See my above comment. Why bring a bill to the floor that has zero chance of passing? The GOP does that all the time.
He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he brings the budget to the floor, and it fails, the GOP will get to scream about how their budget would cure cancer, fix global warming, and create a job for every unemployed person in America, but the mean nasty lbrls won't give it a chance. Come to think of it, they can do that if he doesn't bring that to the floor, too.
So all things being equal, maybe he doesn't want to waste the Senate's limited time in session. Or, maybe, the GOP could give them a bill that could be debated meaningfully on the Senate floor. That's how it is supposed to work. One house proposes and passes a bill, and if the other house won't pass it, then negotiations can start on the issues addressed in the plan. But, the current House's ability to compromise or negotiate can't be seen with the naked eye, so we have the situation we have.
Allow insurance to be sold across state lines, like auto insuracne....open it up to more competition and that should help lower prices a good bit.
I disagree. HMOs as a group have been outstandingly good at making sure that the only direction that premiums can go is up. If we allow HMOs to sell across state lines, eventually what we will have is three or four Bank of America-sized insurance companies. And since the private HMOs have a stranglehold on the health care accessibility of the middle class, there is no incentive to compete. (Think about the Bank of America example. They are incompetence and greed in bank form. They treat their customers like absolute garbage, yet they're still in business because of their sheer size. They have no incentive to compete, because they know the other banks treat their customers the same way.)
Your premiums will never go down. Under any circumstances. Anyone that tells you otherwise is more than likely an industry shill or a Republican obeying their corporate masters. The only way to lower those crushing premiums (between myself and my employer, $1200 a month, for example) is to take the profit motive out of health care.
Way back before HMO's and all came about....prices weren't running away...its when you put bean counters in as middle men along with insurance, where things got out of hand.
Right culprit, but IMHO an incomplete view of the problem. The reason that health care appears to cost so much to those paying out of pocket is because the HMOs dictate to health care providers what they will pay for a given procedure. Next time you get one of those Explanation of Benefit letters from your HMO (the ones that say "This is not a bill" on them, if you don't know what I'm talking about), take a look at what the provider is charging and what they're actually getting paid. They might bill a particular procedure (fairly) at $1000, but the HMO will only pay $675. You'll notice a line on that letter that says something like "Insurance discount" or "Adjustment". That represents the difference between what the provider is charging and what the HMO will pay. So, in order to keep the lights on, out-of-pocket health care customers get charged an arm and a leg (sometimes literally). When HMOs complain about the cost of health care, they're really talking about their profit margin, since they get to set the prices.
One of the other factors that requires that providers charge more is the fact that malpractice insurance is HUGELY expensive. It's not unusual for a doctor/practice to pay six figures a year for coverage. Again, insurance companies are driving the costs up themselves.
It keeps the govt out of the decision making
And leaves it in the hands of the private insurers, who have a vested interest in giving you as little care as possible, even if it kills you. Profit is more important to them than your life.
maybe a minimum HSA deduction would be mandated by employment
That's probably a good start in transitioning away from private insurers to a saner setup.
Yeah, I was giving your comment some weight as an opposing legitimate viewpoint until this:
headed by a fake American
You don't seriously buy that "not born in the United States" nonsense, do you? Debate the man on the issues, not some paranoid wishful thinking. The man got elected almost four years ago now, I would have thought people were finished throwing a hissy fit.
Yes, bug-free software is essentially impossible. But you can get 99.99% of the way there. Yes, it costs a ton, in the short term. In the long term, you save/make money. But, like every other business in America, they're focused on quarterly earnings, not how the company does over 5 years.
The authors recommend that computers be powered down when not in physical control of the owner (rather than be left in a "sleep" state) and that the encryption software be configured to require a password to boot the machine.
Nope, and nope. If doctors are allowed to access the system on laptops or desktops, they will not enter a password or turn the laptop off. In a hospital environment, what the doctor wants, the doctor gets, no matter how insecure (or downright illegal) it might be. Until this fundamental problem is addressed, your medical information is not secured.
This also doesn't address the problem of medical staff bringing their own devices like Android tablets or phones. They will demand access to sensitive data on these devices, and they will not stand for having to connect to a VPN to do so. Nor will they accept a restriction on accessing the data from a separate internal network. (And forget about securing wifi. If a doctor finds that he can't "just connect" to a wifi network, he will raise holy hell and try to get half of IT fired.) A lost phone means that whoever has it will have complete access to everything the doctor has. And, since the hospital doesn't own the device, they can't remotely wipe it either.
