Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Cap'n Cat wrote:Oh, come on, Hoagie. Don't be a Z. The guy's doing something.

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Oh, come on, Hoagie. Don't be a Z. The guy's doing something.

So doing something , even if it's wrong, is acceptable????

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Oh, come on, Hoagie. Don't be a Z. The guy's doing something.

So doing something , even if it's wrong, is acceptable????

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
So doing something , even if it's wrong, is acceptable????

You don't know it's wrong, you bitch. You're just Conking. A holier than thou fvck, like T. Knows all.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

You don't know it's wrong, you bitch. You're just Conking. A holier than thou fvck, like T. Knows all.

A lot of us didn't know that mistakes of the past were wrong when they were made either so WTF do you blindly follow this **** instead of just taking a moment and not acting like a holier than thou **** yourself? This is a MAJOR **** STEP and should be scrutinized very carefully. The points that are being made by the opposition should be listened to. I've followed this **** closer than your avg. guy and I don't know if this is gonna be a good thing for the country but it COULD be if it is handled correctly and a part of that is to hear what the future problems could be to avoid a bad piece of legislation. We need to stop just rushing into **** like a bunch of **** blind, scared mice.

Appaholic wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: A lot of us didn't know that mistakes of the past were wrong when they were made either so WTF do you blindly follow this **** instead of just taking a moment and not acting like a holier than thou **** yourself? This is a MAJOR **** STEP and should be scrutinized very carefully. The points that are being made by the opposition should be listened to. I've followed this **** closer than your avg. guy and I don't know if this is gonna be a good thing for the country but it COULD be if it is handled correctly and a part of that is to hear what the future problems could be to avoid a bad piece of legislation. We need to stop just rushing into **** like a bunch of **** blind, scared mice.

But Ursus...it's a CRISIS!...We have to do something NOW!!!....fer crissakes..ANYTHING!!!!

Over the past several weeks, President Barack Obama and some congressional leaders have cited Mayo Clinic and other medical group practices as "a great value" for your health care dollar: high-quality care at costs that are significantly less than other parts of the country.

While we appreciate this recognition, we question whether our political leaders realize that many doctors and hospitals that offer this high-value care are reaching the point where we cannot afford to provide it to patients with government-sponsored insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid. We worry that the same could hold true for patients in a new government-run public insurance plan.
...
Meanwhile, overall Medicare spending is ballooning because many providers have responded to price controls by increasing the number of services they offer . . . spending less and less time with patients but having them return for more frequent office visits, tests and procedures, driving up the volume of billable services. An example: From 2001 to 2005, Medicare cut payments to physicians yet spending-per-beneficiary rose because volumes increased. Research from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care shows that many of these "extra" services add nothing but cost to the patient's care.

To stem skyrocketing health care costs, lawmakers must create financial incentives that reward caregivers for working together to provide high-quality, affordable care. They must pay for value. More than 25 years of experience have proven that price controls do the opposite, yet more than half the financing in proposed health care reform bills comes from continued across-the-board reductions in price-controlled payments. That won't work.

Instead, lawmakers should put the money where their mouth is. Define and pay for "a great value": superior patient outcomes, safety and service provided at the lowest possible cost. We can create this simple value score for clinics and hospitals by using standard performance data and hone these measures as better information becomes available.

Over the long term, we should pay for value without artificial price controls. Recognizing that price controls will not go away tomorrow, however, we support an interim approach that would work within the existing Medicare payment model.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
But Ursus...it's a CRISIS!...We have to do something NOW!!!....fer crissakes..ANYTHING!!!!

yeah, I'm getting kind of tired of that fucking pussy attitude that keeps flushing things further down the drain. The fucking Obamatons are really starting to wear on me.

First of all, Ursus, you can fvcking blow me. At no point did The Cap'n say he supports it or is blindly following it, you adolescent fvck. I'm pointing out the Conk habit of negative response to anything Obama does. Apology accepted in public or via PM.

Or you can go die.

UNI88 wrote:Bending the curve on health spending
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 1064.story

Interesting and relevent commentary from Denis Cortese, MD, president and CEO of Mayo Clinic and Jeffrey Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center.

Over the past several weeks, President Barack Obama and some congressional leaders have cited Mayo Clinic and other medical group practices as "a great value" for your health care dollar: high-quality care at costs that are significantly less than other parts of the country.

