BC Teachers have voted 87% to escalate the strike...

[Feanor]

Insufficient? By what criteria?

Inefficient? As opposed to government run plans? LOL! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Ineffective? By whose criteria? ...

In the sense of not enough for the people who need it.

...
I'm delighted you are content with your forced benevolence. I prefer the right to choose mine.

Yeah sure, I too would be rather be able to specify exactly who enjoy the benevolence. And I certainly hope that private and NGO benevolence will always be there

A big issue is whether one believes that elected government as agent of the community as whole, is more often best to determine who ought to get support and dispense it accordingly. Of course I would prefer my personal judgement to that of any government -- however I prefer an elected government's judgement to, say, your personal judgement.

[bobsticks]

A big issue is whether one believes that elected government [I]as agent of the community as whole...

So clearly the only way to "serve the community as a whole" is to enact a series of legislations that total more than 2400 pages and 1,147,271 words?

(...at a time when the same government clamors for transparency in banking and business)

The only way to "serve the community as a whole" is negate all existing HIPPA and right to privacy statutes by creating a mandatory national database with widespread access?

The only way to "serve the community as a whole" is to abrogate existing commerce statutes and engage in the prosecution of those who refuse to comply with a de facto monopolistic enterprise (great precedent)?

Inevitably, those that withhold support from this bill will be painted in an uncomplimentary light, the least of which would be an opposition to universal health care as a whole. The truth is not so easily as compartmentalized.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a bad bill.

...and by the way, if your opinon of the bill is derived from sound bites, news channels...if you haven't even read the 12 page Table of Contents much less the entire screed...then you're operating out of ignorance and blind ideology.

[bobsticks]

I dunno but if I am a doctor and I supposedly went into the medical protection to save people's lives and future discomfort as opposed to going into medicine just for the bucks - then I don't get how they can stomach those decisions.

That won't be an issue for doctors because a vast majority of the treatment/decision making apparatus will be given to the bureaucrats within the HHS

Section 1311 (h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with-
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require.

What I think might work better in the U.S. is a multi tier healthcare system. Rich people tend to want to show off their wealth in the U.S. and rub it in everyone else's faces. It's a way to cover for not having an actual personality.

So you have your free plan that covers strictly the life/death serious injury typed stuff but doesn't cover the luxury items that other western countries cover. Nor is there any nice separate room. You get the no frills dull plan.

Level two through ten is the buy in insurance plans each level adds more optional extras, maybe eye exams, dental plans, better beds, private rooms, free tattoo - whatever.

Then the a la carte option for the rich to pay for the best available Ferrari option with all the trimmings - your own hospital wing, with 7 full time round the clock nurses - personal doctors, someone to help you pee and shakes it for you. Yup the primo-limo treatment. No regular John Q Shmuck can get this service.

I agree with this Rich. Unfortunately, the existing bill blatantly travels in the other direction.

[E-Stat]

Do you think? Maybe he could try that.

And get the third grade math down correctly this time

What was that number again?

[E-Stat]

In the sense of not enough for the people who need it.

Define "need it" in objective terms. If I need a prescription that costs $20k / year for the rest of my life, then somebody else must pay that for me, right?

[Feanor]

Define "need it" in objective terms. If I need a prescription that costs $20k / year for the rest of my life, then somebody else must pay that for me, right?

We are starting to go around in circles here but ...

In principle, yes. In the context of health care, the Province of Ontario will not automatically pay for every drug that is available -- there are limits to the public weal. Certain drugs will be paid for only if your physician certifies that cheaper drugs have been tried and been proven ineffective; other drugs are not approved for payment at all either because they are deemed experimental, because they are not proven more effective than cheaper alternatives, or (rarely) because they are just too expensive.

EDIT> I forgot to mention the essential fact that Ontario doesn't pay for ordinary prescription drugs at all except for those 65+; (seniors pay limited dispensing fees). Exceptions are made, I think, for people with very low incomes or whose drugs are very expensive.

