Terri Schiavo:

Providing insta-green headline fodder since 2005

The one page health care bill.

Remove government restrictions and government competition with the private sector.

Reform the legal system so that lawyers can quit exploiting money from malpractice insurance companies.

randomjsa: .

Oh look it's another tool trying to claim I'm an alt. Hello tool.

Attention Moderators: Check the logs, if I have more than one log in associated with this IP and/or MAC address, ban me.

Requiring someone to get health insurance is unconstitutional.
So try again.

Hick: Requiring someone to get health insurance is unconstitutional.
So try again.

You actually expect congress to obey the constitution? Where have you been the last... 30 or 40 years?

randomjsa: Oh look it's another tool trying to claim I'm an alt. Hello tool.

Attention Moderators: Check the logs, if I have more than one log in associated with this IP and/or MAC address, ban me.

Well hello there you dumbass tool of an alt.



Now how about you either go and create a new alt, or just go away.

Hick: Requiring someone to get health insurance is unconstitutional.
So try again.

If this were true then the laws mandating you have auto insurance would have been struck down ages ago.

randomjsa: Oh look it's another tool trying to claim I'm an alt. Hello tool.

Attention Moderators: Check the logs, if I have more than one log in associated with this IP and/or MAC address, ban me.

He gave your response all of the thought that it deserved. "Hurr durr, no government = utopia" isn't going to come from the mind of a well informed, intelligent, or sane person.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Did ANY tort reform get in?

Why are people so obsessed with this red herring of an issue? Tort reform isn't going to do anything, and in every place that it has been tried actually resulted in a worse situation than had existed prior to it being enacted.

You always know you're doing something right when you make people mad enough to make false accusations.

Attention Moderators: Check whatever log you need to and if I'm an alt, ban me.

Murkanen: He gave your response all of the thought that it deserved. "Hurr durr, no government = utopia" isn't going to come from the mind of a well informed, intelligent, or sane person.

As compared to the demonstratively false claim that all anything requires to be better, just, fair and right is to be run by the government.

We look at the health care services that the government already runs to say nothing of every other service that the government runs and then say: 'I think we can improve this if we just have more government involved in it'.

But to address what you said directly: No, he's just a tool that wants to think I'm an alt because it makes him feel 'better' about having nothing more creative or thoughtful to come back with.

Four comments by randomjsa in a single thread. It's evolving right before our eyes.

randomjsa: You always know you're doing something right when you make people mad enough to make false accusations.

Keep on spouting your BS there sparky. You got busted forgetting to log out of one alt, to post a rebuttal as another. Hoisted by your own stupidity you were, and I for one intend to keep reminding you of this as log as you persist in hanging about.

Create new alts and be done with it dumbass. Perhaps this time you can be at least a little bit creative.

Sounds like someone not in office, and therefore not on the receiving end of a crapload of insurance industry money.

randomjsa: As compared to the demonstratively false claim that all anything requires to be better, just, fair and right is to be run by the government.

The difference is nobody of note or importance seriously advocates for a governmental take over of everything, but you frequently see elected Republicans and Libertarian politicians touting the old and busted line of "Fewer taxes+no regulation=rainbow shiatting ponies for everyone".

We look at the health care services that the government already runs

Only health care service actually provided by the government has the highest satisfaction rating amongst the various providers in the US, or it was last year. Medicare/medicaid is done through private companies on highly regulated contract structures through the various state governments.

to say nothing of every other service that the government runs

I, personally, have never had an issue with government services and I can never find an example of these horrible programs from the people that bring them up. Secondly, even if you can find one you'd have to explain why the problems associated to it are unique to the public sector alone, which is something that I seriously doubt anyone could do with any real success.

Vangor: randomjsa: You always know you're doing something right when you make people mad enough to make false accusations.

Something right being trolling? Because I would be sad if I had opinions which mirrored your own. The only way I don't suffer from suicidal tendencies due to the slight association of posting on Fark alongside you is by presuming you are a troll.

