Hold this, Coburn

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

It's not as cut-and-dry as it seems on the surface.

Oh, but it is.  In the bill, there were safeguards and protections on who sees the information and how it is used.  It was doctor-patient information.  Period.  Are you telling me he doesn't understand this concept?

Moreover, things like PTSD are treatable medical conditions.  One might presume that a guy who wants people to call him Doctor would want to heal people.  In his position, he could not only help thousands of vets get the treatment they need, but he could also do much to help get rid of the stigma associated with mental health issues, thus helping millions more.

His financial reasoning is goofy, too.  Does anybody feel like arguing that research doesn't pay off in the long run?  In the short term, prevention, early screening, and intervention is a net savings for our economy and our government.  

And yet, he derails   breast cancer bills not just once, but twice!

And now he's got a hold on an AIDs prevention bill.  A bill that incidentally would be one of the few accomplishments that Bush could point to and say, unequivocally, "I hepped humanity...and the whole humanitarian race.  Heh, heh, heh."  I, for one, wouldn't begrudge him this one.

Coburn is and idealogue, but he most certainly is not an iconoclast.  He's not destroying flawed institutions, he's destroying people.

And yes, I'm telling you how I REALLY feel about it.

I'm glad you are telling how you really feel about it.

My private physician had a psychologist set up practice in her medical group.  When I went for my annual physical last Dec. I was handed a clip board with a questionaire with about 10 or 20 questions with 1 to 5 scale scoring asking about how I felt emotionally, how I felt about relationships in my life, did I ever feel sad, how often, etc.  I asked what it was.  It was to determine if I suffered from depression and if I needed to be treated for it.

This was un-solicited by me and I refused to fill it out.  It was around the holidays, I had some personal things going on and I was quitting nicotine.  No point in being labeled depressive against my will for the rest of my life over temporary situations.

I have common sense enough as to what to do if I felt long-term depression or a mental health issue.  I don't feel it's proper for the government to mandate mental health screening which is what the story made the bill sound like.  If that's not the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

HIPPA pretty well provides the same patient/doctor confidentiality as you mentioned for everyone, but you waive those rights to the FAA if you are a pilot, you waive them when you apply to purchase a firearm- even long guns for hunting, you waive them when you update your health care coverage or apply for most life insurance.  Many other instances I'm not thinking of at the moment where you waive those rights and being diagnosed as having depression can follow you for life.

People who are suffering from PTSD know where to go from help and Coburn claimed there was duplication of services offered in that way.  I can't say I disagree.  I don't know the intracacies of medicine nor the business of it like Coburn, so I will defer to his judgement on it before I will speculate as to whether or not something is good or not for government involvement in healthcare.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I like Coburns pork stance.  I like the fact that he actually does his own thing.  BUT, I too often don't like his thing.

But before I hang him out to dry on these bills, I'd like to see what they are.  If it is all pork, more power to him (and pork usually has broad based support).  But I really don't know.

It's the "roughly a hundred" part that's ridiculous to me.  Being a self-appointed one-man pork-stopper just reeks of self-aggrandizement. I'm hoping he has some criteria other than his own personal whim for holding these bills up, but that may be too much to ask.

Self-aggrandizement?  I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, I can see how people would interpret his actions that way and wouldn't call you as off-base for that assertion, though I don't agree.  It think you have to be somewhat ego-centric to run for office in the first place.  CL is right, Coburn is an idealogue and you might be able to go as far as to call him a political iconoclast.  He's all about cutting the size of government and government waste.  He's against BAU in D.C.,   personally, I think that's a good thing.  

Given that Coburn supported a war that's cost $1 trillion and has been enormously wasteful, I find his anti-spending stance unbelievably hollow.

Rant against that $50,000 earmark while ignoring that money black hole in Iraq ... [xx(]

Crap like that is the reason the Republicans are in big trouble with the voters. And it's not the only reason.

Coburn wasn't in office when original authorization for the war happened.  A plurality of Congress of both parties much larger than Coburn has kept this war going and funded.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

It's not as cut-and-dry as it seems on the surface.