[Mash]

..............................................
In the 80s when I worked for the family business, I helped some of the hourly workers with their tax forms. For them the *safety net* became a hammock and many got creative with the number of dependents they claimed.

Oh my goodness E-Stat, you aided and abetted people in cheating the IRS?

They could win a free vacation and huge fines from the Feds, i.e. IRS.

And so could you have for helping them, rather that turning them in. This is that accessory before the fact jazz.

The IRS is not called the friendly gestapo for nothing. NEVER cross them. I saw some people who did and they became very unhappy campers.

[Feanor]

And get the third grade math down correctly this time

What was that number again?

Humm ... well maybe he could do with a little math remediation.

However $250k is a healthy income; top 1.5% according to the article. And it's a few multiples of what we ever brought in and yet we managed, so I don't feel sorry the poor rich folk. Probably all the Bush tax cuts should just expire, plus top rates and capital gain rates go up, maybe home mortgage interest deduction be eliminated, etc.

[Mash]

Gee, bobsticks, you quote

"Section 1311 (h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with-
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require. "

All this means is that doctors must practice preventive care, i.e. endeavor to prevent a very potential ailment from developing into a disaster. Our doctor does this now.

Your "serve the community as a whole" comments are way off.

My daughter is a Dr and I understand the doctors' perspectives.

[Mash]

bobsticks: I feel that you misintepret Obamacare for one of two reasons:

1. You are (for whatever reason) irrationally opposed to Obamacare, so you persist in misreading same instead of trying to REALLY understand same. This does not bother me because WE are covered either way, so you can only shoot your own foot off here; or

2. Your reading comprehension is poor. This will hinder you throughout life. There is a straightforward way for you to evaluate your reading comprehension: Take the LSAT. If you score, say, in the lower 50% then you have a huge problem. Me? I scored in the top 5%.

[bobsticks]

"Section 1311 (h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with-
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require. "

All this means is that doctors must practice preventive care, i.e. endeavor to prevent a very potential ailment from developing into a disaster. Our doctor does this now.

Read the word "only" which indicates that the mechanisms of "endeavor(ing) to prevent a very potential ailment from developing into a disaster." will be defined by a government bureaucrat. That administrator will be Dr. Ezekial Emanuel who is currently the Chief Medical Advisor to the President (also the brother of Chief f Staff Rahm Emanuel). He holds two official positions: health policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and member of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

You might want to look up Donald Berwick too.

See, I read for both content and context, thank you very little...

Your "serve the community as a whole" comments are way off.

Tell that to the 23 million Americans who still won't be covered by the bill as well as the generations that are already here, and still to come, who will be sold into servitude by our government's irresponsibility.

My daughter is a Dr and I understand the doctors' perspectives.

Um...no...you used the plural...you understand one doctor's perspective...and if her worldview doesn't extend past the snack cart in the Employee Lounge then that doesn't really enlighten anyone, does it?

[bobsticks]

1. You are (for whatever reason) irrationally opposed to Obamacare, so you persist in misreading same instead of trying to REALLY understand same. This does not bother me because WE are covered either way, so you can only shoot your own foot off here; or

Actually, I'm doing just fine and---this might surprise you---but I'm glad you are too. We all prosper from the general well-being of the multitude.

That said, I notice you didn't make mention, as I noted, of having actually read the bill. I suspect that you're using the anecdotal evidence of your current situation and your perception of your daughter's opinions to project to the populace in aggregate.

2. Your reading comprehension is poor. This will hinder you throughout life. There is a straightforward way for you to evaluate your reading comprehension: Take the LSAT. If you score, say, in the lower 50% then you have a huge problem. Me? I scored in the top 5%.

That was clever. My powers of perception are, however, keen enough to tell the difference between a well researched, analytic response and an ad hominem...

[E-Stat]

Oh my goodness E-Stat, you aided and abetted people in cheating the IRS?