Until there is a sea change in health care IT, our medical records will continue to be stolen. That sea change will involve ALL health care providers to adopt a set of extremely restrictive standards (like HIPAA, if it were properly enforced) and refuse to allow medical personnel to access data in violation of these standards, on pain of termination / loss of privileges, things will not improve. Anyone more senior than an RN has nothing to fear from breaking security protocol as it stands right now. Health care IT needs to be able to say "No" and have the full force of the hospital administrators behind it, no matter who they're saying "No" to. The most valuable, highly skilled doctor in the world must find himself unable to practice medicine if he does not follow the rules.
But, the current combination of doctor ego and clueless administration (not to mention egotistical and clueless insurance providers) means that things will not change. You have no privacy. Don't get sick.
Totally agree. By all means, disagree with the President all you want on policy issues, that's your right. You can even call him a liberal jerk without fear of retaliation from the government. But making wild accusations intended to assassinate his character that have no basis in reality doesn't accomplish anything; no sane person would believe you without tangible proof. It also makes you look like an idiot.
But, if you're ok with that, who am I to tell you you can't. You have the right to say whatever you want. And I have the right to call you an idiot for doing so.
That's a pretty serious assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have any tangible evidence that President Obama has any financial ties to either organization?
I agree with you in principle. I would only add that make DAMN SURE your employer (current or future) doesn't know you're doing this. Your current employer can fire you, and your future employer can not hire you, if it looks like you're not a 'team player' and are looking to 'start trouble'.
"Do it or you're fired." Conversely, no work, no pay. No health insurance, either. You either eat the shit you're given, die of cancer, or go bankrupt paying for treatment for same. If you don't like it, well, we're at 8%+ unemployment, there are 10 people who could do your job waiting for you to quit. If my choices are either compromising my principles, or losing my house, guess which one I'm going to pick.
On a similar note, ending the minimum wage in the US could help people who have no other options produce at least some income from jobs like this.
Or, you could raise the minimum wage to something you can live on and put money in the hands of people who will actually spend it on things like shelter and food and durable goods, instead of going into some kajillionaire's bank account in the Caymans...
I don't think the American way is so much meaningless as it's an illusion propagated by the powerful over the weak, in order to keep them that way. Kind of like the American Dream, where the idea is that if you work hard and live a virtuous life (whatever the fuck that means) you will be successful. Tell that to the janitor that works his ass off, literally running between offices to be able to complete their assigned work (and therefore keep their job) making $8.35 an hour.
- can you provide your most honest answer to this: do you truly think that whatever you understand under the formula 'trickle down economics' must include corporations 'feeling generous'?
Yes.
What I mean is this: do you think that 'spreading the wealth' is a consequence of somebody feeling generous?
Yes.
Just that question, can you give an answer to it, I am unable to get a straight answer on this question from anybody who promotes your type of views.
After all, profiting from human misery is what American businesses do best. Rewarding the people who do actual work in line with the value of their work product? SOCIALISM!
"Discourage" people from learning English? What's keeping you from learning Spanish, or Portuguese? There's a reason the USA doesn't have an official language. We largely speak English, but that's not official, it's just common. Your national identity is not dictated by the language you speak. And as far as I can tell, there's nothing in the US Constitution that says 'English or GTFO.'
Americans are brutally chauvinistic and arrogant linguists. In most other first world countries, it's common for people to speak two or three languages fluently; in fact, in most places you have to pass a fluency test to graduate from what the equivalent of high school is. Tell you what: Let's make speaking English and another language mandatory for graduation from high school, for EVERYONE.
Becoming "members of society"? What's your criteria for that?
"How things are done here"? Who defines that?
And as far as "blending in" goes, you seem to think that it means that they're the ones who have to do all the changing. You mix blue and yellow paint together, you don't get blue, you get green.
Are you implying that by allowing people who originate from a different culture to retain their customs and language, they're actually preventing the incorporation of that culture's strengths into our own?
Or are you just pissed that you have to press "1" for English?
So your plan is to say, "Oh, gee, Mr. 64.5-year-old worker, I know we told you that your contributions would get you $X per month when you retired. But, seems that some people don't think that's fair, so we're only going to pay you $X *.33 per month."