Oh, but it is.  In the bill, there were safeguards and protections on who sees the information and how it is used.  It was doctor-patient information.  Period.  Are you telling me he doesn't understand this concept?

Moreover, things like PTSD are treatable medical conditions.  One might presume that a guy who wants people to call him Doctor would want to heal people.  In his position, he could not only help thousands of vets get the treatment they need, but he could also do much to help get rid of the stigma associated with mental health issues, thus helping millions more.

His financial reasoning is goofy, too.  Does anybody feel like arguing that research doesn't pay off in the long run?  In the short term, prevention, early screening, and intervention is a net savings for our economy and our government.  

And yet, he derails   breast cancer bills not just once, but twice!

And now he's got a hold on an AIDs prevention bill.  A bill that incidentally would be one of the few accomplishments that Bush could point to and say, unequivocally, "I hepped humanity...and the whole humanitarian race.  Heh, heh, heh."  I, for one, wouldn't begrudge him this one.

Coburn is and idealogue, but he most certainly is not an iconoclast.  He's not destroying flawed institutions, he's destroying people.

And yes, I'm telling you how I REALLY feel about it.

I'm glad you are telling how you really feel about it.

My private physician had a psychologist set up practice in her medical group.  When I went for my annual physical last Dec. I was handed a clip board with a questionaire with about 10 or 20 questions with 1 to 5 scale scoring asking about how I felt emotionally, how I felt about relationships in my life, did I ever feel sad, how often, etc.  I asked what it was.  It was to determine if I suffered from depression and if I needed to be treated for it.

This was un-solicited by me and I refused to fill it out.  It was around the holidays, I had some personal things going on and I was quitting nicotine.  No point in being labeled depressive against my will for the rest of my life over temporary situations.

I have common sense enough as to what to do if I felt long-term depression or a mental health issue.  I don't feel it's proper for the government to mandate mental health screening which is what the story made the bill sound like.  If that's not the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

HIPPA pretty well provides the same patient/doctor confidentiality as you mentioned for everyone, but you waive those rights to the FAA if you are a pilot, you waive them when you apply to purchase a firearm- even long guns for hunting, you waive them when you update your health care coverage or apply for most life insurance.  Many other instances I'm not thinking of at the moment where you waive those rights and being diagnosed as having depression can follow you for life.

People who are suffering from PTSD know where to go from help and Coburn claimed there was duplication of services offered in that way.  I can't say I disagree.  I don't know the intracacies of medicine nor the business of it like Coburn, so I will defer to his judgement on it before I will speculate as to whether or not something is good or not for government involvement in healthcare.

 I'm glad you're okay, other than  that movement conservatism stuff, you've always seemed healthy to me.

But if someone were mentally ill, is it right to rely on them to exhibit "common sense"?  Why does the New England Journal of Medicine say
this?

quote:Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care

Conclusions This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of such care.

Pardon me for saying so, but HIPPA is simply not as important as this.  Besides, there are Privacy Rules that allow people with "common sense" to request and restrict access to this information.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

A plurality of Congress of both parties much larger than Coburn has kept this war going and funded.

He could put a hold on it if he felt like it.[}:)]

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I like Coburns pork stance.  I like the fact that he actually does his own thing.  BUT, I too often don't like his thing.

But before I hang him out to dry on these bills, I'd like to see what they are.  If it is all pork, more power to him (and pork usually has broad based support).  But I really don't know.

It's the "roughly a hundred" part that's ridiculous to me.  Being a self-appointed one-man pork-stopper just reeks of self-aggrandizement. I'm hoping he has some criteria other than his own personal whim for holding these bills up, but that may be too much to ask.

Self-aggrandizement?  I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, I can see how people would interpret his actions that way and wouldn't call you as off-base for that assertion, though I don't agree.  It think you have to be somewhat ego-centric to run for office in the first place.  CL is right, Coburn is an idealogue and you might be able to go as far as to call him a political iconoclast.  He's all about cutting the size of government and government waste.  He's against BAU in D.C.,   personally, I think that's a good thing.  

