Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, and if we're going to move to a system of health care where only those who can afford will get it, then hospitals can't be held responsible for treating people who can't pay either. Currently, they can't turn people away. How many store owners would remain open if the rule was "Let the people who can afford to buy your goods pay for it but you have to let the others take what they want"? It's not fair to put hospitals in that position.

I really do appreciate learning your thoughts about this, particularly with your experience.

I agree that saying hospitals must treat but have no recourse to compensation is an unrealistic solution.

But I feel like most proposals for reform go way beyond the scope of this issue and create incentives to shift the cost of some who could pay onto the taxpayers as well as the cost those who honestly can't. And I expect that the efforts to regulate costs for those who can't or won't pay will end up creating problems for the rest of us.

Health care is one of those things that it's really hard to get a handle on. It's also interesting to talk to people about what it was like before most people had insurance. Costs were certainly lower from what I've heard.

[AGDee]

Costs were definitely lower, but so was technology. An MRI machine is insanely expensive. Newer medications are extremely expensive. Robotic and virtual surgeries are the best, but are very expensive. What we are able to treat and how many more lives are saved is truly an amazing thing. If we want things to progress, someone has to fund it. We're really feeling it in Detroit with the unemployment rate over 7% and, the majority of those now laid off were also the ones with the best insurance (UAW) and we have no publicly funded hospitals in Michigan, unlike some other states (which is a problem at our state level).

Some argue that health care is not a right, but I will argue the other way. I can't see saying "Sorry, you're poor or underinsured, you die".

It most definitely is a complex issue. The way contracts for payment from insurers are figured is very screwy too. In the adolescent psych day treatment program I worked at from '94-2000, our cost per patient per day was $254. Blue Cross would negotiate a contract with the hospital to say "Well, we really like your cardiology services so we'll pay full price for that but we're only going to pay $150/day for your adolescent program and we'll call it even". So, we actually lost money on kids who had Blue Cross. Medicaid was more like "We'll pay 50% of your fee" so we have to set our fee at double what we need them to pay to break even. Another HMO might pay full price. Trying to budget what is going to come in based on the mix of the insured is nuts. Yeah, that program closed, even though it had great outcome statistics, it lost money. The inpatient psych program closed too. There are now no adolescent psych units at all in Wayne County, the county that Detroit is in. Patients who end up hospitalized have to go as far as 60 miles away. Nobody wanted to pay for it. It's tragic. Adolescent suicide rates have increased in this area since and the juvenile justice system has become overwhelmed with a lot of kids who actually need psychiatric treatment.

Emergency Rooms are the most expensive form of treatment but they are being used by those without insurance in place of primary care physician office visits because they are not allowed to turn people away. This has created so many issues from cost, to overcrowding, to "real" emergency treatment being delayed because they are overwhelmed with people who just have the flu, etc.

Overall, if you look at the model that hospitals try to operate under, it's ridiculous. I know there are for-profit hospitals in some states but in Michigan, all of them are non-profit. Any income they make has to go right back into the health system, mainly for capital improvements, expensive medical equipment, computer infrastructure, etc. It's easier to draw this, but I'm sure you can picture this.

Non-profit hospital in the center. Then you have all kinds of for-profit corporations feeding off of the hospital system: pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment/supplies, malpractice insurance companies, housekeeping and IT contracts, housekeeping supplies, food and food services, technology supplies... These hospitals, which are giving away tons of free care are being sucked dry by all of these other companies. Then people will argue that the doctors are making a ton of money. Well yeah, doctors make a lot of money. Don't you want to pay someone who is doing your brain surgery a lot so that you attract the brightest and best to this field? The people doing every day care are NOT making a lot of money. Even the accountants, IT people, etc. are not making as much as they could in other industries. The lowest paid employees in health care are the people who doing the most direct care.. the nurses aides/assistants.

We're down to three health care systems willing to keep a hospital open in Detroit and one of those is constantly teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. The only reason the other two systems can stay afloat is because their surburban hospitals carry them. There are health care systems that will only operate in affluent suburbs and don't give away any indigent care too. One of the things they've tossed around in this state is that all hospitals would pay a tax to the state which would then be redistributed to the hospitals that are providing the indigent care as a means of spreading the burden. Doesn't that sound insane in and of itself? (even though it would greatly benefit the health care system I work for, it still sounds crazy to me)

We want to have the best technology, the best care possible. We want hospitals and doctors to do everything they can to "fix" us, but *someone* has to pay for it.