What a troll is: Going to a message board dedicated to a specific type of car, or to a comic book, or a sports team, or whatever and basically posting "X sucks" where "X" is the topic to which the message board is created.

What a troll is not: A person that says something or gives an opinion in an open forum that you don't like. Just because you disagree with them or don't like the way they said it, doesn't make them a troll.

I've been accused of being reasonable and even had posts like "The world is ending, I agree with him", I believe it was in that bit about soldiers going AWOL to Canada if you'd like to check. A troll is never going to say anything anyone ever agrees with.

Halli: Four comments by randomjsa in a single thread. It's evolving right before our eyes.

I've got nothing better to do at the moment while I reload this laptop. I've already read all the news sites and since nothing exciting has happened since the 'omg Olympics' event yesterday. I typically post a comment then go on about my business for several hours but lucky you, I've got nothing to do right now and I'm off work until Tuesday.

log_jammin: "Attention moderators:" was a nice touch.

I especially liked the part about the MAC address. That's a touch of inspired stupidity.

randomjsa: A troll is never going to say anything anyone ever agrees with.

Poe's law disagrees. It's why satirizing the right no longer works; they actually managed to go so far into crazy town that their antics sound like something out of an article in the Onion.

Murkanen: randomjsa: A troll is never going to say anything anyone ever agrees with.

Poe's law disagrees. It's why satirizing the right no longer works; they actually managed to go so far into crazy town that their antics sound like something out of an article in the Onion.

I suspect in 500 years theonion.com will be revealed as this ages Nostradamus.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: I especially liked the part about the MAC address. That's a touch of inspired stupidity.

Forgive me, I'm not a computer person. My limited understanding of networking indicates that the MAC address is unique where the IP can change. I'm not even entirely certain there's a log they can check, although I've been told they can.

But if you ever need an x-ray let me know.

randomjsa: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: I especially liked the part about the MAC address. That's a touch of inspired stupidity.

Forgive me, I'm not a computer person. My limited understanding of networking indicates that the MAC address is unique where the IP can change. I'm not even entirely certain there's a log they can check, although I've been told they can.

But if you ever need an x-ray let me know.

Hey, don't feel bad. Your limited understanding of network matches your limited understanding of everything else you comment on so far.

At least you are consistent.

/ What sort of idiot would give you access to expensive equipment?
// Or have you been a student of the Phil Herup school of Dentistry?

randomjsa: Forgive me, I'm not a computer person.

I'm not a radiologist but I know the difference between a tumor and orthopedic hardware.

Angry and ignorant is no way to go through life, son.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: randomjsa: Forgive me, I'm not a computer person.

I'm not a radiologist but I know the difference between a tumor and orthopedic hardware.

Angry and ignorant is no way to go through life, son.

Oh look, it's the IT Superior Attitude. Never did quite understand why 'I'm smarter because I know about computers' idea came from. I know enough to set up a basic local area network and get a computer running, I can even build one.

How far would you get with an x-ray machine? What's that? You don't know that much about them because you didn't have to learn how they operate inside and out? I wouldn't expect you to. Why then do you expect me to have more than a rudimentary knowledge of computers?

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Educate yourself and don't drink the trial lawyer kool aid. I've been in healthcare for twenty five years and witnessed the meteoric rise in uneccesary testing and procedures in the 80s and 90 as a result of defensive medicine spurred by lawsuits. I was in radiology then and we weren't getting paid for the tests as they were deemed uneccesary by the insurance companies (which they were), but the doctors ordered them to protect themselves and we were forced to comply even though they were totally useless.

It is a huge cost and needs to be addressed. The annual figure of >100$ billion is more accurate. Far from a red herring.

I believe that all of the left and right speacial interests need to pay in this bill including Ins, Pharm and Tech, Unions, AARP, Docs, Trial lawyers and for profit hospitals. Support bipartisan reform.

Wisdom? In here? Get the heck out. You've been in a lot longer than I have that's for sure. I swear 'Upright Abdomen' series is code for 'CYA' around here.

randomjsa: How far would you get with an x-ray machine? What's that? You don't know that much about them because you didn't have to learn how they operate inside and out? I wouldn't expect you to. Why then do you expect me to have more than a rudimentary knowledge of computers?

