Reuters: Obama "one of the best presidents since World War Two." For Wall Street (74)
WhatUwish4: I swear. I'm really not an ogre. I just want things to work. What difference does it make if it is public or private, as long as it works?
See, this is why we need more Women in politics. We Men are too stubborn, we get an idea and we run it. We need you to keep us in check.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: Very little that's spent in healthcare actually going towards patient care?
I don't know the actual answer to that, but I can tell you that Obama has cut Medicare to the point that starting in January physicians will not be able to accept Medicare patients because the cuts effect their billing reimbursements. They cannot absorb the high cost of education, medical equipment, staffing regulations, and liability insurance when their compensation is less than the cost.
Moreover, US hospitals run UP the cost of care because they HAVE TO PERFORM A WHOLE HOST OF UNNECESSARY TESTS to avoid litigation.
To succeed, we need a plan where all the components work together to support one another and drive down costs. Obamacare seems to do the opposite.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: See, this is why we need more Women in politics. We Men are too stubborn, we get an idea and we run it. We need you to keep us in check.
I think you just made my day!
------ This thread is Archived ------
WhatUwish4: I don't know the actual answer to that, but I can tell you that Obama has cut Medicare to the point that starting in January physicians will not be able to accept Medicare patients because the cuts effect their billing reimbursements. They cannot absorb the high cost of education, medical equipment, staffing regulations, and liability insurance when their compensation is less than the cost.
Moreover, US hospitals run UP the cost of care because they HAVE TO PERFORM A WHOLE HOST OF UNNECESSARY TESTS to avoid litigation.
To succeed, we need a plan where all the components work together to support one another and drive down costs. Obamacare seems to do the opposite.
Moreover, US hospitals run UP the cost of care because they HAVE TO PERFORM A WHOLE HOST OF UNNECESSARY TESTS to avoid litigation.
To succeed, we need a plan where all the components work together to support one another and drive down costs. Obamacare seems to do the opposite.
I think i'm definitely pushing it here but, what if I was say to you that not only should there be a nationalised health service, but also that private healthcare should be banned.
This would certainly drive down costs.. but even if it was up to me I still wouldn't insist upon it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: I think i'm definitely pushing it here but, what if I was say to you that not only should there be a nationalised health service, but also that private healthcare should be banned.
This would certainly drive down costs.. but even if it was up to me I still wouldn't insist upon it.
This would certainly drive down costs.. but even if it was up to me I still wouldn't insist upon it.
As long as there was a THOROUGH feasibility study that backs up the plan and examines all the unintended consequences, why not?
But this business of "we have to pass the plan before you see what's in it" is just utter, incomprehensible irresponsibility.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: I think i'm definitely pushing it here but, what if I was say to you that not only should there be a nationalised health service, but also that private healthcare should be banned.
This would certainly drive down costs.. but even if it was up to me I still wouldn't insist upon it.
This would certainly drive down costs.. but even if it was up to me I still wouldn't insist upon it.
Just out of curiosity, which national plan do you think works the best? (I've heard New Zealand's is quite good).
It would be interesting to compare a good working plan to the albatross known as Obamacare.
------ This thread is Archived ------
WhatUwish4: Just out of curiosity, which national plan do you think works the best? (I've heard New Zealand's is quite good).
It would be interesting to compare a good working plan to the albatross known as Obamacare.
It would be interesting to compare a good working plan to the albatross known as Obamacare.
I actually believe the British NHS is a very good system, they work very hard and most of the money spent does actually go towards patient care with little bureaucracy. So to answer your question and call me biased but I think you should adopt our system.
It's things like patent law over medicine which effects things like drug costs which I would change in regards to my own system. You know, if we were allowed to use generic drugs on the NHS we could wipe 80% off drug costs in this country, generic manufacturing of such drugs could even be a tool against unemployment.
Another thing to watch out for is the tendency to agree to long-term and over-the-odds leases which temporarily lower spending and make the budget appear smaller. Watch out for the bureaucrats short-term thinking basically.
------ This thread is Archived ------
WhatUwish4: As long as there was a THOROUGH feasibility study that backs up the plan and examines all the unintended consequences, why not?
But this business of "we have to pass the plan before you see what's in it" is just utter, incomprehensible irresponsibility.
But this business of "we have to pass the plan before you see what's in it" is just utter, incomprehensible irresponsibility.