Yeah, good luck with that. Defending against the inevitable lawsuits would eat up any savings that plan would create.
Slashdot Mirror
See my above comment. Why bring a bill to the floor that has zero chance of passing? The GOP does that all the time.
He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he brings the budget to the floor, and it fails, the GOP will get to scream about how their budget would cure cancer, fix global warming, and create a job for every unemployed person in America, but the mean nasty lbrls won't give it a chance. Come to think of it, they can do that if he doesn't bring that to the floor, too.
So all things being equal, maybe he doesn't want to waste the Senate's limited time in session. Or, maybe, the GOP could give them a bill that could be debated meaningfully on the Senate floor. That's how it is supposed to work. One house proposes and passes a bill, and if the other house won't pass it, then negotiations can start on the issues addressed in the plan. But, the current House's ability to compromise or negotiate can't be seen with the naked eye, so we have the situation we have.
I disagree. HMOs as a group have been outstandingly good at making sure that the only direction that premiums can go is up. If we allow HMOs to sell across state lines, eventually what we will have is three or four Bank of America-sized insurance companies. And since the private HMOs have a stranglehold on the health care accessibility of the middle class, there is no incentive to compete. (Think about the Bank of America example. They are incompetence and greed in bank form. They treat their customers like absolute garbage, yet they're still in business because of their sheer size. They have no incentive to compete, because they know the other banks treat their customers the same way.)
Your premiums will never go down. Under any circumstances. Anyone that tells you otherwise is more than likely an industry shill or a Republican obeying their corporate masters. The only way to lower those crushing premiums (between myself and my employer, $1200 a month, for example) is to take the profit motive out of health care.
Right culprit, but IMHO an incomplete view of the problem. The reason that health care appears to cost so much to those paying out of pocket is because the HMOs dictate to health care providers what they will pay for a given procedure. Next time you get one of those Explanation of Benefit letters from your HMO (the ones that say "This is not a bill" on them, if you don't know what I'm talking about), take a look at what the provider is charging and what they're actually getting paid. They might bill a particular procedure (fairly) at $1000, but the HMO will only pay $675. You'll notice a line on that letter that says something like "Insurance discount" or "Adjustment". That represents the difference between what the provider is charging and what the HMO will pay. So, in order to keep the lights on, out-of-pocket health care customers get charged an arm and a leg (sometimes literally). When HMOs complain about the cost of health care, they're really talking about their profit margin, since they get to set the prices.
One of the other factors that requires that providers charge more is the fact that malpractice insurance is HUGELY expensive. It's not unusual for a doctor/practice to pay six figures a year for coverage. Again, insurance companies are driving the costs up themselves.
And leaves it in the hands of the private insurers, who have a vested interest in giving you as little care as possible, even if it kills you. Profit is more important to them than your life.
That's probably a good start in transitioning away from private insurers to a saner setup.
Yeah, I was giving your comment some weight as an opposing legitimate viewpoint until this:
You don't seriously buy that "not born in the United States" nonsense, do you? Debate the man on the issues, not some paranoid wishful thinking. The man got elected almost four years ago now, I would have thought people were finished throwing a hissy fit.
So it's OK that out of 100 planes, 2 crash?
Yes, bug-free software is essentially impossible. But you can get 99.99% of the way there. Yes, it costs a ton, in the short term. In the long term, you save/make money. But, like every other business in America, they're focused on quarterly earnings, not how the company does over 5 years.
What's your point?
From the Wikipedia article:
Nope, and nope. If doctors are allowed to access the system on laptops or desktops, they will not enter a password or turn the laptop off. In a hospital environment, what the doctor wants, the doctor gets, no matter how insecure (or downright illegal) it might be. Until this fundamental problem is addressed, your medical information is not secured.
This also doesn't address the problem of medical staff bringing their own devices like Android tablets or phones. They will demand access to sensitive data on these devices, and they will not stand for having to connect to a VPN to do so. Nor will they accept a restriction on accessing the data from a separate internal network. (And forget about securing wifi. If a doctor finds that he can't "just connect" to a wifi network, he will raise holy hell and try to get half of IT fired.) A lost phone means that whoever has it will have complete access to everything the doctor has. And, since the hospital doesn't own the device, they can't remotely wipe it either.
