4,000 dead Americans

[Jingus 0]

Ah okay, yeah that particular part was stupid, and deserved to be struck down. As for the rest? Tough judgement call. There certainly have been problems with universal healthcare plans in the past; one big offender in my hometown state was Tenncare, which had a ridiculous number of problems, including lots of people people getting on it who could afford their own insurance and didn't need it.

[snuffbox 0]

Another classy side to the GOP's vitriol towards this is that they are all milking tax-funded health care themselves despite being incredibly wealthy.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

One REAL important place to start should be litigation reform, as the ridiculous upward spiral in the cost of malpractice insurance is one of the biggest causes of medical cost inflation.

 

Read this.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...agewanted=print

 

And some researchers are skeptical that caps ultimately reduce costs for doctors. Mr. Weiss of Weiss Ratings and researchers at Dartmouth College, who separately studied data on premiums and payouts for medical mistakes in the 1990's and early 2000's, said they were unable to find a meaningful link between claims payments by insurers and the prices they charged doctors.

[Jingus 0]

Well then, what's causing the ridiculously high premiums? Yeah, they vary by location, but it's not feasible to require a rookie doctor, probably with massive debt from school, to immediately start shelling out $200K+ just in order to start practicing.

 

From the article:

Costs for most doctors last year rose between 6.9 percent and 24.9 percent

And that represents a lower rate than previous years. Why do the premiums raise so much faster than inflation?

The average payment in 2003 for malpractice, the data bank said, was $268,605, up from $197, 753 in 1993, after adjusting for inflation.

A 40% raise in ten years. Obviously something ain't right here.

What may muddy the public picture is that while claims are rising at a measured pace, there have been more headline-grabbing big awards. Data compiled by the Physician Insurers Association of America show a distinct rise in payments of more than $1 million to victims of medical mistakes. In 1993, the organization said, 2.9 percent of the payments made by its companies exceeded $1 million. A decade later, 8.5 percent of the payments were for more than $1 million.

This made me think of something else: do all these numbers include out-of-court settlements, or just court-awarded damages? If it doesn't include settlements (after all, they're supposed to be confidential) then we're missing a huge chunk of the information necessary to fully understand this issue.

 

Of course a payment cap of $250K for victims is bullshit, since it's way too low an upper limit in cases where blatant incompetence caused permanent mutilation or death. But these cases where a jury gives someone an eight-figure award, really, is that much necessary? And we've all heard stories about plaintiffs who won and got money they really shouldn't have, but that's more an issue for general tort reform, not just this specific subculture of lawsuits.

[EricMM 0]

The rise in rates might have to do with the fact that Americans are getting sicker earlier due to obesity increasing, and are getting older in general...

 

Anyways, Jingus, this isn't MUCH of a judgement call. 35B to give 9M+ kids preventative healthcare. Which we all know is easier and cheaper than the other kind, whatever it's called. Restorative?

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Tax something other than cigarettes.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Tax something other than cigarettes.

 

Like what? Hopefully not gasoline or residential property...we're taxed enough on that as is.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Soda pop. 5 cents a can. Shit's as bad for you as smoking.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Insuring 10 million kids~40 days in Iraq

[snuffbox 0]

Soda pop. 5 cents a can. Shit's as bad for you as smoking.

 

I could agree with that.

 

Another way to pay for this and a few months in Iraq besides: Marijuana Reform.

[snuffbox 0]

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=71741

 

More care for the troops.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This whole SCHIP debate reminds me of a Simpson's episode when Bart ran for Class President.

 

Martin was walking around with a sign reading "A Vote for Bart is a Vote for Anarchy!" The camera then pans over to Bart, holding a sign that reads "A Vote for Bart is a Vote for Anarchy!"

 

The Republicans are furiously hammering home the argument, "This is just the first step in the Democrats' plan to establish universal health care, paid by the government!"

 

The Democrats respond by arguing, "This is just the first step in the Democrats' plan to establish universal health care, paid by the government!

 

"Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?"

 

 

.

 

Yes No Unsure

% % %

 

 

5/4-6/07

64 35 2 "

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

[Jingus 0]

Another way to pay for this and a few months in Iraq besides: Marijuana Reform.

Yep. (I guess even people as different as you and me have something they can agree on. We're smoking our way to utopia!)

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I do agree that the government should not waste time and resources combatting marijuana. Frankly, I would think most Repbulicans would be in favor of dope use...a stupid and sedate populace is more easily exploited by the upper class.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What are you a Marxist now Invader?

