I'm thinking about letting the taxpayers subsidize me.

Thanks Bill, you've finally said something sensible.

Here's Obama promising the opposite:

Note that he says it lowers cost for typical family, and employer insurance too, which you yourself have correctly stated isn't possible.

Cheers, James Arthur

and whatever evidence you may be thinking of is almost certainly the product of wishful thinking by analysts deliberately generating nonsense that will go down

well with right-wing nitwits. Nobody outside the US administration thought that the evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Irak adduced at the time was

remotely convincing, and nobody I've heard of found any convincing evidence that after the invasion.

found that American and American-trained Iraqi troops discovered thousands of abandoned and highly dangerous chemical weapons left over from the rule of Saddam Hussein.

These weapons, found from 2004 to 2011, wounded troops from both armies. There are now fears that some could fall into the hands of fighters for the Islamic State[...]"

Add to that, there was some info that Saddam wanted, at least Iran, to believe he had a weapons of mass destruction, as a deterrent.

Here's a list of those "right-wing nitwits" thinking Iraq had WMDs.

Mikek

We keep getting smarter with time, don't we?

I remember going to the ER as a kid, an entirely different experience. Walked right in with parents, doc sewed up my busted lip, parents ponied up, then out the door. No fuss, no muss.

Cheers, James Arthur

No, people are conditioned to not talk back to doctors and just go with what they say. Heck, most people don't even know the difference between a CT scan and an MRI.

Besides, I didn't get the pricing info from the hospital. When I asked they had no idea how much it cost. I was dealing with info from online which was nothing I could use to "shop" for a better price.

Incidentally, I found pricing to vary some 5x in the local area here,

I thought you were the one saying we can shop medical prices?

That would be a mistake. You could have a very small piece of metal that you might not notice. Then when you have an MRI later it rips through your eye causing tons of damage. Welders can't have MRIs without getting an x-ray first because of this. This sort of thing should be dealt with as soon as possible before it becomes more deeply embedded.

That plus the fact that Sadam used chemical weapons on his own people in the past.

"People are conditioned to..." That's mighty patronizing. People aren't stupid, they're not victims, and they can certainly shop if they want to.

If people routinely sought out the most economical CT scans for their non-emergency care, and the prices were commonly known, your hospital would a) have a hard time getting away with charging 5x, and b) people would start avoiding that hospital as being over-priced, and move their business to the hospitals offering better values.

We call that 'competition,' something sorely lacking in U.S. health care. It's also far better than gov't mandates--I'd rather let hospitals figure out how to do things better than Jonathan Gruber, and under price-pressure from consumers rather than gaming gov't mandates.

Yes, and it's true. Sloman was the one objecting based on an irrelevant factor--emergency care.

Emergency care is a small part of total costs, so it was a bogus argument. Plus, it *is* possible to shop even in the ER, as you, I, Sloman, and Mike have all just related examples of. Not always, but sometimes.

Cheers, James Arthur

He was using a SKILSAW on a piece of wood. Should his eye have been checked for meteorites too?

Elephants in the eye is a common problem too--definitely have the doctor check, ASAP.

Cheers, James Arthur

People can shop for anything that isn't time critical. A new bed, a new car, a certain brand of Hoisin sauce, etc.

When you've got the flu, how much *time* do you have to spend looking for a "lower cost" provider? When you've been Dx'd with Cancer, how much emotional energy do you have to spare to shop around for a "cheaper *CURE*"?

Yeah, if you've got some chronic condition that isn't going to seriously compromise your life -- or LIFESTYLE -- during the weeks or months it takes you to locate and find a provider who will *agree* to take you on as a patient (yourself bearing the cost of doing that search, setting up the consultative appointment, having your records duplicated/FAXed/etc. over, etc.) then you *might* want to shop around. Assuming, of course, that you have enough free time (and energy) in your lifestyle to do so! (most folks that I know want LESS to do in their already hectic schedules, not more).

Of course, there is always the subtle issue of: if you don't TRUST your doctor, then why have you been *seeing* him/her all this time? Surely all of that "history"/familiarity with you as a patient is *wasted* if you move to another provider.

And, will your insurer cover the consult at the other provider? And, tests at an "out of network" facility (here, usually deductibles DOUBLE for out-of-network care).

What's missing in that statement is how the prices vary *with* insurance adjustments! (assuming you could freely choose between any of those providers without changing *insurers*)

What sort of experiences have you had with "physician groups" competing with hospitals? I.e., bringing all those diagnostic and care services under *their* roof? I think you'll find there is no "saving", there. Just a shift of *who* gets paid for the service.

(Some doctor groups even setting up what amounts to small "recovery rooms" in their facilities so they can address some of the "more involved" outpatient services. Damn near *all* have their own lab affiliations for bloodwork, MRI/CT/XRAY/etc.)