This should be completely obvious.

Let's further compare and contrast.

Me: Not utilizing X-Ray equipment
You: Utilizing a computer and global computer network spouting ignorant statements regarding the operation thereof.

Oh look, it's the IT Superior Attitude. Never did quite understand why 'I'm smarter because I know about computers' idea came from.

Imagine a terrifying world where people didn't need a license to operate nuclear machinery and proceeded to do something phenomenally stupid like play "laser tag" or do "therapeutic healing" with X-Ray cameras and then you'll get an idea of where the "superior attitude" idea is coming from.

I'm curmudgeonly but not unhelpful. Surely they taught you science classes in your year or two of radiology training. Experimenting for yourself is very easy.

Download Apache (http://www.apache.org/), set up the server and play with the web logs. You'll get to see what others can see about you.

gundar.twinklefluffy: Murkanen: randomjsa: A troll is never going to say anything anyone ever agrees with.

Poe's law disagrees. It's why satirizing the right no longer works; they actually managed to go so far into crazy town that their antics sound like something out of an article in the Onion.

I suspect in 500 years theonion.com will be revealed as this ages Nostradamus.




Not Sure if serious

However, he strongly supports other aspects of the bill--most notably, its requirement that individuals be required to purchase coverage

Of course he does. Why is this even news?

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Did the luxury tax on premium policies make it in the bill? Did ANY tort reform get in?

Otherwise, might be OK.

Tort reform has NEVER EVER reduced rates EVER ANYWHERE. EVER. So why should it be included?

randomjsa: ban me

Do this regardless, please. Never mind, you don't have the balls to ban the people who are actually trolling.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: ghare: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Did the luxury tax on premium policies make it in the bill? Did ANY tort reform get in?

Otherwise, might be OK.

Tort reform has NEVER EVER reduced rates EVER ANYWHERE. EVER. So why should it be included?

See my post above, but I doubt you will be swayed as you have drunk deep from the trial lawyer trough. Ask anyone in healthcare and they will tell a different story. Don't believe the stories of $100 billion. State reform can't effect a change as much as federal can. And you are also painting with too big a brush as state reform has helped in some states, but more in dropping select physician specialty coverage. Nevada wouldn't have any OB/Gyns in the state if it hadn't passed a reform bill. The other costs didn't drop because the ins companies didn't trust that the state law would hold up in federal courts so there rates remained the same and the docs kept up their CYA ordering practice.

Don't trust the TL talking points, ask any Doc, RN or anyone else in Healthcare.

Well, see, I live in a state that passed tort reform as well. And Gosh Oh Golly gee, rates went up.

All you said is what I said: TORT REFORM DOES NOTHING TO AFFECT INSURANCE RATES IN REALITY.

Never has. Anywhere. Ever.

I accept your apology.

/Of course, most "torts" are necessary get funds to provide care to people whose lives were ruined by incompetent doctors. If we had UHC, those "torts" would be unnecessary.

randomjsa: I'm off work until Tuesday.

Libby filling in for you?

/jk =P

IamKaiserSoze!!!: ghare: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Did the luxury tax on premium policies make it in the bill? Did ANY tort reform get in?

Otherwise, might be OK.

Tort reform has NEVER EVER reduced rates EVER ANYWHERE. EVER. So why should it be included?

See my post above, but I doubt you will be swayed as you have drunk deep from the trial lawyer trough. Ask anyone in healthcare and they will tell a different story. Don't believe the stories of $100 billion. State reform can't effect a change as much as federal can. And you are also painting with too big a brush as state reform has helped in some states, but more in dropping select physician specialty coverage. Nevada wouldn't have any OB/Gyns in the state if it hadn't passed a reform bill. The other costs didn't drop because the ins companies didn't trust that the state law would hold up in federal courts so there rates remained the same and the docs kept up their CYA ordering practice.

Don't trust the TL talking points, ask any Doc, RN or anyone else in Healthcare.