[DSTCHAOS]

They serve different purposes and provide different services. I would much rather a person without money be denied a burger at Chili's than a person with congestive heart failure be denied care because they are without insurance and money. The repurcussions for the latter are far greater and go beyond profit. How much profit they are losing is debatable.

Greg Focker: You can milk just about anything with nipples.
Jack Byrnes: I have nipples, Greg, could you milk me?

[PhiGam]

Hillary only wanted 39% on the upper class, Obama will probably want somewhere in the 40s.
I was just thinking... if Obama picks Gore then hes unbeatable.

[DSTCHAOS]

Okay.

She referred to Barack as "my baby daddy" a couple of years ago at a rally. I wasn't thrilled over the reference but at least it was her doing it.

ETA: http://sandrarose.com/2008/06/12/mic...r-babys-daddy/

[nate2512]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/conte...thesmearshome/

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by nate2512

http://my.barackobama.com/page/conte...thesmearshome/

Thanks for posting this Nate.
I heard about this site while on way to gym.
Guess it is a sign of the times when one has to put up a site like this
Unfortunately, IMVHO, the people who "should/need to" see it either will not or just not care to believe in it.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Thanks for posting this Nate.
I heard about this site while on way to gym.
Guess it is a sing of the times when one has to put up a site like this
Unfortunately, IMVHO, the people who "should/need to" see it either will not or just not care to believe in it.

yeah i don't believe it.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by nate2512

yeah i don't believe it.

And these?:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...o_n_94833.html

Flawed Cindy McCain has a grudge list

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3295472.ece

Hey, we all can choose to believe in what we wish to.
However, we should at least attempt to differentiate between rumors, innuendos and facts. Even if those facts go against what we, for what ever reason(s), wish to think or believe.

I am far from prefect. I believe in ghosts. In part because I believe I have seen them. Twice.
Have no proof.

[TexasWSP]

So they played on something that she said and now it's racist? is that what happened? I honestly thought that phrase was pretty common place now, "baby mama".

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

So they played on something that she said and now it's racist? is that what happened? I honestly thought that phrase was pretty common place now, "baby mama".

I would say it's common place for an out of wedlock situation. She is his wife, not his baby mama. They aren't referring to McCain's wife as his baby mama, are they?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

So they played on something that she said and now it's racist? is that what happened? I honestly thought that phrase was pretty common place now, "baby mama".

It's comon place but on a 'reputable' news station is not the place for that type of comment. Save that for out and about with your friends.


Hmmmm...sounds like a setup for When "Keepin' it real" Goes Wrong.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

So they played on something that she said and now it's racist? is that what happened? I honestly thought that phrase was pretty common place now, "baby mama".

Originally Posted by AGDee

I would say it's common place for an out of wedlock situation. She is his wife, not his baby mama. They aren't referring to McCain's wife as his baby mama, are they?

From one of the linked news stories:
"Politico cites a Fox staffer as saying that others internally were bothered by the use of the offensive epithet - derogatory hip-hop slang for "the mother of your child(ren), whom you did not marry and with whom you are not currently involved", according to the Urban Dictionary."

And it seems as if this is just the start of what maybe multi-pronged effort by the GOP, and operatives, against the Obama's:
Michelle Obama becomes GOP target
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11044.html

Rezko: Feds pushed for dirt on Obama
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11041.html

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Of course I would be upset, no, actually, suicidal. But I do understand the concept of both sides participating in the mud slinging.

But I feel like McCain won't have as much to defend that hasn't already been exposed, whereas almost everything bad about Obama will be new to the national spotlight. Do you see what I mean?
I wouldn't mind a dirty election because I think Barack would suffer more from one than John.

When you say "everything bad" do you mean:
1) Things that "you" just do not like, yet are true?
2) Things that are intentional distortions of the truth?
3) Things that are out right false, but what "you" either wish were true or just made up to fit a curtain picture or mold?

And how would you feel if there is a back-latch against mud-slinging that causes the GOP to lose?

[shinerbock]

The "baby momma" comment is somewhat absurd (I mean, replaying what she said is one thing...), but I'll care about this as soon as I see the MSM start crying about Olbermann calling Bush a coward and a war criminal.

Fox News receives an inordinate amount of rebuke, but I guess thats to be expected when you're stomping the $%#@ out of your liberal competitors.