Obama's Balls OK?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.

Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.

The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.

I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.

It isn't just the uninsurered that use the ER wrongly.

Where should the unisured go for their primary care?

But, what do you expect from a culture that reacts instead of proacts?

[Freak Out]

Hey Texas...have you ever received medical care in another country other than at a US base? Have you experienced how the system works in Canada and Germany first hand?

[texaspackerbacker]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.

Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

Tex, in the climate we live, if people aren't insured, even thru their own stupidity, we are gonna end up with nationalized health care. So....the solution is, do we let that happen or look for a common sense solution. We have lost the war on letting people make their own stupid mistakes on this one, we have to focus on a battle of not nationalizing the entire industry now.

Furthermore, thanks to libs, medicare, and HMO's the industry has been damaged so we actually have to find a cure for what ills it at the moment. If the choice is leave it, nationalize it or fix it, I choose fix it.

WHY would you make such a claim? The only only only reason why people CHOOSING to be uninsured would cause any movement at all toward nationalized health care is the bogus propaganda being pushed by leftists which you guys seem to be buying into hook, line, and sinker.

WHY would you three obviously good conservatives (BHead, Howard, and Scott) see our current system as so flawed? We have the indisputably best quality of care in the world; We have CHOICE/FREEDOM--something which you guys in most contexts rever, but which you seem willing to throw in the trash here; And we have virtually everybody getting virtually every form of treatment they need.

Somebody spoke of inefficiency in the way the poor and uninsured are given care? That is miniscule in comparison to the horrendous inefficiency of what Obama and Hillary advocate/what Canada and other countries already have.

Having the system absorb the cost of treating the poverty cases--as is currently done--is somehow a form of SOCIALISM? How so? It is no different than when a store passes on the cost of shoplifting to other purchasers. Is THAT socialism?

The other way many low income/uninsured get treatment is through medical research programs. THAT is the answer to the liberal complaint that some poor fall through the cracks in non-life threatening situations.

So we have virtually everybody getting treated, we have as much choice and freedom as we could realistically hope for, and we have the best quality of care in the world. But something is WRONG with the system? I don't think so.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hey Texas...have you ever received medical care in another country other than at a US base? Have you experienced how the system works in Canada and Germany first hand?

Just curious, what part of Tex are you suggesting needs to be examined?

[HowardRoark]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.

Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.

The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.

I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.

It isn't just the uninsurered that use the ER wrongly.

Where should the unisured go for their primary care?

But, what do you expect from a culture that reacts instead of proacts?

There would no longer be any uninsured. They would go to a pediatrician for their ear problems. During regular hours.

I don't believe proacts is a word.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.

Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.

If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?

The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.

I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!

My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.

You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.

The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.

I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.

It isn't just the uninsurered that use the ER wrongly.

Where should the unisured go for their primary care?

But, what do you expect from a culture that reacts instead of proacts?

There would no longer be any uninsured. They would go to a pediatrician for their ear problems. During regular hours.

I don't believe proacts is a word.

You were talking about CURRENT SITUATION...in the usage of the ER.

So, i ask, again...where should uninsured go for primary care?

Proact: Of course it isn't a word. What is your point. You understood what i was getting at....like the old joke...progress/congress.

[HowardRoark]

You were talking about CURRENT SITUATION...in the usage of the ER.

So, i ask, again...where should uninsured go for primary care?

Proact: Of course it isn't a word. What is your point. You understood what i was getting at....like the old joke...progress/congress.

Some problem-solving techniques

There are many approaches to problem solving, depending on the nature of the problem and the people involved in the problem. The more traditional, rational approach is typically used and involves, eg, clarifying description of the problem, analyzing causes, identifying alternatives, assessing each alternative, choosing one, implementing it, and evaluating whether the problem was solved or not.

Another, more state-of-the-art approach is appreciative inquiry. That approach asserts that "problems" are often the result of our own perspectives on a phenomena, eg, if we look at it as a "problem," then it will become one and we'll probably get very stuck on the "problem." Appreciative inquiry includes identification of our best times about the situation in the past, wishing and thinking about what worked best then, visioning what we want in the future, and building from our strengths to work toward our vision.

1. divide and conquer: break down a large, complex problem into smaller, solvable problems.

2. Hill-climbing strategy, (or - rephrased - gradient descent/ascent, difference reduction) - attempting at every step to move closer to the goal situation. The problem with this approach is that many challenges require that you seem to move away from the goal state in order to clearly see the solution.

3. Means-end analysis, more effective than hill-climbing, requires the setting of subgoals based on the process of getting from the initial state to the goal state when solving a problem.