Isn't *that* "competition"? Yet, it's done nothing to lower costs. Otherwise you'd see insurers driving traffic to *them* instead of the mainstream hospitals, etc.

SWMBO worked for one of the larger hospitals, here. They were self-insured (though administered by a conventional insurance provider). All testing was done at the hospital's facilities. Any in- or out-patient care was similarly provided, there (you could go elsewhere but would be reimbursed at a much lower rate).

Yet, hospitals are some of the most expensive providers! So, this only made sense because they were "paying themselves" -- left hand to right hand. Surely not "efficient" in the sense of the cheapest way to provide that care! I.e., if they turned their insurance over to a third party, that third party would *promptly* require routine tests to be done at some OTHER facility!

I think you are sorely missing the point of the timeliness that healthcare

We lost a friend to ALS last year (?). How much "shopping around" was she supposed to do for her care? And, should she be focused on saving a few *dollars*? Prolonging her life most? Or, the *quality* of that remaining life?

The same sort of thing happened with a colleague Dx'd with esophageal cancer. And, another with ovarian cancer. "Surely" none of these are "emergencies". *All* represent huge potential healthcare costs (for treatments that will only delay the inevitable). How much "waste" did their "failure to shop" cost the system -- because you

When most people (or, their loved ones/charges) are "in need of healthcare", they rarely approach it like they would buying dish soap. (note how few people negotiate *car* prices -- and there they directly see what is involved!) The same is true regarding the *type* of care they accept, "unquestioningly". When the doctor explains their "condition" and his Rx for same, they nod, dutifully, like a bobble-head doll -- typically not comprehending MOST of what is being said... and rarely questioning what they are being told ("what does 'xxxx' mean?")

And, doctors are now managed like employees -- here's your 15 minute time slot, etc. Patients are "shipped around" like inventory in a warehouse (nowhere was this more true than in the ER -- all sorts of rooms that you are shuffled between for no apparent "gain" in service). Who are you going to engage in that discussion re: the various treatment options, their prices, how they are/aren't covered on your *particular* plan, etc.? And, how is your discussion *not* going to affect the care provided to the person who has the appointment *after* you?? ("Gee, Mr Jones. I'm sorry we're running a bit late. The doctor had to provide some pricing information to the previous patient...")

The first step in a "solution" is to make consumers aware of the cost of their healthcare. You want to be obese, eat poorly, not exercise, not watch your blood sugar, etc. -- because the doctor has a magic pill for that? Great! But, this is what it is actually costing "society" to provide that treatment to you (i.e., NOT some abstract costs but, rather, *real* costs: SOMEONE is paying for that treatment that you are getting "for free")

VAT for medical care?? Only when folks start *directly* experiencing the consequences of their lifestyle, etc. decisions will they even BEGIN to consider "shopping around".

When my son was about 6 years old, he was riding a skateboard on his belly. His face got planted into the concrete. We took him to the emergency room. We signed in and waited over an hour before my son said, "can I get some food from one of those machines, I'm hungry". I said, "your OK, lets save this money for the dermatologist". Still has just a little scar between his nose and lip on one side. At college he still rode a long board from class to class. Mikek

Ya, the doc removed a piece of plywood from my eye. It was a long stretch to think I had metal in my eye. Mikek

he lied to the country about Saddam Hussein.

"What lie" has to be evidence of brain death - or at least a degree of pro- Republican fanaticism implying tantamount to a complete loss of critical fa culties.

As for not complaining, you didn't complain here.

ere was never a shred of evidence suggesting that Irak had WMD at the time of the invasion, and whatever evidence you may be thinking of is almost cer tainly the product of wishful thinking by analysts deliberately generating nonsense that will go down well with right-wing nitwits. Nobody outside the US administration thought that the evidence for weapons of mass destructio n in Irak adduced at the time was remotely convincing, and nobody I've hear d of found any convincing evidence that after the invasion.

ment in Iraq. An investigation by C.J. Chivers, published in The Times on W ednesday, found that American and American-trained Iraqi troops discovered thousands of abandoned and highly dangerous chemical weapons left over from the rule of Saddam Hussein. These weapons, found from 2004 to 2011, wounde d troops from both armies. There are now fears that some could fall into th e hands of fighters for the Islamic State[...]"

Continuing to quote

"These weapons are not the chemical and biological weapons of mass destruct ion that the George W. Bush administration claimed as the excuse for embark ing on the Iraq war and that, it turned out, did not exist. Instead, they a re aged remnants left over from an earlier chemical weapons program in the late-1970s and 1980s that was shut down in 1991. Mr. Hussein used the weapo ns against Iran in a war from 1980-88."

I'm afraid that you have just been busted. Did you fail to read the article to the end? Or were you hoping that nobody else would?

ns up

ow to

ng.

ng.

o,

d to

insurance to people who couldn't afford it before, it can't - in the short term - make healthcare cheaper for everybody.