Given that Coburn supported a war that's cost $1 trillion and has been enormously wasteful, I find his anti-spending stance unbelievably hollow.

Rant against that $50,000 earmark while ignoring that money black hole in Iraq ... [xx(]

Crap like that is the reason the Republicans are in big trouble with the voters. And it's not the only reason.

Coburn wasn't in office when original authorization for the war happened.  A plurality of Congress of both parties much larger than Coburn has kept this war going and funded.

That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Less Government Spending hasn't lifted a finger to stop one of the biggest financial boondoggles in history.

Coburn: All talk, no substantive action.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

A plurality of Congress of both parties much larger than Coburn has kept this war going and funded.

He could put a hold on it if he felt like it.[}:)]

Okay, got me on that one.[]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little



I'm glad you're okay, other than  that movement conservatism stuff, you've always seemed healthy to me.

But if someone were mentally ill, is it right to rely on them to exhibit "common sense"?  Why does the New England Journal of Medicine say
this?

quote:Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care

Conclusions This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of such care.

Pardon me for saying so, but HIPPA is simply not as important as this.  Besides, there are Privacy Rules that allow people with "common sense" to request and restrict access to this information.

That still would not prevent a vet who doesn't want the screening from being screened.

Depression is a stigma most people don't wish to be stuck with, yet it is, I believe, the most common disease amongst humans and leading contributing disease to other ailments.  Treatment is important, most people know where and how to get treatment.  

Just so you know I'm not talking entirely out of my donkey, I do have some perspective on the issue, though I don't pretend to be an expert.  My spouse is in healthcare, she wrote a paper on depression.  Her brother is a vet with a serious mental illness and has been taken good care of by the VA program, so I don't see a problem there.  It's hard to point to vets living under bridges and saying the system has failed them if the vet refuses the help extended or won't comply with treatment.

Here's the problem I've got CL:  It's the ever-increasing "nanny state" of our government.  It's relying more and more on the government to fix every single problem.  Like my choice of wording or not, it's compulsory healthcare, according to the story you linked to.  That is saying that vets are either too stupid or incapable of finding their own mental healthcare.  It's another group of people we have to protect from themselves.  It doesn't make counselors any more available, it simply broadens an invasive screening process.  

What about rising suicide rates in teens or African Americans?  Why not make it compulsory to them as well.  We can't discriminate.  Where do we stop with the reach of government regulations.

I'd be happy to read over the entire legislation at some point to see if the summary has it wrong or not.  The government should not be allowed to dictate to a vet that he must undergo screening everytime he or she is seen.

Some civil rights people would tell you this is an invasion of privacy and limiting of personal liberty.  I really would not care to be screened for a mental disorder when I have the flu.  That's probably the Libertarian streak in me coming out because I really do find the government over-reaching here.

I'm all for vets finding the healthcare they need and I want them to feel their contribution to liberty is appreciated.  However, it makes me sick to see the games politicians are playing in Washington using them as pawns to show one party cares and the other doesn't.  Interesting to note that the GOP is more supportive of the war, yet the Dems try to appear the vet's best friend by creating sham legislation to bolster that image.

This legislation was a waste of time and resources.  It's invasive and I fail to see where it was done with the best interests of the vets.

I'll take a look at the AIDS and breast cx bills when I have a chance.  Not saying Coburn is God, but so many people jump to conclusions with headlines and sound bites, or simply commentator spin before they really read and consider an issue.

Sorry for the long rant, not directed at you, just frustrated with the many tentacles of government.  One guy seems to have common sense on limiting government and people are calling him a moron.

[Gaspar]

Ok, I went through the legislation that mr Coburn is blocking and I can't help but agree with him!  I think it's worth reviewing. Thank Chicken Little for bringing it up!

Coburn has very cleverly used small pieces of legislation to eliminate or disable earmarks.

