How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 How to Lie Without Lying   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

How to Lie Without Lying

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


100 posted 07-24-2009 08:29 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The summary of LR-s link is this...


The summary of the FactCheck link LR provided is this........

Obama promised once again that a health care overhaul “will be paid for.” ..............................not true
He said his plan would cover 97% of all Americans...............................................................not true
He said the avg Amereican family is paying thousands for coverage.......................................not true.
Obama claimed his budget "reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion" . not true.
He said that we spend $6,000 more on average than other countries on health care.................not true.

Even faced with all of this misrepresentation, Bob, you still want to claim Obama's bill must be passed immediately? The Republicans aren't the ones roadblocking this bill....Democrats are. Even his own party sees the flaws in it. You still want it passed immediately, Bob, just because SOMETHING needs to be done?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


101 posted 07-24-2009 10:13 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

           I understood what it said, and I made sure that I called your attention to that information.  I'm not interested in winning debates, I'm interested in getting at the truth, which is why I said I needed to do some rethinking.

     I believe that despite the flaws in that program, it's still a decent thing.  Since it hasn't been finalized yet, I think that the sort of specifics in your assertions against it may or may not have accuracy.  Until the details are known, you can't put a price tag on it any more than you can on a car.

     I believe a single payer plan is best.

     These are things that I'm still reasonably certain about.

     I am absolutely clear that The Republicans haven't come up with a workable plan and they've had 15 years to do so.  I have seen what's happened during Republican oversight of health care, and I don't like it.  To say that we'
re being rushed into making a decision is disinformation.

     A health savings account is terrific for people who have the money to actually have one.  As a solution for people who can't pay for health insurance or health care now, it simply doesn't work.  It's a non-starter.  It's a plan for people who don't need a plan.  It is throwing people to the dogs.

     In 15 years this is what the Republicans have come up with.  Also a taxpayer giveaway to the drug companies.
Once we commit ourselves to doing something, then we can and will modify it into something cheaper and more efficient.  Again, this is my belief, and it may be true.  I can't say that I'm in a position to defend such a point of view now.

     But yes, Mike, I am aware of what the reference was about.  I knew when I called your attention to it.  I didn't like it because I dislike giving you ammunition, but it was the truth as best I could tell, and that's more important than winning a debate.  

     Besides, I like to think of it as a setback.

     I've given you pieces of information like this before, when I run across them and I think they are solid.  L.R. did it this time, and was right to do so.  Hopefully, you're not the enemy, even when we disagree.

All my best, Bob Kaven

  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


102 posted 07-24-2009 11:29 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You can take that to the bank, Bob. We are certainly not enemies...simply friends with different views (whose disagreements can get a little spirited at times )

We both want the same thing - what is best for the country and the people. It wouldn't surprise me if even LR wanted the same thing
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


103 posted 07-24-2009 06:42 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“The government does not have some magic wand that can “bring down the cost of health care.” It can buy a smaller quantity or lower quality of medical care, as other countries with government-run medical care do.

It can decide not to spend as much money on the elderly as is being spent now. That can save a lot of money — if you think having a parent die earlier is a bargain.

The idea of a “duty to die” has been making some headway in recent years around the fringes of the Left. It is perfectly consistent with the fundamental notion of the Left that decisions should be transferred from ordinary citizens to government elites.

Liberals don’t have to advocate it. But, once you have bureaucrats empowered to decide what treatments you can and cannot get, they may well decide that money spent keeping some 75-year-old grandmother alive for a couple more years could be better spent politically by enabling ten younger people to have acupuncture or visit a shrink.”


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjI5NThiYjlhZGNkNjVlNWZlNGMxMGEzZDJhZDI3NmY=


"If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives - your family's lives - and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service."


"There's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so [commit suicide] for the sake of others as well as yourself. In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance."

Baroness Mary Helen Warnock
(called the "philosopher queen", is regarded as Britain's leading moral philosopher. She said that she hopes people will soon be "licensed to put others down" who have become a burden on the health care system.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29538
)


That should give the seventy million or so
Boomers a pause . . .

Anybody up for some wine
and Soylent Green?

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


104 posted 07-24-2009 07:35 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

I think the bill should be kicked into touch. Then in four or five years, when Medicare and Medicaid collapse due to lack of funds whichever party is in power can start all over again from scratch. They'll need to bear a few things in mind though:

You can't run a public health care system when the cost of health care is prohibitive and a culture of litigation is rife.