4. Trial-and-error (also called guess and check)

5. Brainstorming

6. Morphological analysis

7. Method of focal objects

8. Lateral thinking

9. Research: study what others have written about the problem (and related problems). Maybe there's already a solution?
Assumption reversal (write down your assumptions about the problem, and then reverse them all)

10. Analogy: has a similar problem (possibly in a different field) been solved before?

11. Hypothesis testing: assuming a possible explanation to the problem and trying to prove the assumption.

12. Constraint examination: are you assuming a constraint which doesn't really exist?

13. Incubation: input the details of a problem into your mind, then stop focusing on it. The subconscious mind will continue to work on the problem, and the solution might just "pop up" while you are doing something else

14. Build (or write) one or more abstract models of the problem

15. Try to prove that the problem cannot be solved. Where the proof breaks down can be your starting point for resolving it

16. Get help from friends or online problem solving community (e.g. 3form, InnoCentive)

17. delegation: delegating the problem to others.

18. Root Cause Analysis

19. Working Backwards (Halpern,2002)

20. Forward-Looking Strategy (Halpern, 2002)

21. Simplification (Halpern, 2002)

22. Generalization (Halpern, 2002)

23. Specialization (Halpern, 2002)

24. Random Search (Halpern, 2002)

25. Split-Half Method (Halpern,2002)

26. Restate problem, and blame Conservatives (Otown, 2008)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You were talking about CURRENT SITUATION...in the usage of the ER.

So, i ask, again...where should uninsured go for primary care?

Proact: Of course it isn't a word. What is your point. You understood what i was getting at....like the old joke...progress/congress.

Some problem-solving techniques

There are many approaches to problem solving, depending on the nature of the problem and the people involved in the problem. The more traditional, rational approach is typically used and involves, eg, clarifying description of the problem, analyzing causes, identifying alternatives, assessing each alternative, choosing one, implementing it, and evaluating whether the problem was solved or not.

Another, more state-of-the-art approach is appreciative inquiry. That approach asserts that "problems" are often the result of our own perspectives on a phenomena, eg, if we look at it as a "problem," then it will become one and we'll probably get very stuck on the "problem." Appreciative inquiry includes identification of our best times about the situation in the past, wishing and thinking about what worked best then, visioning what we want in the future, and building from our strengths to work toward our vision.

1. divide and conquer: break down a large, complex problem into smaller, solvable problems.

2. Hill-climbing strategy, (or - rephrased - gradient descent/ascent, difference reduction) - attempting at every step to move closer to the goal situation. The problem with this approach is that many challenges require that you seem to move away from the goal state in order to clearly see the solution.

3. Means-end analysis, more effective than hill-climbing, requires the setting of subgoals based on the process of getting from the initial state to the goal state when solving a problem.

4. Trial-and-error (also called guess and check)

5. Brainstorming

6. Morphological analysis

7. Method of focal objects

8. Lateral thinking

9. Research: study what others have written about the problem (and related problems). Maybe there's already a solution?
Assumption reversal (write down your assumptions about the problem, and then reverse them all)

10. Analogy: has a similar problem (possibly in a different field) been solved before?

11. Hypothesis testing: assuming a possible explanation to the problem and trying to prove the assumption.

12. Constraint examination: are you assuming a constraint which doesn't really exist?

13. Incubation: input the details of a problem into your mind, then stop focusing on it. The subconscious mind will continue to work on the problem, and the solution might just "pop up" while you are doing something else

14. Build (or write) one or more abstract models of the problem

15. Try to prove that the problem cannot be solved. Where the proof breaks down can be your starting point for resolving it

16. Get help from friends or online problem solving community (e.g. 3form, InnoCentive)

17. delegation: delegating the problem to others.

18. Root Cause Analysis

19. Working Backwards (Halpern,2002)

20. Forward-Looking Strategy (Halpern, 2002)

21. Simplification (Halpern, 2002)

22. Generalization (Halpern, 2002)

23. Specialization (Halpern, 2002)

24. Random Search (Halpern, 2002)

25. Split-Half Method (Halpern,2002)

26. Restate problem, and blame Conservatives (Otown, 2008)

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

[HowardRoark]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

[Freak Out]

Did Texas do the cover for New Yorker this month?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

The question was where should the uninsured go for primary care?

But, i think you are in Tex's camp that they are taken care of...you just don't like the solution.

P.S. I answered you post on einhorn..though, i dont' think you'll like what you have to read.

[HowardRoark]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

The question was where should the uninsured go for primary care?

But, i think you are in Tex's camp that they are taken care of...you just don't like the solution.

P.S. I answered you post on einhorn..though, i dont' think you'll like what you have to read.

Did you get hit in the head by a rock this weekend?

We are just killing time talking about SOLUTIONS. What the fuck is your solution. I spelled mine out, much to the chagrin of Tex.

Where they go now for care is irrelevent to this thread. Where should they go? That is the question.

Why so hostile? I just wanted to know if you knew Einhorn. I know he is of your vintage and part of town.

I think he has an interesting story.

I was at dinner w/some people who brought up the RJC, wanted to know your thoughts.

Breathe.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

The question was where should the uninsured go for primary care?