While we appreciate this recognition, we question whether our political leaders realize that many doctors and hospitals that offer this high-value care are reaching the point where we cannot afford to provide it to patients with government-sponsored insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid. We worry that the same could hold true for patients in a new government-run public insurance plan.
...
Meanwhile, overall Medicare spending is ballooning because many providers have responded to price controls by increasing the number of services they offer . . . spending less and less time with patients but having them return for more frequent office visits, tests and procedures, driving up the volume of billable services. An example: From 2001 to 2005, Medicare cut payments to physicians yet spending-per-beneficiary rose because volumes increased. Research from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care shows that many of these "extra" services add nothing but cost to the patient's care.

To stem skyrocketing health care costs, lawmakers must create financial incentives that reward caregivers for working together to provide high-quality, affordable care. They must pay for value. More than 25 years of experience have proven that price controls do the opposite, yet more than half the financing in proposed health care reform bills comes from continued across-the-board reductions in price-controlled payments. That won't work.

Instead, lawmakers should put the money where their mouth is. Define and pay for "a great value": superior patient outcomes, safety and service provided at the lowest possible cost. We can create this simple value score for clinics and hospitals by using standard performance data and hone these measures as better information becomes available.

Over the long term, we should pay for value without artificial price controls. Recognizing that price controls will not go away tomorrow, however, we support an interim approach that would work within the existing Medicare payment model.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: yeah, I'm getting kind of tired of that fucking pussy attitude that keeps flushing things further down the drain. The fucking Obamatons are really starting to wear on me.

First of all, Ursus, you can fvcking blow me. At no point did The Cap'n say he supports it or is blindly following it, you adolescent fvck. I'm pointing out the Conk habit of negative response to anything Obama does. Apology accepted in public or via PM.

Or you can go die.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:



First of all, Ursus, you can fvcking blow me. At no point did The Cap'n say he supports it or is blindly following it, you adolescent fvck. I'm pointing out the Conk habit of negative response to anything Obama does. Apology accepted in public or via PM.

Or you can go die.

That may have been the easiest button I've every pushed.

I am sorry that you blindly defend what they blindly attack Cap'n so please accept my pity for that.

PS brother...why all the hatred?

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I'm not in favor of the current proposal... won't really fix the problems...

short term - expand medicare to kids under 18 - no child gets a choice in whether their parents are responsible or not.

long term - the canadian system, despite it's flaws, is the right one - although i think allowing private insurance to exist for those who want to supplement it should be allowed...

catamount man wrote:We need universal health care like we need a new hole in our heads. I'm just ready for Jesus to come back so I can leave this sinful miserable blob of dirt WAAAAAY behind me.

D1B wrote:

catamount man wrote:We need universal health care like we need a new hole in our heads. I'm just ready for Jesus to come back so I can leave this sinful miserable blob of dirt WAAAAAY behind me.

Jesus would differ with you. He would be all for affordable, quality healthcare, especially cuz it benefits the poor.

D1B wrote:

catamount man wrote:We need universal health care like we need a new hole in our heads. I'm just ready for Jesus to come back so I can leave this sinful miserable blob of dirt WAAAAAY behind me.

Jesus would differ with you. He would be all for affordable, quality healthcare, especially cuz it benefits the poor.

D1B wrote:

catamount man wrote:We need universal health care like we need a new hole in our heads. I'm just ready for Jesus to come back so I can leave this sinful miserable blob of dirt WAAAAAY behind me.

Jesus would differ with you. He would be all for affordable, quality healthcare, especially cuz it benefits the poor.

death dealer wrote:

D1B wrote:

Jesus would differ with you. He would be all for affordable, quality healthcare, especially cuz it benefits the poor.

Well, of course. Jesus was a hardcore collectivist. Not really a socialist in the Marxist sense, but clearly a utopian collectivist. The early church was a pure collective society. Remember, Annais and Saphirra were struck dead by God for witholding part of the proceeds from the sale of their property. In the early church, you were expected to sale all you owned and give the money to the church. Everyone shared equally, without regard for personal income or wealth.

catamount man wrote:

death dealer wrote: Well, of course. Jesus was a hardcore collectivist. Not really a socialist in the Marxist sense, but clearly a utopian collectivist. The early church was a pure collective society. Remember, Annais and Saphirra were struck dead by God for witholding part of the proceeds from the sale of their property. In the early church, you were expected to sale all you owned and give the money to the church. Everyone shared equally, without regard for personal income or wealth.

Indeed and that's why it's killing me listening to so many fundies balk at universal health care as if it's nothing.

Col Hogan wrote:

catamount man wrote:
Indeed and that's why it's killing me listening to so many fundies balk at universal health care as if it's nothing.

Whhaatt???? How on God's green earth do you equate one with the other...???????

Universial health care, as currently proposed, is nothing but income redistribution...there's nothing voluntary about it...

DD talked about a voluntary system...if you want to belong, you do this...it wasn't mandatory for everyone...