Your reading apprehension continues to fail you. Do quote anything I've said to indicate your assertion.

I taught them how to fill out the form. Not accurately count their children.

[Mash]

Nice try, E-Stat.... You participated and you also knew what they were doing, so that makes you a party to the deception. This is like the driver of the getaway car who did not set foot into the bank... but he/she can still be charged. How would you like your cell decorated?

[E-Stat]

Nice try, E-Stat.... You participated and you also knew what they were doing, so that makes you a party to the deception.

Just like H&R Block.

This is like the driver of the getaway car who did not set foot into the bank... but he/she can still be charged. How would you like your cell decorated?

At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, I was not the preparer who signed their forms.

Are you really that uninformed?

[Mash]

Back to your quote, bobsticks....

"Section 1311 (h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with-
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require. "

So the doctor must practice preventive care ("mechanisms to improve health care quality") as may be required by the Secretary.

The phrase "... only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require..." has fully proscribed WHAT the Secretary may require, i.e. The Secretary is limited to defining the required preventive care.... and nothing more.

Where is the commie plot here? There isn't one.

This entire document is typical Congressional writing that the Senate & House have produced for many, many years. You don't like it?

I can tell that you are unhappy here, bobsticks so you have two choices:

1. Tell Congress to use non-legalistic and easier to read language. Good luck with this since a majority of people in Congress are lawyers.

2. Require the President to write the legislation. One cook does a far better job with preparing the soup than would an unruly group of 500+ cooks. Obama would have done a far better job, I'll admit, but this would be unconstitutional since the US Constitution requires Congress to write the laws and the President can only accept what Congress writes or he can veto it. You could press for a Constitutional amendment, but I think this effort will prove disappointing.

I was serious about your taking the LSAT. This test is a series of paragraphs written in everyday collegiate English followed by a few questions about that paragraph. There were four possible answers to each question:

1. A very wrong answer;
2. An answer that is the socially-feel-good answer- but still wrong.
3. An answer that is *almost* correct... but not quite.
4. An answer that is exactly correct.

Answers 1. and 2. tend to reduce the perceived difference between answers 3. and 4.

[Mash]

Cool E-Stat... You left the "preparer who signed the forms" to hang for this? Well, I guess this is a proof of character.

[bobsticks]

The phrase "... only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require..." has fully proscribed WHAT the Secretary may require, i.e. The Secretary is limited to defining the required preventive care.... and nothing more.

Where is the commie plot here? There isn't one.

Given that regulations aren't a static thing it goes a good bit farther than merely prescribing "WHAT" the Secretary may require. I'd say given the nature and beliefs of the individuals involved in the bureaucracy that this will not improve existing standards.

But that's not really a big deal. What is a big deal is that it introduces a million more words into law, further unleashes the debt through unreasonable expectation and a refusal to give consequence to any variety of numbers and research, abrogates State's Rights, sets horrible precedent within the Commerce Clause, and introduces the most ineffecient mechanism of doing anything, anywhere at anytime into the equation of healthcare.

What it doesn't do is come close to addressing tort reform. It doesn't clearly detail from where the money will come for the millions of people who will fall into expanded funding sections. It doesn't stipulate anything about market fluctuation due to the elimination of annual dollar limits.

And, no, I don't think that it's a "Commie plot" but I do think that it's a money-grab and potentially a power grab---certainly smacks of both nepotism and catering to big business at the expense of civic responsibility.

Given the proclivities of the demographics involved it's no surprise that some will show a prediliction for ignoring these issues.

[Feanor]

Given that regulations aren't a static thing it goes a good bit farther than merely prescribing "WHAT" the Secretary may require. I'd say given the nature and beliefs of the individuals involved in the bureaucracy that this will not improve existing standards.

But that's not really a big deal. What is a big deal is that it introduces a million more words into law, further unleashes the debt through unreasonable expectation and a refusal to give consequence to any variety of numbers and research, abrogates State's Rights, sets horrible precedent within the Commerce Clause, and introduces the most ineffecient mechanism of doing anything, anywhere at anytime into the equation of healthcare.