I said that it wasn't possible in the short term. There's a lot of fat in t he US system - it does cost half as much again per head as the most generou s of it's international rivals - and Obama might have been hoping to squeez e in some cost saving reforms at the same time as extending the system.

Since I won't touch YouTube with a barge-pole I'll pass on the chance of fi nding out that you only watched half of it, in the same way that you only r ead half your New York Times "evidence" that Dubbya wasn't lying.

sities

y about weapons of mass destruction, and claiming that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, James Arthur is either grossly imperceptive or grossly pa rtisan - I favour the latter explanation. James Arthur can be quite percept ive when finding evidence that appears to support his point of view.

and it was pointed out here back then that Dubbya's case was less than subs tantial - he's got no business complaining about Obama now. In fact - since he sounds exactly like a Republican apologist - it wouldn't be unreasonabl e to suspect that his claims about Obama are somewhat exaggerated for polit ical effect, much as Dubbya's were about Sadam.

n he lied to the country about Saddam Hussein.

here was never a shred of evidence suggesting that Irak had WMD at the time of the invasion,

vement in Iraq. An investigation by C.J. Chivers, published in The Times on Wednesday,

It's a list of people who weren't prepared to call Dubbya a liar - which is n't quite the same thing.

Ya' never know. There may have been a nail in the piece of wood.

With most of the people in Obamacare being essentially welfare patient who pay next to nothing you are certainly right. But that does not go for those of us (like me and my family) who must pay sky high deductibles. Up to about $5k ($10k family limit) comes fully out of pocket.

It's not just defensive medicine. I've talked to a very reputable doc in Florida who pays north of $100k in malpractise insurance. That's sick. It all ends up in the same place: On the medical bill.

That's why the chargemaster needs to be opened. By law.

te:

en he lied to the country about Saddam Hussein.

o-Republican fanaticism implying tantamount to a complete loss of critical faculties.

I'm not aware of any lies told in this context, only things people imagine were lies. So, I can't tell what new meme you've made up, much less have complained about it years ago.

IOW, nada.

sed

n.

there was never a shred of evidence suggesting that Irak had WMD at the tim e of the invasion, and whatever evidence you may be thinking of is almost c ertainly the product of wishful thinking by analysts deliberately generatin g nonsense that will go down well with right-wing nitwits. Nobody outside t he US administration thought that the evidence for weapons of mass destruct ion in Irak adduced at the time was remotely convincing, and nobody I've he ard of found any convincing evidence that after the invasion.

vement in Iraq. An investigation by C.J. Chivers, published in The Times on Wednesday, found that American and American-trained Iraqi troops discovere d thousands of abandoned and highly dangerous chemical weapons left over fr om the rule of Saddam Hussein. These weapons, found from 2004 to 2011, woun ded troops from both armies. There are now fears that some could fall into the hands of fighters for the Islamic State[...]"

ction that the George W. Bush administration claimed as the excuse for emba rking on the Iraq war and that, it turned out, did not exist. Instead, they are aged remnants left over from an earlier chemical weapons program in th e late-1970s and 1980s that was shut down in 1991. Mr. Hussein used the wea pons against Iran in a war from 1980-88."

le to the end? Or were you hoping that nobody else would?

I read it, I simply don't agree with the NYT. The question was not when the WMD were made, but whether Saddam still had them. He did.

The NYT can't admit that, and neither can you. I'm not sure why. Would you mind being gassed less if it were stale stock instead of fresh?

I was never impressed with the WMD rationale anyhow; it was ancillary. Nor was I a fan of it, but once started, it had to be finished.

The biggest shame of all was that, after all that blood and treasure, Obama bugged out and left it easy-pickings for ISIS. Until that point there was hope some overall good could've been salvaged.

James Arthur

's

ned to

th insurance to people who couldn't afford it before, it can't - in the sho rt term - make healthcare cheaper for everybody.

the US system - it does cost half as much again per head as the most gener ous of it's international rivals - and Obama might have been hoping to sque eze in some cost saving reforms at the same time as extending the system.

Naturally--you needn't consider direct evidence, since it might conflict with your programming.

You could easily look at the transcripts of his many public appearances, or you could look here, at a lefty site:

Here's another compilation of Barry promising savings, on video:

(note to Mr. Bill, don't load it, it's got a YouTube!!!)

Here's the left's red-faced take on the keep-your-plan promise: Politifact' s

in the same way that you only read half your New York Times "evidence" that Dubbya wasn't lying.

Ah, willful ignorance. I have to research things to form opinions, whereas yours come fully formed without research, or based on others'. That must c ome in handy.

There's no evidence either way whether GWB was lying. ISTM he and many oth er world leaders believed there was casus belli, but sure, they all could've been faking it. And flying on broomsticks chasing parakeets, I s'pose.

Whatever that was, the impact was a tiny fraction of Obamacare. Obamacare' s surveillance alone is greater--more intrusive--than the last century's wors t police states.

Cheers, James Arthur