True, the bills have broad support but the earmarks attached do not, that's why he's been successful in receiving approval for these small pieces of legislation.  No senator wants to vote no on most of Mr. Coburn's bills.  Funny thing is that Mr. Reed even voted to support many of them because he does not want to go on the record being against them.

For instance, lets review how he's doing this:

H.R.1585 An amendment to prohibit the use of earmarks for awarding no-bid contracts and non-competitive grants. Rendered many Reed bills useless.  It was the most recent straw that broke the camel's back

H.R.1124 To exempt millionaires from receiving educational scholarship funds intended for needy families.

H.R.3074 To prohibit the use of funds for the construction of a baseball facility in Billings, Montana, and to reduce the amounts made available for the Economic Development Initiative and the Community Development Fund.

H.R.3074 To ensure that no funds made available under this Act shall be used to carry out any activity relating to the design or construction of the America's Wetland Center in Lake Charles, Louisiana, until the date on which the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of Louisiana, certifies to Congress that all residents of the State of Louisiana who were displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita in 2005 are no longer living in temporary housing.

H.R.3074 To remove an unnecessary earmark for the International Peace Garden in Dunseith, North Dakota. Would have sucked millions from the Department of Transportation appropriations bill

H.R.3074 To prohibit the use of funds made available under this Act for bicycle paths so that the funds can be used to improve bridge and road safety.

H.R.3074 To prohibit funds appropriated under title I from being used for earmarks until all structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges have been repaired, with limited exceptions.

H.R.2638 To prohibit funding for no-bid earmarks.

S.1642 To certify that taxpayers' dollars and students' tuition support educational rather than lobbying activities.

H.R.1591 To remove a $2 million earmark for the University of Vermont. Not even a reason for this earmark, except Patrick Leahy wanted to slip it in.  pancakes!  It was slipped in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007  GOOD WORK TOM!

S.1 To prohibit members from requesting earmarks that may financially benefit that Member or immediate family member of that Member, and for other purposes.


I could keep going for a few more pages, but I got a good keyboard lashing last time I did that.  

You are correct, Tom Coburn is responsible for tabling hundreds of fine pieces of legislation that contain absolutely ridiculous and in my opinion CRIMINAL provisions.

[mrhaskellok]

As a Combat Vet, I am very glad he wants to veto bills like the veterans bill ... I assure, you...the help is there. I sit through briefings after briefings and we all get to sit down with plenty of doctors who ask us all kinds of questions about "how I feel".  If I was having a problem (and wanted help) I could have received it very easily.

These bills do nothing but help the insurance companies. Do some research and find out who is really behind the bill.  I am curious to see who is lobbying it.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

As a Combat Vet, I am very glad he wants to veto bills like the veterans bill ... I assure, you...the help is there. I sit through briefings after briefings and we all get to sit down with plenty of doctors who ask us all kinds of questions about "how I feel".  If I was having a problem (and wanted help) I could have received it very easily.

These bills do nothing but help the insurance companies. Do some research and find out who is really behind the bill.  I am curious to see who is lobbying it.

Now you aren't suggesting there's a wolf in sheep's clothing pushing that legislation, are you? []

Thank you for your sacrifice for our liberties, sir.  I, for one, sincerely appreciate it.

I must ask, do you or your bretheren, feel like a pawn when bills like this are being proposed?

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

As a Combat Vet, I am very glad he wants to veto bills like the veterans bill ... I assure, you...the help is there. I sit through briefings after briefings and we all get to sit down with plenty of doctors who ask us all kinds of questions about "how I feel".  If I was having a problem (and wanted help) I could have received it very easily.

These bills do nothing but help the insurance companies. Do some research and find out who is really behind the bill.  I am curious to see who is lobbying it.

Now you aren't suggesting there's a wolf in sheep's clothing pushing that legislation, are you? []

Thank you for your sacrifice for our liberties, sir.  I, for one, sincerely appreciate it.

I must ask, do you or your bretheren, feel like a pawn when bills like this are being proposed?