I hear trial lawyers are actually covert ACORN operatives.

/you people and your boogeymen. It's amazing you can even make it out your front door in the morning.

IamKaiserSoze!!!: ghare: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Did the luxury tax on premium policies make it in the bill? Did ANY tort reform get in?

Otherwise, might be OK.

Tort reform has NEVER EVER reduced rates EVER ANYWHERE. EVER. So why should it be included?

See my post above, but I doubt you will be swayed as you have drunk deep from the trial lawyer trough. Ask anyone in healthcare and they will tell a different story. Don't believe the stories of $100 billion. State reform can't effect a change as much as federal can. And you are also painting with too big a brush as state reform has helped in some states, but more in dropping select physician specialty coverage. Nevada wouldn't have any OB/Gyns in the state if it hadn't passed a reform bill. The other costs didn't drop because the ins companies didn't trust that the state law would hold up in federal courts so there rates remained the same and the docs kept up their CYA ordering practice.

Don't trust the TL talking points, ask any Doc, RN or anyone else in Healthcare.

Still pushing that failed tort reform angle, eh, Kaiser? Malpractice insurance reform is insurance reform. It has little to do with the trial lawyers and little to do with so-called "defensive medicine." "Defensive medicine" is nothing more than overuse of technology by the younger generation of physicians and some physicians use it just to make money. Even if tort reform is implemented, utilization does not decrease. There is no evidence that frivolous litigation is a rampant problem in the United States. Link (new window) Even in some states that have passed tort reform, malpractice insurance costs still increase. Those states that have implemented tort reform and have had decreases can attribute those decreases to...insurance reform, not tort reform. Mississippi and Texas are two such states. Even after tort reform was passed, malpractice insurance companies still asked for a rate increase that was subsequently denied by the state insurance commissioner.

If you want to see malpractice rates decrease, reform malpractice insurance.

Some how I doubt this is the last time you're going to bring up this Rovian talking point, though.

randomjsa sucks.

IamKaiserSoze!!!:

Sorry to bring up the truth, but if you really are a doc, and if you have been practicing as long as you claim, you wrer around when I was in the 80s and 902 when defensive medicine skyrocketed.

I was around in the 80s when technology increased...MRIs started to be implemented, flow cytometry began to catch on in clinical diagnostics, CTs became widespread, etc. You might call it "defensive medicine." It's not. In order to call it "defensive medicine" you would have to show a direct correlation between litigation and the use of the technology. That correlation does...not...exist.

If you dispute that then you ain't no doc. On the hospital side we tried everything we could think of but the diagnostic activity shot up. I know for a fact that the ED ordering practices changed then and have personally attempted to negotiate a number of solutions with ED docs, but there fear of lawsuits (which they stated overtly) led to the status quo.

Again, you provide anecdotal evidence. Weak evidence at best. Ask a physician if they practice defensive medicine. They'll tell you, "Oh yes...I'm afraid of lawsuits." Ask them whether they intentionally over-utilize resource and they'll tell you, "No...not me." Defensive medicine by definition is the over-utilization of resources. There is however a strong correlation between (over) utilization of resources and the rise in physician self-referrals.


You would be the only doc of the hundreds I've known over the years to believe that Tort reform wouldn't alleviate the problem it frivilous lawsuits started.

The problem wasn't started by frivolous lawsuits. Sorry, that's just a fact as pointed out by the study I posted previously. This is almost wholly an insurance reform issue. The evidence does not support your assertions and talking points.

IamKaiserSoze!!!:
Just curious, are you in research or do you have an active patient caseload? That might explain to me why you take such contrarian viewpoints. I'd also be interested in where you believe the cosr reduction opportunities lie.

I retired from seeing patients 2 years ago this coming January. I moved after taking a position at a university and with boards and my age, I'm now full research. I consult, however, on complex B and T cell lymphomas and leukemias. My position is not contrary for a person my age. It's the younger generation that is most likely to hold the misguided view that litigation is the root of evil in the health care system. Anybody who has actually looked into the issue can see that the issue is almost wholly one of insurance reform.