 

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What are you a Marxist now Invader?

 

 

Heh, not that I'm aware of.

[snuffbox 0]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071013/D8S83AD80.html

 

Gen Sanchez is a phony soldier.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

How can he dare embolden the enemy by giving them aid and comfort like that?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

The first reason to be against this war.

 

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=71741

 

National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War

 

Rhonda Erskine, Online Content Producer

 

 

 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (NBC) -- When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.

 

 

 

1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.

 

"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."

 

Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.

 

Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.

 

"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.

 

That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.

 

"I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home," Hobot said.

 

Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730. Now, six of Minnesota's members of the House of Representatives have asked the Secretary of the Army to look into it -- So have Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman.

 

Klobuchar said the GI money "shouldn't be tied up in red tape," and Coleman said it's "simply irresponsible to deny education benefits to those soldiers who just completed the longest tour of duty of any unit in Iraq."

 

Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.

 

"I had 23 guys under my command," Anderson said. "I promised to take care of them. And I'm not going to end taking care of them when this deployment is over, and it's not over until this is solved."

 

The Army did not respond questions Tuesday afternoon.

 

Senators Klobuchar and Coleman released a joint statement saying the Army secretary, Pete Geren, is looking into this personally, and they say Geren asked a review board to expedite its review so the matter could be solved by next semester.

 

Minnesota National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Olson said the soldiers are "victims of a significant injustice."

 

NBC

 

So I guess no big hug and a kiss for the soldier/heros coming home? Want to find out how much this country values it's soldiers? Ask a Vietnam vet. This will not be news to them.

[snuffbox 0]

Only 9 days late.

[EricMM 0]

The Real Iraq We Knew

 

By 12 former Army captains

Tuesday, October 16, 2007; 12:00 AM

 

Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.

 

As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.

 

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.

 

Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.

 

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.

 

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.

 

U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.

 

Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone.

 

This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.

 

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

 

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.

 

This column was written by 12 former Army captains: Jason Blindauer served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Elizabeth Bostwick served in Salah Ad Din and An Najaf in 2004. Jeffrey Bouldin served in Al Anbar, Baghdad and Ninevah in 2006. Jason Bugajski served in Diyala in 2004. Anton Kemps served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Kristy (Luken) McCormick served in Ninevah in 2003. Luis Carlos Montalván served in Anbar, Baghdad and Nineveh in 2003 and 2005. William Murphy served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Josh Rizzo served in Baghdad in 2006. William "Jamie" Ruehl served in Nineveh in 2004. Gregg Tharp served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Gary Williams served in Baghdad in 2003.

[NoCalMike 0]

Eric, if you continue to post articles by "phony soldiers" I am afraid we are going to have to ask for a perm ban.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

You're emboldening the enemy with that cut & run rhetoric!

 

Seriously, that article is pretty damning of the whole process right now.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The smart ones tend to get out at Captain.

 

This is a really great, brief summary of everything wrong over there. Doesn't gloss over anything, but is short enough that dumb people might actually read it.

[snuffbox 0]

It's been five years already since Congress pulled up like an emaciated nightcrawler. I honestly wont be surprised if we are marking the 10 year anniversary of that leadership collapse with still more of our troops dying in Iraq and suffering further back home if they survive.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Eh...I'm pretty sure the Iraq strategy is going to change dramatically no matter who (realistically) is in the White House next.

[snuffbox 0]

That was the conventional wisdom in 1968.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

That was the conventional wisdom in 1968.

 

I'm not as up on my Vietnam era history as some around here...but at that point, wasn't the general concensus that Vietnam was still a winnable conflict? That doesn't seem to be the case with Iraq at this point.

[snuffbox 0]

The same people who considered Vietnam "winnable" in 1968 are the same type of people that consider Iraq "winnable" now.

 

For the last year of LBJ's Presidency his Secretary of Defense was Clark Clifford. He came in when McNamara stepped down. Secretary McNamara, one of the Vietnam War's key architects & a cheerleader for the first several years, could no longer hold onto his sanity and claim that Vietnam was 'winnable' at the same time.

 

While Rumsfeld & McNamara are almost eerily similar (right down to the matching glasses & haircut) they difer greatly when it comes from learning from one's mistakes.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

OK...yeah, reading up on it a bit more, I realized that was the same year as the Tet Offensive, so that makes sense.