But, i think you are in Tex's camp that they are taken care of...you just don't like the solution.

P.S. I answered you post on einhorn..though, i dont' think you'll like what you have to read.

Did you get hit in the head by a rock this weekend?

We are just killing time talking about SOLUTIONS. What the fuck is your solution. I spelled mine out, much to the chagrin of Tex.

Where they go now for care is irrelevent to this thread. Where should they go? That is the question.

Why so hostile? I just wanted to know if you knew Einhorn. I know he is of your vintage and part of town.

I think he has an interesting story.

I was at dinner w/some people who brought up the RJC, wanted to know your thoughts.

Breathe.

You brought up a specific point about cost to you..and how the uninsured were bringing up the costs...while the fact is that it isn't just the uninsured.

The point, which you fail to grasp or..can't determine why i'm asking..isn't about solutions...because for Tex he doesn't believe there is a problem.

If the uninsured use the ER as primary care then everything is ok. But, you are wrong...the ER isn't primary care...never is. While it may satisfy the "first POC" it hardly fulfills the nature of consultation or based in the community. The people that arrive at the ER have a problem. They arent' arriviing there to get little jonny's physical so he can play soccer.

The point is was trying to bring...slowly, was your definition of primary care. Which then could lead you into a real discussion with Tex...as i want no part in your discussion.

Where should the go? That is what i asked you several times. Are you high? WHat part of "where should the uninsured go for primary care" dont' you understand. Right NOW!

Hostile: I'm not hostile. Not angry. But, it is kinda rich that you have come and either attacked me, made disparaging comments, etc. and now ask why i'm hostile. You have basically come on this board and attacked liberals/dems and called them dumb.

Einhorn: I'm still trying to reconcile how some one so smart like him can be so stupid like you and your fellow conservs paint anyone who is liberal or dem. How can it be? What is wrong with him? How can someone who is so obviously interested in making money and ferreting out ne'er do wells be a dem?

And, yes, i'm VERY familiar with him...more so his parents. And, they would be more inclined to agree with my positions than yours. That is from FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

RJC: I gave you my thoughts. If you don't like them or don't like the tone..that is your problem. What did you think my thoughts were gonna be? They are great?

C'mon...republican jews. Why don't you ask me next about jews for jesus?

[HowardRoark]

Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.

Terrific.

So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.

What's your question?

The question was where should the uninsured go for primary care?

But, i think you are in Tex's camp that they are taken care of...you just don't like the solution.

P.S. I answered you post on einhorn..though, i dont' think you'll like what you have to read.

Did you get hit in the head by a rock this weekend?

We are just killing time talking about SOLUTIONS. What the fuck is your solution. I spelled mine out, much to the chagrin of Tex.

Where they go now for care is irrelevent to this thread. Where should they go? That is the question.

Why so hostile? I just wanted to know if you knew Einhorn. I know he is of your vintage and part of town.

I think he has an interesting story.

I was at dinner w/some people who brought up the RJC, wanted to know your thoughts.

Breathe.

You brought up a specific point about cost to you..and how the uninsured were bringing up the costs...while the fact is that it isn't just the uninsured.

The point, which you fail to grasp or..can't determine why i'm asking..isn't about solutions...because for Tex he doesn't believe there is a problem.

If the uninsured use the ER as primary care then everything is ok. But, you are wrong...the ER isn't primary care...never is. While it may satisfy the "first POC" it hardly fulfills the nature of consultation or based in the community. The people that arrive at the ER have a problem. They arent' arriviing there to get little jonny's physical so he can play soccer.

The point is was trying to bring...slowly, was your definition of primary care. Which then could lead you into a real discussion with Tex...as i want no part in your discussion.

Where should the go? That is what i asked you several times. Are you high? WHat part of "where should the uninsured go for primary care" dont' you understand. Right NOW!

Hostile: I'm not hostile. Not angry. But, it is kinda rich that you have come and either attacked me, made disparaging comments, etc. and now ask why i'm hostile. You have basically come on this board and attacked liberals/dems and called them dumb.

Einhorn: I'm still trying to reconcile how some one so smart like him can be so stupid like you and your fellow conservs paint anyone who is liberal or dem. How can it be? What is wrong with him? How can someone who is so obviously interested in making money and ferreting out ne'er do wells be a dem?

And, yes, i'm VERY familiar with him...more so his parents. And, they would be more inclined to agree with my positions than yours. That is from FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

RJC: I gave you my thoughts. If you don't like them or don't like the tone..that is your problem. What did you think my thoughts were gonna be? They are great?

C'mon...republican jews. Why don't you ask me next about jews for jesus?

What do you think about Jews for Jesus?

[HowardRoark]

Go down to the Phoenix Children's E.R. tomorrow. Bring your I-Phone, report what you see.

I am not Tex.

I think there is a problem with the system right now. But the solution, I think, is to make it more market driven. Or, I should say...market driven.