We call upon state legislators to carefully consider the cost of medical mandates…AKA, no state mandates.  So basically insurances companies can evade RICO statutes, colluding to eliminate preventive care. Score +o  Obamacare is the mandate King

 We must develop new ways to support individuals, not just institutions, so that older Americans can have a real choice whether to stay in their homes. This is true not only with regard to Medicaid, where we spend $100 billion annually on long-term care, but also for those who do not qualify for that assistance….This alleviates pressure on government funding of elder care facilities, and indeed would save money.  Don’t see it in the Democratic bill : Score +0

We believe in the importance of primary care specialties and supporting the physician’s role in the evaluation and management of disease.  We also encourage practice in rural and underserved areas of America.  This is another argument for the dismantling of the AMA.  Tax incentives and loan forgiveness could encourage more physicians to practice primary and rural care. So does everybody else.  Score +0

We support federal investment in basic and applied biomedical research… that account for the majority of our health care costs.  I guess aging is a disease? We already know the elderly costs three-fourths of our public medical dollars, and we already support research through the NIH.  Score +1 and I give it reluctantly.  They   want to control research within their religious guidelines.   

The United States leads in this research, as evidenced by our growing biotechnology industry, but foreign competition is increasing.  One way government can help preserve the promise of American innovation is to ensure that our intellectual property laws remain robust.  Hell, the Chinese are whipping our ass. Intellectual property laws have been our Achilles’ heel but good luck enforcing them.  Score +1

Federal research dollars should be spent as though lives are at stake – because, in fact, they are. Research protocols must consider the special needs of formerly neglected groups if we are to make significant progress against breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, and other killers.  John Stossel was just bitching on Fox about groups getting more attention than others. Here’s a clue: Be a woman, start your own group, imitate their tactics, and don’t be such a whinny boy, or STFU.  Score +0

Taxpayer-funded medical research must be based on sound science, with a focus on both prevention and treatment, and in accordance with the humane ethics of the Hippocratic Oath…. a major expansion of support for the stem-cell research…with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells – without the destruction of embryonic human life.  We call for a ban on human cloning and for a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes…. federal funds should not be used for drugs that cause the destruction of human life.  Furthermore, the Drug Enforcement Administration ban on use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide should be restored. Blah, blah, blah, you can’t die if you’re in pain, because God told me you should suffer.  Score +o

The health care profession can be both a profession and a calling.  No health care professional – doctor, nurse, or pharmacist – or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, or refer for a health care service against their conscience for any reason.  This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s health care, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities.
This is a tough one but hospitals need to have providers who will do abortions, and who will implant IUD’s, or cervical rings.  Pharmacists need to have assistants who will fill prescriptions for abortion pills. Morality, or choices should not be politically defined.   Score +0

We support the provision of quality and accessible health care options for our nation’s seniors and disabled individuals and recognize that in order to meet this goal we must confront the special challenges posed by the growth of Medicare costs.  Its projected growth is out of control and threatens to squeeze out other programs, while funding constraints lead to restricted access to treatment for many seniors.  There are solutions.  Medicare can be a leader for the rest of our health care system by encouraging treatment of the whole patient. Specifically, we should compensate doctors who coordinate care, especially for those with multiple chronic conditions, and eliminate waste and inefficiency.  Medicare patients must have more control of their care and choice regarding their doctors and the benefits of competition must be delivered to the patients themselves if Medicare is to provide quality health care. The reality is that doctors are shying away from Medicare but the solution does not lie with the patient wants, nor with treating the whole patient but with tax or other financial incentives for the providers. Score +1 both sides speak of unrealistic improvements

And Medicare patients must be free to add their own funds, if they choose, to any government benefits, to be assured of unrationed care. Allowing Medicare patients to add their own funds, will guarantee recidivism of care for the poorest of our seniors. Score +0 The Dems have never mentioned this idea

Finally, because it is isolated from the free market forces that encourage innovation, competition, affordability, and expansion of options, Medicare is especially susceptible to fraud and abuse.  The program loses tens of billions of dollars annually in erroneous and fraudulent payments.  We are determined to root out the fraud and eliminate this assault on the taxpayer. Does any party advocate for the theft of Medicare dollars?  Other than words, they offer no solutions, and both sides are of the same mind Score +1

Our Medicaid obligations will consume $5 trillion over the next ten years.  Medicaid now accounts for 20-25 percent of state budgets… give Medicaid recipients more health care options….allowed beneficiaries to buy regular health insurance with their Medicaid dollars… provides beneficiaries with better access to doctors, and saves taxpayers’ money.  We must ensure that taxpayer money is focused on caring for U.S. citizens and other individuals in our country legally.  Clearly, people on Medicaid are not likely able to manage the complexities of insurance.  While the expenses of Medicaid overlaps the immigration issue, it is not chicken and egg paradox.  In this case, immigration reform should precede, and could, if applied correctly, trivialize Medicaid overuse. Score +0  Democrat’s need the immigrant base.

To protect the American people from the threats we face in the century ahead, we must develop and stockpile medicines and vaccines so we can deliver them where urgently needed.  Our health care infrastructure must have the surge capacity to handle large numbers of patients in times of crisis, whether it is a repeat of Hurricane Katrina, a flu pandemic, or a bioterror attack on multiple cities.  Republicans will ensure that this infrastructure, including the needed communications capacity, is closely integrated into our homeland security needs. Whether the government has comprehensive plans, or stockpiles, are of little help without proper application.  Between Katrina and the gulf oil spill, the Republicans and Democrats both lack leadership in a crisis. Both sides agree: Score +1

So Is Tricky Vic right? The score: 7 out of 22.  Thus, 15 points of the
2008 Republican Platform does not match the Democrats’ HCR.

Yep, Republicans are not against HCR.  Hell yes, they are bitching that the democrats crossed the finish line first. But, no they aren’t  just pissed that the dems brought in a more universal health instead of them… and…they want to do away with the current law…true… so they can replace it with their own version… is perhaps true, but more universal health isn’t their stated platform.  Then again,  politicians are professional liars