These days it is dumbed down to the point where most people have no idea what is in the bills.  The name of the bill sometimes has nothing to do with that the bill is actually doing, or what random BS they have attached to it that has nothing to do with the main purpose.

So you can have a bill called the "Benefits for Veterans Act", which also happens to include a $5 billion handout to Monsanto, and a hefty pay raise for congress, YET - if someone votes against it, you will have people like Obama saying "He voted AGAINST benefits for veterans!".

Some say giving the executive branch a line item veto would be too much power, but the legislature seriously needs to stop passing complicated bills with way too many random items thrown in.  It should be One bill, one issue.  At the VERY least there should be a Read the Bills Act passed, they often times vote bills into law quicker than it is humanly possible to even read them.  Say a bill 1000 pages long can be voted on in HOURS.

[Conan71]

Was anyone else aware that the National Cancer Institute has a budget request this year for $5.865 billion?

http://plan2008.cancer.gov/budgetrequest.shtml

At issue doesn't appear to have anything to do with Tom Coburn having anything against women's breasts (who would?).  Seems Dr. Coburn has a problem with duplicate funding and creating more bureaucracy in this bill by funding through NIH.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-579&tab=summary

Full citation:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-579

According to their web site, NCI doles out about 5000 research grants a year at $400K a pop to about 600 different institutions.

IOW, NCI was created to help facilitate all cancer research.  It appears that protocol would be for NCI to administer these funds through their own annual budget and application process for these funds.

This begs the question.  Who, or what private entities stood to gain from $40mm per year on environmental research?

This goes right to the heart of government creating more government, and more waste of your money from what I'm reading.

It's a great sound bite or headline though to say that Coburn supports wars and doesn't support women's health.

[we vs us]

What Coburn's doing is fundamentally undemocratic.  There's no reason he should be able to force his idea of pork on the rest of the country.  Quite aside from whether or not earmarks ARE pork, I don't want Coburn having the ability to say what goes and what doesn't, especially when a majority of Congress is ready to pass a given bill.  

Really, he doesn't get to say what's right and what's wrong.  He gets one vote, just like the next guy, and that's it.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

What Coburn's doing is fundamentally undemocratic.  There's no reason he should be able to force his idea of pork on the rest of the country.  Quite aside from whether or not earmarks ARE pork, I don't want Coburn having the ability to say what goes and what doesn't, especially when a majority of Congress is ready to pass a given bill.  

Really, he doesn't get to say what's right and what's wrong.  He gets one vote, just like the next guy, and that's it.

Correct, yet you forget every Senator has a right to put a "hold" on a bill.  This is an old practice in the Senate.  Perhaps no one else has used it so much as Dr. Coburn, but it's been done forever.

The difference is, it's only been in the last couple of years they have started idntifying who the "holdee" is.  I don't know if politics is why they have changed this or not.  I suspect since Coburn also pisses off a lot of GOP's it's politics and was targeted at him to hopefully ensure he'd be a one term Senator.  I think that was his idea in the first place.

It's been enlightening to look deeper into what Coburn has been doing.  Just because 2/3 of the Senate is for a bill does not mean all the other Senators are fully aware of what is in a bill, nor that they comprehend the entire piece of legislation.

I'm glad there is someone reviewing bills for redundancy in funding, mechanism, and bureaucracy.  It doesn't appear anyone else was looking so close.  He's also keeping an eye out on personal liberties.

The vet and bc bills are but two examples of bills marketed to attract a bloc of voters, look at how the name is marketed.  Without seeing the true wasteful nature of a bill or the harms in it, it's real easy for a Senator's challenger to create TV ads saying:

Senator blowhard voted against:

Veterans
Breast cancer research
The arts
Smart immigration policy
Banning baby eating


Etc. ad nauseum

If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine.  Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution.  If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine.  Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution.  If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.

But Coburn ignores the massive amounts of money being wasted on the Iraq war.

For Coburn to pick nits but ignore the biggest money-waster of all is what I call selective outrage.

On that, he's no better than Bush.