Yes, it's very clandestine. He is, or moreover those behind him, are using people's desperation to make hasty decisions. I don't regard obama as a statesmen, he has neither the capacity or the initiative. You want someone with Obama's charisma but with the talent to match.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: I actually believe the British NHS is a very good system, they work very hard and most of the money spent does actually go towards patient care with little bureaucracy. So to answer your question and call me biased but I think you should adopt our system.
It's things like patent law over medicine which effects things like drug costs which I would change in regards to my own system. You know, if we were allowed to use generic drugs on the NHS we could wipe 80% off drug costs in this country, generic manufacturing of such drugs could even be a tool against unemployment.
Another thing to watch out for is the tendency to agree to long-term and over-the-odds leases which temporarily lower spending and make the budget appear smaller. Watch out for the bureaucrats short-term thinking basically.
It's things like patent law over medicine which effects things like drug costs which I would change in regards to my own system. You know, if we were allowed to use generic drugs on the NHS we could wipe 80% off drug costs in this country, generic manufacturing of such drugs could even be a tool against unemployment.
Another thing to watch out for is the tendency to agree to long-term and over-the-odds leases which temporarily lower spending and make the budget appear smaller. Watch out for the bureaucrats short-term thinking basically.
So I will try to find a simplified explanation of all the components of your plan and attempt to find the ways Obamacare differs. Give me a few days and I'll report back!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: I think i'm definitely pushing it here but, what if I was say to you that not only should there be a nationalised health service, but also that private healthcare should be banned.
This would certainly drive down costs.. but even if it was up to me I still wouldn't insist upon it.
actually the Costs would go UP!This would certainly drive down costs.. but even if it was up to me I still wouldn't insist upon it.
Peruse the Swiss Healthcare System!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: actually the Costs would go UP!
Peruse the Swiss Healthcare System!
Peruse the Swiss Healthcare System!
Switzerland is too wealthy, small and certainly not urbanised enough to draw proper comparisons. I would have to be looking at a similar large scale society with similar social conditions to draw reliable conclusions.
In Britain, the existence of private hospitals creates a pressure from NHS doctors to demand similar wages. Demands we have relented to, and pay for on the defecit.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: Switzerland is too wealthy, small and certainly not urbanised enough to draw proper comparisons. I would have to be looking at a similar large scale society with similar social conditions to draw reliable conclusions.
In Britain, the existence of private hospitals creates a pressure from NHS doctors to demand similar wages. Demands we have relented to, and pay for on the defecit.
In Britain, the existence of private hospitals creates a pressure from NHS doctors to demand similar wages. Demands we have relented to, and pay for on the defecit.
Deficit. Helps if I know my own language.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: Switzerland is too wealthy, small and certainly not urbanised enough to draw proper comparisons. I would have to be looking at a similar large scale society with similar social conditions to draw reliable conclusions.
In Britain, the existence of private hospitals creates a pressure from NHS doctors to demand similar wages. Demands we have relented to, and pay for on the defecit.
Malarkey!In Britain, the existence of private hospitals creates a pressure from NHS doctors to demand similar wages. Demands we have relented to, and pay for on the defecit.
Not urbanized enough!
What has THAT got to do with anything?
------ This thread is Archived ------
ooby_dooby: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/analysis-obama-presidency-great-stocks-174524852.html
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Barack Obama often gets slammed for his stewardship of the U.S. economy, but for stock investors, he's been one of the best presidents since World War Two.
At 1,400, the S&P 500 on Friday was closing in on a four-year high and was up 74 percent since January 20, 2009, the day Obama took office. Not since Dwight Eisenhower's first term has a president had such a strong run for their first term.
That rally might be just enough to get Obama re-elected, making him the first sitting president in the post-war era to win a second term with a jobless rate higher than 7.2 percent.
"Even though business and corporate sentiment is not good for Obama because they don't think he's been good for the economy, the fact that the market has done very well under him is a positive," said Ethan Siegal, head of The Washington Exchange, which analyzes politics for institutional investors.
Soon after taking office, the president even waded into the dangerous territory of stock market prognostication.
On March 3, 2009, Obama, responding to a question about a market that was plumbing 12-year lows, said: "What you're now seeing is profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal, if you've got a long-term perspective on it."
The S&P 500 hit bottom a week later. Three years on, U.S. stocks have more than doubled, adding $6.8 trillion in market capitalization.
"The stock market is a barometer not of the absolute level of the economy but of improvement in the economy," said former Merrill Lynch strategist Richard Bernstein, who now runs his own investment management firm. "There is no doubt the economy has improved in the last four years."
