Good letter

[chucklestheclown]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I love when he says this will somehow save money. And we're going to use the misspent money on Medicaid/Medicare and somehow make a larger programme with no wasted money or fraud?

Here in Chicago the big news has been inferior students being put on a list to the U of I Champaign and the Chicago Magnet High Schools (that are near the top in the nation) and admitted much to the chagrin of qualified students who were out.. Of course you needed to know 'a guy' who knows a politician or Board Member. Will you have to know 'a guy' for a hip replacement of stress test?

You obviously have no experience with the current public health care system. That is already very, very, true. However, once you get the help, it beats Northwestern by a New York mile.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by chucklestheclown

You obviously have no experience with the current public health care system. That is already very, very, true. However, once you get the help, it beats Northwestern by a New York mile.

OMG Stroger v. Nothwestern

where you going?

[chucklestheclown]

I've been to both and got much better care at the former. Studies have shown that most people think the more expensive something is, the better it is, but, as horseplayers, we SHOULD all know that is not ALWAYS the case.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by chucklestheclown

I've been to both and got much better care at the former. Studies have shown that most people think the more expensive something is, the better it is, but, as horseplayers, we SHOULD all know that is not ALWAYS the case.

That explains a lot.

Here's a list of awards given to NW Memorial show me what Stroger has done..


http://www.nmh.org/nmh/aboutus/aandw.htm

[Danzig]

an op-ed from the wall street journal on obama's sagging popularity:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...543314054.html


Despite the vote in November, it is clear that when Americans are not in an abject panic, we dislike government fiscal promiscuity. The president's sinking approval ratings are due precisely to his administration's free-spending ways. In a July 2009 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason for disapproval of the president's economic policies was, literally, "spending too much."


70% of respondents agree that, "people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time." There is no evidence that more than a minority of Americans accept the idea that a $17 trillion national debt, greater reliance on government for jobs and health, and hyper-progressive taxation offer the hope they deserve for themselves and their children.

[Danzig]

and this, on obama and rationing of health care...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...780260914.html


The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."

The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost.
In the British national health service, a government agency approves only those expensive treatments that add at least one Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) per £30,000 (about $49,685) of additional health-care spending. If a treatment costs more per QALY, the health service will not pay for it. The existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive."


'Like virtually every economist I know, I believe the right approach to limiting health spending is by reforming the tax rules. But if that is not going to happen, let's not destroy the high quality of the best of American health care by government rationing and misplaced egalitarianism. '

[SOREHOOF]

Sounds like another case of a Govt. trying to usurp power away from the People. Reel in the lawyers! That would be change we could all believe in! That won't happen while we are ruled by lawyers. Pay for 2/3 of this by eliminating fraud and waste? Why not just eliminate fraud and waste? Then we (the Govt.), could afford to put anyone who needs it on Medicaid or Medicare and give the rest of the $$ back to the taxpayers to buy insurance of their choice ( remember freedom of choice?). That's where it all came from in the 1'st place. These elected officials will say or do anything to stay in power and ignore the constitution. I'm dismayed by those who fought the previous administration for infringement of constitutional rights, yet turns a blind eye as this one does pretty much anything it wants, mostly with no regard for the constitution... all for our collective good.