Cost reduction comes in several forms that are addressed in H.R. 3200. Physician self-referrals as I've stated must go. Untie the physician from a stake in their diagnostics and you will see an immediate reduction in the number of diagnostic tests performed. Move toward results based medicine, rather than per test/treatment. When I see my doc (yes...we all get sick), I make it clear that they aren't going to see a dime from me unless I've received adequate treatment that produces positive results. And, as always, establish a strong public option for health insurance.

What's not addressed in the bill is restructuring health care delivery. We need to move to a system that utilizes what we have on hand and develops a more efficient method of health care delivery. We need to almost wholly eliminate the role of the general practitioner. Instead, have one GP oversee a team of PAs and NPs. This would immediately reduce the cost at the front end of medicine and would result in more access to health care. Eliminate the DSH program except where it is greatly needed. Instead, establish strategic centers of excellence throughout the country. There's no reason for a small town hospital to have a heart surgeon only doing 35 procedures a year. It's about efficient utilization. Move those heart surgeons into a center where their skills can be adequately and efficiently utilized. Yes, travel time will increase. But the DSH budget and other initiative and technology spending would decrease dramatically.


I've stated earlier that I believe the repubs need to give up the Ins companies (although I don't believe in single payor, but would rather have increased regs and comp), Big Pharm (through patent relaxations and regs), Big Tech (antitrust for the Ortho implant makers who collude to fix prices as well as stents and other tech), end of life SOMETHING (at least a discussion needs to occur with the family as many docs don't have the guts to tell the family that Gramma isn't coming back), Some version of rationing (at least don't put the highest price knee designed for 50 year use in an 80 year old when a cheaper one will due).

Single payer would be the best option and have the most effect on the overall budget. Keeping the insurance companies...what does that do exactly? I don't necessarily see Big Pharma patents as a major issue right now seeing as it takes about 10-20 years to get from the bench top to the patient. Drug patents last for 20 years. Drug importation would reduce costs, though and elimination of direct to public advertising would also drop the costs of pharmaceuticals. You're always going to see issues with biotech given the market size is incredibly small for expensive purchases. As for things such as stents/angioplasty catheters, you're looking at a limited number of manufacturers approved by the FDA. I think the list is less than 150. When competition lowers the costs for stents, those companies just come out with a new product such as DES which raises the price again. The public thinks newer is better which causes the cycle to continue. It's a no win situation for evolving tech. End of life consultation is addressed in H.R. 3200.


I believe Dems need to give up Trial lawyers (I've already stated that this has been factually proven to contribute to rising costs on a varity of levels, you state that it's of no importance so I don't think we'll convince each other), coverage for illegals, single payor (medicare already does not work for providors and converting the only payors who cover cost to mcare rates would bankrupt the system), Unions (their benefits packages are a joke, nobody needs a $20k plus package, anything over $7k should be taxed).

I actually support coverage for illegal aliens without federal subsidy (which is what is described in H.R. 3200). I believe the Democrats should go one step further and make it mandatory coverage for illegal aliens. Why? It lowers the cost of premiums by increasing the risk pool size. We've already seen a similar effect on Medicare where the illegal aliens contribute around $16 billion a year but are not eligible for benefits. Single payer would probably be the most beneficial to the populace as a whole whether you realize it or not. It's not all about converting to Medicare rates. It's about lowering the cost of premiums and providing for adequate compensation to facilities. As for unions, I fully support them. When many of these Union/Company deals were struck, the companies were living high on the hog. You reap what you sow.


The savings generated by these sacred oxen would more than cover the extended coverage, and possibly more.

Your savings would be minimal at best. Certainly not enough to extend coverage nor lead to significantly improved care. End of life consultation is the only thing in your proposal that would lead to substantial savings if implemented properly. In the end, however, it's still the patient's decision.

ghare: If we had UHC, those "torts" would be unnecessary.

Oh, this thisity this this this!

Hate civil litigation? Then enact universal single-payer coverage!