More in article above.
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Barack Obama often gets slammed for his stewardship of the U.S. economy, but for stock investors, he's been one of the best presidents since World War Two.
At 1,400, the S&P 500 on Friday was closing in on a four-year high and was up 74 percent since January 20, 2009, the day Obama took office. Not since Dwight Eisenhower's first term has a president had such a strong run for their first term.
That rally might be just enough to get Obama re-elected, making him the first sitting president in the post-war era to win a second term with a jobless rate higher than 7.2 percent.
"Even though business and corporate sentiment is not good for Obama because they don't think he's been good for the economy, the fact that the market has done very well under him is a positive," said Ethan Siegal, head of The Washington Exchange, which analyzes politics for institutional investors.
Soon after taking office, the president even waded into the dangerous territory of stock market prognostication.
On March 3, 2009, Obama, responding to a question about a market that was plumbing 12-year lows, said: "What you're now seeing is profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal, if you've got a long-term perspective on it."
The S&P 500 hit bottom a week later. Three years on, U.S. stocks have more than doubled, adding $6.8 trillion in market capitalization.
"The stock market is a barometer not of the absolute level of the economy but of improvement in the economy," said former Merrill Lynch strategist Richard Bernstein, who now runs his own investment management firm. "There is no doubt the economy has improved in the last four years."
More in article above.
Did you find this in the funny papers?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Malarkey!
Not urbanized enough!
What has THAT got to do with anything?
Not urbanized enough!
What has THAT got to do with anything?
Is there no relationship between living conditions and the quality of health?
Directly and indirectly it makes a big difference.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: Is there no relationship between living conditions and the quality of health?
Directly and indirectly it makes a big difference.
yeah,sad,we Swiss milk Cos all day long,when we don't Yodel or are making Cheese on our Farms,or blowing the Alp-Horn!Directly and indirectly it makes a big difference.
Our Model would definitely work in the UK or the USA!
Might even work better!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: yeah,sad,we Swiss milk Cos all day long,when we don't Yodel or are making Cheese on our Farms,or blowing the Alp-Horn!
Our Model would definitely work in the UK or the USA!
Might even work better!
Our Model would definitely work in the UK or the USA!
Might even work better!
I'm saying you don't have the scale of ghetto that we do, I do know you don't all live on a farm.
Would I bring in the swiss policy here? With our scale of unregistered citizens and with things like HIV and other infectious conditions bordering upon epidemic status in the capital and other major cities? Then no I would not.
But beyond this I see no reason why there needs to be any middlemen between patient and Doctor.
Admittedly the NHS management wastes more than it could, but this is just a broader public sector problem and all we need is to put the fear of god into them, they have just grown lazy, stale and too secure, and they'll have to change now.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rumple4skin: I actually believe the British NHS is a very good system, they work very hard and most of the money spent does actually go towards patient care with little bureaucracy. So to answer your question and call me biased but I think you should adopt our system.
It's things like patent law over medicine which effects things like drug costs which I would change in regards to my own system. You know, if we were allowed to use generic drugs on the NHS we could wipe 80% off drug costs in this country, generic manufacturing of such drugs could even be a tool against unemployment.
Another thing to watch out for is the tendency to agree to long-term and over-the-odds leases which temporarily lower spending and make the budget appear smaller. Watch out for the bureaucrats short-term thinking basically.
It's things like patent law over medicine which effects things like drug costs which I would change in regards to my own system. You know, if we were allowed to use generic drugs on the NHS we could wipe 80% off drug costs in this country, generic manufacturing of such drugs could even be a tool against unemployment.
Another thing to watch out for is the tendency to agree to long-term and over-the-odds leases which temporarily lower spending and make the budget appear smaller. Watch out for the bureaucrats short-term thinking basically.
Looks like I'm in over my head trying to find a good way to compare apples to apples. Part of the problem is that most of Obamacare has yet to be written so there's not many tangibles out there.
What we need is a doctor from both sides to weigh in...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: yeah,...we Swiss milk Cos all day long,when we don't Yodel or are making Cheese on our Farms, or blowing the Alp-Horn!
Oy vey, who's minding the bank???
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Salami, Salami, Baloney
1830's Music
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
How far is too far?
Icebergs Still Around
everything is changing
rarotonga
Nature
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Reality Check
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Can you see where this will take us down the road?
Very little that's spent in healthcare actually going towards patient care?