What it doesn't do is come close to addressing tort reform. It doesn't clearly detail from where the money will come for the millions of people who will fall into expanded funding sections. It doesn't stipulate anything about market fluctuation due to the elimination of annual dollar limits.

And, no, I don't think that it's a "Commie plot" but I do think that it's a money-grab and potentially a power grab---certainly smacks of both nepotism and catering to big business at the expense of civic responsibility.

Given the proclivities of the demographics involved it's no surprise that some will show a prediliction for ignoring these issues.

These comments illustrate to me the unusual, almost uniquely American, suspicion & hatred of government and disbelief that government, (as the agent of the community as a whole), can accomplish anything all, much less do it efficiently.

I say "almost uniquely American" because though mistrust of politicians and government is common world-wide, it doesn't often reach the extremes it does State-side.

In the US case, excessively complex legislation and resultant complex administration are precisely the consequence of mistrust of government and the power of selfish interests to turn these to personal gain. Of course, the complexity is the cause of further mistrust clearly making for a vicious circle of cause and effect.

Obamacare is excellent example of this process. Of course when you add a whole other process to address certain problems on top of the already costly and arguably inefficient & ineffectual private healthcare system, the new process will added complexity and cost. Dah!

Clearly the USA needs to get to universal health care system like the rest of the developed world. But with the USA's socio-econ-political vicious circle system of fear, suspicion, hatred & greed, how's it going to happen?

[RGA]

The way it is

[E-Stat]

Cool E-Stat... You left the "preparer who signed the forms" to hang for this? Well, I guess this is a proof of character.

You are free to make any number of unsubstantiated assumptions you please as to what assistance I've offered unfettered by reality.

[RGA]

Politics and policies where you have few choices to make (or 2) and you have to vote the lesser of evils. The States it petty much is a choice between Sanity or Republicans and you cope with the problems.

[Feanor]

Politics and policies where you have few choices to make (or 2) and you have to vote the lesser of evils. The States it petty much is a choice between Sanity or Republicans and you cope with the problems.

Tragically the USA has become a "plutocracy".

plu·toc·ra·cy [ploo-tok-ruh-see] noun, plural plu·toc·ra·cies.
1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

Corporations = people. Money = free speech. PACs, Super PACs, C4's enabling secret funding by the rich. Kiss democracy goodbye.

This is small comfort to us Canadians who enjoy a Conservative Party government intent on making this country as much like the USA as possible as soon as possible. (This with 40% of the popular vote.)

[RGA]

Democracy and freedom are interesting concepts. So is the notion that the west is financially healthy or a first world country.

And 40% may be optimistic since the Harper regime was caught "fixing" the ballots - they learned from Bush to simply fix the votes (ahem hanging chads).

I still don't quite understand why in Hong Kong I will get a 5.8% raise due to a cost of living increase while my fellow teachers in BC will wind up taking a zero for (well forever if the BC conservatives have it their way).

The union here is pitiful and something like 1200 people get to vote for the leader of Hong Kong. They get these raises with a minimum of fuss. I am seeing less poor here than in Canada or the States as well. Maybe a despotic dictator is needed - stuff can actually get done The key part is despot.

[Feanor]

Democracy and freedom are interesting concepts. So is the notion that the west is financially healthy or a first world country.
...
I still don't quite understand why in Hong Kong I will get a 5.8% raise due to a cost of living increase while my fellow teachers in BC will wind up taking a zero for (well forever if the BC conservatives have it their way).

The union here is pitiful and something like 1200 people get to vote for the leader of Hong Kong. They get these raises with a minimum of fuss. I am seeing less poor here than in Canada or the States as well. Maybe a despotic dictator is needed - stuff can actually get done The key part is despot.

Depots -- if they aren't simply evil which most are -- tend to be pragmatists. They can, if they choose, ignore ideology and do what needs to be done.