Until there is a sea change in health care IT, our medical records will continue to be stolen. That sea change will involve ALL health care providers to adopt a set of extremely restrictive standards (like HIPAA, if it were properly enforced) and refuse to allow medical personnel to access data in violation of these standards, on pain of termination / loss of privileges, things will not improve. Anyone more senior than an RN has nothing to fear from breaking security protocol as it stands right now. Health care IT needs to be able to say "No" and have the full force of the hospital administrators behind it, no matter who they're saying "No" to. The most valuable, highly skilled doctor in the world must find himself unable to practice medicine if he does not follow the rules.
But, the current combination of doctor ego and clueless administration (not to mention egotistical and clueless insurance providers) means that things will not change. You have no privacy. Don't get sick.
Totally agree. By all means, disagree with the President all you want on policy issues, that's your right. You can even call him a liberal jerk without fear of retaliation from the government. But making wild accusations intended to assassinate his character that have no basis in reality doesn't accomplish anything; no sane person would believe you without tangible proof. It also makes you look like an idiot.
But, if you're ok with that, who am I to tell you you can't. You have the right to say whatever you want. And I have the right to call you an idiot for doing so.
That's a pretty serious assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have any tangible evidence that President Obama has any financial ties to either organization?
Time to change the tinfoil in your hat, there, Sparky.
I agree with you in principle. I would only add that make DAMN SURE your employer (current or future) doesn't know you're doing this. Your current employer can fire you, and your future employer can not hire you, if it looks like you're not a 'team player' and are looking to 'start trouble'.
"Do it or you're fired." Conversely, no work, no pay. No health insurance, either. You either eat the shit you're given, die of cancer, or go bankrupt paying for treatment for same. If you don't like it, well, we're at 8%+ unemployment, there are 10 people who could do your job waiting for you to quit. If my choices are either compromising my principles, or losing my house, guess which one I'm going to pick.
Ignoring the ad-hominem attack for the moment.. You're the one making the claim that the left's policies don't work. Got a policy that will?
Yeah, because the right's policies work so well..
Or, you could raise the minimum wage to something you can live on and put money in the hands of people who will actually spend it on things like shelter and food and durable goods, instead of going into some kajillionaire's bank account in the Caymans...
OK, I'll bite: Why do you need to find them?
I don't think the American way is so much meaningless as it's an illusion propagated by the powerful over the weak, in order to keep them that way. Kind of like the American Dream, where the idea is that if you work hard and live a virtuous life (whatever the fuck that means) you will be successful. Tell that to the janitor that works his ass off, literally running between offices to be able to complete their assigned work (and therefore keep their job) making $8.35 an hour.
Did that new tinfoil hat come from Target or Walmart?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
After all, profiting from human misery is what American businesses do best. Rewarding the people who do actual work in line with the value of their work product? SOCIALISM!
"Discourage" people from learning English? What's keeping you from learning Spanish, or Portuguese? There's a reason the USA doesn't have an official language. We largely speak English, but that's not official, it's just common. Your national identity is not dictated by the language you speak. And as far as I can tell, there's nothing in the US Constitution that says 'English or GTFO.'
Americans are brutally chauvinistic and arrogant linguists. In most other first world countries, it's common for people to speak two or three languages fluently; in fact, in most places you have to pass a fluency test to graduate from what the equivalent of high school is. Tell you what: Let's make speaking English and another language mandatory for graduation from high school, for EVERYONE.
Becoming "members of society"? What's your criteria for that?
"How things are done here"? Who defines that?
And as far as "blending in" goes, you seem to think that it means that they're the ones who have to do all the changing. You mix blue and yellow paint together, you don't get blue, you get green.
Are you implying that by allowing people who originate from a different culture to retain their customs and language, they're actually preventing the incorporation of that culture's strengths into our own?
Or are you just pissed that you have to press "1" for English?
So your plan is to say, "Oh, gee, Mr. 64.5-year-old worker, I know we told you that your contributions would get you $X per month when you retired. But, seems that some people don't think that's fair, so we're only going to pay you $X * .33 per month."
Yeah, good luck with that. Defending against the inevitable lawsuits would eat up any savings that plan would create.
OK, sure, big problem. What's your plan?
Fine, so we need to cut 'entitlements'. What's your plan?
True of most people who do actual work for a living, not executives who leech off the productive work of others.