You can't run a totally private health care system without depriving a large proportion of the population basic health care.

You definitely can't afford to fund systems such as Medicare and Medicaid without bankrupting your country.

America is in a unique position. The models of health care used by other countries just wouldn't work in the US, largely due to the escalated costs of health care provision and the overuse of such provision due to the fear of litigation. Without fixing those problems the bill is little more than a band-aid on a bullet wound. Granted the new system will haemorrhage money at a slightly slower rate than it is currently but ultimately your economy will bleed to death.


.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (07-25-2009 06:16 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


105 posted 07-24-2009 07:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


Liberals don’t have to advocate it. But, once you have bureaucrats empowered to decide what treatments you can and cannot get, they may well decide that money spent keeping some 75-year-old grandmother alive for a couple more years could be better spent politically by enabling ten younger people to have acupuncture or visit a shrink.”




     Your fantasy of what government coverage might be like in this country in the future sounds grim.  I find it notable primarily for the resemblance it bears to the way private insurance runs their business now. It certainly suggests that we do not want to construct a government health care insurance plan on the private model.

     Mike swears by the VA model, which, last I heard, he said provides very good health care.  I had reasons to be more skeptical.

     The Obama plan, again, the last I heard, offered four levels of care one might sign up for, depending on what you could pay.  This wouldn't be a plan that covers as much as the VA, of course, so folks would have to choose what level they could afford or what level they wanted.

     I have felt that Obama is pretty much Republican Lite through the election and to the point, and I feel that this sort of plan is somewhat discriminatory, but it does seem to fit in with Republican principles.  That is:  You choose what you can afford and what you want to sign up for.

     It's more likely that somebody's 75 year old Grandmother will be able to keep going a few more years if she's had the much cheaper ongoing regular medical care for most of her life before she reaches that age.  There's a measurable difference in both health and lifespan between people who have regular medical care as part of their ongoing experience throughout and those folks who don't or those folks who only utilize the much more expensive emergency care.

     It would be interesting to know what percentage of those heroic late in life and expensive medical interventions are necessary because that's the way later life needs to be, or if poverty and earlier poor or intermittent medical contact were factors that helped create that late life crisis.  They may, if fact, be artifacts of glitches in the health care delivery system.

     These aren't questions I can answer, though I suspect there's some research out there.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


106 posted 07-25-2009 05:36 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


This is not about politics? Then why is it, to take but the most egregious example, that in this grand health-care debate we hear not a word about one of the worst sources of waste in American medicine: the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system?

When a neurosurgeon pays $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance before he even turns on the light in his office or hires his first nurse, who do you think pays? Patients, through higher doctors’ fees to cover the insurance.

And with jackpot justice that awards one claimant zillions while others get nothing — and one-third of everything goes to the lawyers — where do you think that money comes from? The insurance companies, who then pass it on to you in higher premiums.

But the greatest waste is the hidden cost of defensive medicine: tests and procedures that doctors order for no good reason other than to protect themselves from lawsuits. Every doctor knows, as I did when I practiced years ago, how much unnecessary medical cost is incurred with an eye not on medicine but on the law.

Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health-care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjI0ZWIxNjFjOGQ3ZGVkOGY3YmRkNmYzZWJhZmZjOWU=

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


107 posted 07-26-2009 12:48 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well stated, John...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


108 posted 07-26-2009 02:21 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Dear Huan Yi,  

              You've well stated one side of the discussion.  I would have to say that everything you say has something solid to it.  You have omitted the other side of the question, which I suspect you are pretty much as clear about as I am, and which seems to me to have as much validity to it as the stuff you've stated so well.  

     You are not only right about neurology, but also about obstetrics in my opinion, which you didn't mention.  It seems like everybody believes they have a right to a perfect baby, and it's the doctor's fault if it doesn't happen.  Also people have ceased to regard death as the outcome of life, I think, in part because of the notion of "the miracle of modern medicine" have encouraged people to have distorted expectations about what doctors can do.

     In part the malpractice business is the flip side of the expectations physicians — at least some of them — encourage in their patients.  

     This still doesn't mean that what you said isn't correct; it is.

     But you haven't come to grips with the need for lawyers and for judgements in this area, nor have you connected it with what happens to patients without these protections.  And I believe this needs to be done, that the problem be seen as a systemic problem, not simply a problem that the other guy has.  And the the solution needs to be seen as a systems solution rather than getting the other guy to stop doing the stuff he or she's doing.

     As long as everybody's pointing fingers at the other guy, nobody takes responsibility for his own behavior.  He just claims he's acting the way the other guy made him. Mostly this is how to fail at finding a solution.

     The Democrats are dependent on getting donations from trial lawyers?  Certainly.  They are also the ones who share the democratic and Democratic belief in civil liberties, and who are clearest about the need to stand up for it.  You don't see or hear very much about that from the Republicans.  Republicans are good about saying that Lawyers back Democrats, they aren't very good about talking about the spectrum of reasons why.  Even you, Huan Yi, settled for the cheap shot, the reductio ad absurdum.  You resist such silly underhanded jabs at military Honor, yet feel apparently quite secure in tossing them yourself at some of the cherished legal ideals around civil liberties and defending the underdog.

     At the same time you refrain from suggesting those institutions that stand in what might be a similar relation to the Republican Party in the same debate, and  refrain as well from speaking of their financial ties to the right wing in this country.

     There are advantages to following such a single sided method of discussion.  But you will probably have a very good idea of the decent responses to the issues you raise.  The question in my mind is how do we define and get into the next discussion, the one where we talk about what the country needs for a decent health network, and how we might go about putting it together; then how we pay for it and allow ourselves to feel reasonably satisfied with it.

     That's the discussion I want to have.


Yours,  Bob Kaven
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


109 posted 07-26-2009 07:47 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Truly frightening.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?&page=1
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


110 posted 07-26-2009 11:53 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          You need to read the article more closely and watch the structure of it.  The Post loves to do this sort of article.

     What they've said is that the health plans under consideration may have people running the bureaucracy who will have to make difficult decisions.  They say that the funding for the plans may have to come in part from budget cuts in other health programs.  Both these things are in fact possible.  Cuts from Medicare could be covered by having the same population covered by the new insurance plan, however; to continue that medicare would in that case be paying twice for the same services, wouldn't it?

     Would you like to pay for the same services twice, Denise?  

     The suggestion that there would be a bureaucracy that would decide which services got paid for and and which didn't, and who got which services is correct.  What the Post doesn't tell you is that's what the insurance companies are doing now.  When the Post says that the government may cut back on bypass surgery, that's probably true as well.  What the Post doesn't tell you is that the comparative research studies for bypass surgery and drug treatment don't show any particular advantage from the bypass surgery for survival.

     The Post also tells you that the President has two Health Care advisors that shouldn't be considered for the post of administrator of the health care system.  They go on at length telling you what his positions are on a number of issues.  A lot of those positions seem pretty wild; I know they did to me.

     You'll notice, however, that they didn't say he was even remotely being considered.  The factors that might make him an excellent advisor — the ability to articulate a clear position and flesh it out with the necessary proof and background — doesn't necessarily make him the right person to fill the job itself.  The position may simply be one that the President finds important to consider, but thinks it an extreme example of that viewpoint.  He may have other viewpoints to consider as well.

     The Post isn't willing to say that.  They simply suggest that the scary guy is a shoe in for the job, then pile on the fear from there.  You can't say they didn't scare you, but there are jumps in the logic and construction of the piece large enough to lose your pick-up truck inside.

     One half-truth plus another half-truth do not a whole truth make, as The Post shows us on close reading.

Yours, Bob Kaven
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


111 posted 07-26-2009 01:15 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't want a bureaucrat in Washington deciding what my doctor can offer me in the way of healthcare, Bob. True, some HMO's restrict some services now (not many, in my experience), but it is the patient's choice right now if they want to upgrade to a traditional plan with less restrictions, which cost a little more. With nationalized healthcare, with a government option, and the remaining private plans subject to more government regulation, and with millions of us who will have no choice in choosing the government plan versus a private plan, how would that be better?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


112 posted 07-26-2009 04:41 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


I think in the end we have to put our faith in Obama:

"Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.”

He’s bound to do right by us.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


113 posted 07-27-2009 02:31 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



There you go, Huan Yi.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


114 posted 07-27-2009 08:01 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

and,  as Ben Franklin said, "Trust your neighbor  but don't cut down your  hedge".
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


115 posted 07-27-2009 12:02 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



"A stitch in time saves nine?"
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


116 posted 07-27-2009 12:19 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/25473089/health-care-causality.htm
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


117 posted 07-27-2009 05:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Haste makes waste"?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> How to Lie Without Lying   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors