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
 SO how's Health Care Going?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
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

SO how's Health Care Going?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


25 posted 02-06-2010 10:28 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Honestly, it's not a bother at all. Glad to help out any way I can.

You have a nice one, too!

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


26 posted 02-07-2010 12:47 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Well, Mike, Since you didn't say what you intended when you started the thread, that leaves a lot open to interpretation.  What you did was offer snippets of two articles to offer points of view and made a statement that depended on agreement with the presuppositions (that democrats were not interested in job growth and were interested in government takeover of the health care system) for answering.

     That particular kind of reasoning is fallacious from the beginning.  It's basic form is often stated as in the question, "How many times have you beaten your wife this week, Mr. Mack?" And it is called "Begging the question."

     I admire that you are looking to more or less neutral sources for you quotations.  I appreciate that a great deal.
I too think that health care may well be dead.  I do not agree with the presuppositions that you made in your starting statement, and would invite you to prove them, because I believe that you are stating opinion as though it might pass for fact.  And you haven't proved your assertions.

     Even the articles that you are quoting are essentially opinion pieces which you use to generate criticism whose reality remains to be proven.  You may be accurate about the order of some of the events you describe; the interpretation is not as cut and dried as you present it to be.

     I want to know, for example, exactly how you came to the conclusion that the Insurance bill was an attempt to make a government take over of the insurance industry, and what proof you have to offer that this assertion is true.  You have made this assertion several times, and I haven't noticed anybody call you on it yet.  I am doing so now.  Where is your data, and where is your proof?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 02-07-2010 01:15 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, what can you expect from a person whose reasoning is fallacious?"

I'm going to bed.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


28 posted 02-07-2010 05:11 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

My hope is that it will have generated enough interest in health care reform that the powers that be will go after the things they can change....like insurance companies, lawyers and pharmaceutical companies, which can be done without a government takeover.



You mean, you support the current Senate bill?  The one that's very nearly identical to Massachusetts' system (by Mitt Romney supported by Cosmo Boy) that doesn't take over any part of the health-care system?  If that's what you (and the Republicans) want -- then -- you've got it!  

quote:

I don't see it happening, however, because I don't believe Obama wants to go that route.



Okay -- you get the gold star for inattention to reality!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 02-07-2010 07:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Nice of you to join in on the insult throwing, reb. It was incomplete without you.


Obama invites Republicans to health care talks

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the first major step to revive his health care agenda after his party's loss of a filibuster-proof Senate majority, President Obama on Sunday invited Republican and Democratic leaders to discuss possible compromises in a televised gathering later this month.

Obama's move came amid widespread complaints that efforts so far by him and his Democratic allies in Congress have been too partisan and secretive
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-07-obama-health-care_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28New s+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

a good move....better late than never.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


30 posted 02-07-2010 07:55 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

I want a ringside seat if that actually takes place. Should be interesting to see who from both sides is willing to participate.

I agree with rebel, no way Obama’s gonna walk away any time soon, and also with Balladeer that it sounds like it might be a good move, if a bit late. The Dems really need to take control of the debate in the media.  

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


31 posted 02-07-2010 10:22 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

You're welcome Mike -- I,er, complete you! ?  

From your article Mike:
quote:

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio also threw some jabs while accepting Obama's invitation. He said he was glad the White House "finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation," adding that Americans have rejected "the job-killing, trillion-dollar government takeover of health care bills passed by the House and Senate."



You see -- it's just impossible to get anywhere if the only play made be the Republicans is to lie, lie some more, keep lying, and then fail to be honest:

quote:

On the Jan. 31, 2010, edition of ABC's This Week, host Barbara Walters asked Brown about his vote on the Massachusetts plan. "Why isn't what's good for Massachusetts good for the whole country?" she asked.

Brown responded, "In Massachusetts, the free market, the free enterprise has taken control, and they're offering a wide range of plans. I've never ever said that people should not get health insurance. It's just a question of if we're going to take a one-size-fits-all government plan or we're going to do something where the individual states can tailor their plans as we've done."

When Walters asked him, "Do you think the whole plan should be scrapped?" Brown said, "Yes."

"The whole plan?" Walters continued.

"Yes," Brown said.

Later, during the show's round-table segment, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman expressed disbelief at Brown's response.

"That was the most evasive answer," Krugman said. "If you think this is a straightforward guy, that was an incredibly evasive answer on health care, because the Senate bill, which has now stalled, is identical to the Massachusetts health care plan -- the same thing. Only in the finest of fine print is there any difference. He voted for the Massachusetts plan. A majority of voters in Massachusetts who voted for him approve of the Massachusetts health care plan. Nonetheless, their plan is dead."

We wanted to see whether the Massachusetts plan was indeed "the same thing" as the bill passed by the U.S. Senate. So we looked at the details of both plans and consulted with an ideologically diverse group of health policy experts.

The consensus among our experts was that Krugman is basically right on the overall structure, although some of the details differ. As Elizabeth A. McGlynn, associate director of RAND Health, put it, "Same recipe, different amounts on the ingredients."

Here are elements of the two plans that are broadly the same, along with some of the differences in details:

• Individual mandate to buy health insurance. Everyone in Massachusetts must purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty; the same goes for the Senate plan, though the penalty structures vary between the two.

• Employer responsibilities for offering health insurance. Companies with more than 10 employees in Massachusetts need to offer health insurance or else pay a penalty. The Senate bill sets the bar for companies at 50 employees, though technically the bill falls short of a mandate.

• Health insurance exchanges. Both the Massachusetts and U.S. Senate plans involve the use of voluntary "exchanges" that individuals and small businesses can use to purchase private-sector health insurance. These exchanges are designed to offer a range of plans with different benefits and premium levels.

• Affordability subsidies. Under both plans, lower-income individuals and families can receive government subsidies to help them pay their health insurance premiums. In the Massachusetts plan, subsidies are allotted on a sliding scale up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Under the U.S. Senate plan, the sliding-scale subsidies go up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

• Expansion of Medicaid. The Massachusetts plan expands Medicaid to all children up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The U.S. Senate plan also expands Medicaid, but in a different fashion, offering it to all individuals (not just children) up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

• Insurance market regulation. Both plans restructure the insurance market, in similar but slightly different ways. In Massachusetts, the reform bill merged the individual and small-group markets (that is, it merged the market serving individuals not covered by their employer's plan with the market serving smaller employers). The U.S. Senate bill placed new regulations on those two markets but kept them separate. In Massachusetts, dependents up to age 25 can be covered on their parents' plan, while the U.S. Senate bill allows such dependent coverage up to age 26. And young adults in Massachusetts from age 19 to 26 can purchase a special lower-cost, lower-benefit plan through the exchange; the U.S. Senate bill creates a category of lower-cost, lower-benefit plan in the exchange for those up to age 30 who cannot find affordable coverage.

• Limits on the ratio between the highest and lowest premiums. In Massachusetts, the highest premiums can generally only be twice as high as the lowest premiums. The only factors that can be used to vary premiums are age, tobacco use, geographic area, the nature of the employee's industry, an unusually low participation rate (for group plans) and participation in a wellness plan. The U.S. Senate bill allows premiums in the individual and small-group market and on the exchange to vary based only on age (limited to a 3-to-1 ratio), geographic area, family composition and tobacco use (limited to 1.5 -to-1 ratio). Wellness programs do not factor into ratings variations under the Senate bill, but the bill does provide other incentives for such plans.

The bills differ more noticeably in several other areas.

• Cost containment. Critics of the Massachusetts plan have taken it to task for its lack of cost-containment provisions. The U.S. Senate bill makes changes to Medicare that are intended to lower program costs, such as restructuring how payments are made to Medicare Advantage plans -- the HMO option under Medicare. Since Medicare is a federal program, the Massachusetts plan does not address this issue. The U.S. Senate bill also authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of certain drugs. This, too, is a federal rather than a state responsibility.

• Financing. Both the Massachusetts plan and the Senate bill are financed in part by revenue generated from the individual and employer mandates. But the Massachusetts plan's financing is heavily dependent on leveraging federal matching funds, while the Senate bill, in addition to cost savings from Medicare, imposes taxes on drugmakers, device manufacturers, health insurers and indoor tanning services. It also taxes high-cost ("Cadillac") health care plans. The Massachusetts plan does not do any of these things.

"The Senate probably has more cost containment," said John Holahan, a health expert at the Urban Institute who has studied the Massachusetts plan extensively. "And the financing is different. But the structure is the same."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/04/paul-krugman/krugman-calls-senate-health-care-bill-similar-law-/

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


32 posted 02-08-2010 03:14 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Mike,

quote:


Bob Kaven:

    I want to know, for example, exactly how you came to the conclusion that the Insurance bill was an attempt to make a government take over of the insurance industry, and what proof you have to offer that this assertion is true.  You have made this assertion several times, and I haven't noticed anybody call you on it yet.  I am doing so now.  Where is your data, and where is your proof?

Balladeer
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 06-05-99
Posts 22339
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


  27 posted 02-07-2010 01:15 AM                        
Inappropriate content?

Bob, what can you expect from a person whose reasoning is fallacious?"

I'm going to bed.




     I can expect you show dataf rom sources as solid and neutral as those that you've recently proved yourself capable of both finding and using with such good effect that proves you're not talking through your hat, say that you dont have such data, reatreat in some sort of pose of hurt feeling and sulking silence as if I had made some untoward request of you, deluge me with personal attacks, attempt to change the subject to get yourself off the hot seat or refuse to talk to me for several months on end.  Any of these are things that I can expect from you in response to a question to show your facts.    

     From somebody in general whose reasoning was fallacious and was confronted about it, I might get any of those things, though in the vast majority of cases I would get a bit of consternation, perhaps some dismay and anger, and then, if the discussion was friendly, as this is supposed to be, I'd get something on the order of a "whoops, my mistake, I didn't see that, let me try it from [i]this[i] direction, if they still held that opinion.

     That way we reduce the number of times we use pastterns of mistaken thinking in our own thinking, we don't get taken in by them when other people try to pass them off on us so often, and it becomes an alltogether more difficult world as we learn to have a look at our own problems putting thinging together as well as other people's because we have a standard of sorts to measure things against.

     It stuck me with a lot fewer answers and a lot more questions on the whole, the older I get, which is not so comfortable.  IThis has been certainly not the only set of answers to the question you posed above and it may not even be the right set of answers, but it's the set of answers that come from taking your question seriously.  You may not have wanted me to do that, but I did.

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


33 posted 02-08-2010 07:46 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

reatreat in some sort of pose of hurt feeling and sulking silence as if I had made some untoward request of you, deluge me with personal attacks, attempt to change the subject to get yourself off the hot seat or refuse to talk to me for several months on end.  Any of these are things that I can expect from you in response to a question to show your facts.

Still more personal insults. As someone recently said to Obama, "You're a slow learner".    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 02-08-2010 08:00 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON – In the first major step to revive his health care agenda after his party's loss of a filibuster-proof Senate majority, President Barack Obama on Sunday invited Republican and Democratic leaders to discuss possible compromises in a televised gathering later this month.

Obama also is trying to address criticism of Democrats' closed-door negotiations that led to special accommodations for Nebraska and Louisiana senators when their votes on health care were in question. Some Republicans taunted Obama for suggesting earlier that health care negotiations should be aired on C-SPAN, and one GOP senator said health care would be the president's Waterloo.

Obama said the closed-door deal-cutting was not helpful to the process.

(the closed door deal-cutting HE initiated and conducted)


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Sunday she was hopeful "that the Republican leadership will work in a bipartisan fashion on the great challenges the American people face."
(quite a change from the "We won the election and we run things now" rhetoric she used to trumpet)


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "we have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one."
(Harry's lithium supply must be running low) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care

One has to smile at this turn-around and retreat all because of one election and loss of complete power.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


35 posted 02-08-2010 10:19 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

My pointy finger got a little carried away, sorry. But since I’ve missed several copy and paste turns, seems only fair I should be allowed to post a long article. Plus, Balladeer and Denise are going to be so pleased to see I’m quoting from RIGHT WING NEWS. (Not to worry, I have smelling salts and oxygen close at hand should they need them.)

Cue the banjo music!


Stupid Debating Tricks -- 9 Of My Least Favorite Debate Tactics

As you'd expect, I've spent a lot of time arguing with left-wingers. As a result of those discussions, I've learned a lot of the little tricks the left -- and yes, sometimes those on the right -- like to use when arguments are going against them. Here are some of those techniques...

1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.

2) The Bait & Switch: When a claim is made and your opponent refutes it, don't try to respond, simply change the subject. Example,

Lefty Debater: I think we all know what kind of job George Bush has done with the economy. Right off the bat, he got the economy into a recession.

Conservative Debater: Excuse me, but you're incorrect. The recession started under Bill Clinton, not George Bush.

Lefty Debater: Well what about his tax cuts? They're for the rich, the rich I tell you!

Conservative Debater: What about getting rid of the marriage penalty and increasing the child tax credit? Are you arguing that only rich people get married and have kids?

Lefty Debater: Haliburton, did I mention Haliburton? What about that, huh? I guess you want to dodge that issue.

The best part about this from the left-wing debater's perspective is that since they never acknowledged they were wrong, they can feel free to make the exact same incorrect claim in future debates.

3) The Blitzkrieg: The goal here is blast your opponent with so many accusations that they can't possibly respond. Example,

Lefty Debater: George Bush? Who would defend someone who was AWOL from the National Guard, used coke, lied about weapons of mass destruction, raised taxes on the poor, wants to cut Social Security, is the worst environmental President we've ever had, and who has destroyed the US economy?

Moderator: That's great, but the question was, "Should the Israelis kick Arafat out of the "Disputed Territories"?

It doesn't matter if all -- or even any -- of the accusations are true, relevant, or make any sense. The goal is just to get them out there. Making an accusation takes a few seconds, refuting one takes much longer. So an opponent confronted with these accusations will never actually have time to respond.

4) Enter The Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues. In all fairness, this is a technique often used by the left & right. But still, the right can't hold a candle to the left in this area. I mean how many times have you heard, "Republicans are going to take your Social Security away," "The GOP wants to poison the water and the air," "Republicans want to take away your Civil Rights" etc, etc?

This whole concept has gotten so out of hand on the left that we now even have some people on the left comparing the Israelis to Nazis. Look, when you're claiming that a bunch a Jews defending themselves from people who want to kill them are like Nazis, you've gone so far past irony that you almost need a new word to describe it like -- "Idiorony" or "outofyourmindony". But that's what happens when people wink at all these strawmen that are tossed out in debates. Eventually some people start to take them seriously and build on them.

5) History Will Be Kind To Me For I Intend To Write It: The technique is similar to using strawmen in some respects. What you try to do is to rewrite history, to claim that a debate in a previous time was different than it actually was. Here's an example of how this is done,

Mother: I told you to be back by 11 PM and you're just getting in at 1:30 AM!

Teenage Daughter: I don't think I remember you mentioning that...

Mother: I told you 3 times to be in by 11, I left a note reminding you on the dinner table and snuck one into your purse, I called you on your cellular phone at 10:30 and reminded you to make it home by 11 and I even told your boyfriend he'd better have you back in time.

Teenage Daughter: Oh, oh, oh wait...I remember now -- you meant 11 PM? I thought you meant 11 AM. I thought that by getting in at 1:30 AM I was here 9 and 1/2 hours early. Silly me!

Mother: Nice try, you're still grounded!

The build-up to Iraq war has been treated in a similar fashion by the anti-war crowd. Before the war there were complaints that Bush wouldn't stick to one reason for invading, now there are claims that it was only about WMD. There was almost no debate on Capitol Hill between Dems & the GOP about whether Iraq actually had WMD until after the war when it became apparent that none were going to be quickly be found. Throwaway lines that were hardly noticed before the war (like the controversial yet true 16 words in the State of the Union speech) have been treated as if they were core arguments made by the Bush administration after the fact. It's all just a way to rewrite history.

6) I'm Not Hearing You -- La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is another technique often used by politicians of all stripes, but no one, and I mean no one, can hang with Yasser Arafat and company when it comes to totally blowing off any uncomfortable questions that are asked. For example...

Moderator: So Mr. Arafat, are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?

Arafat: The Israelis want to kill me! They are causing all the problems! We want peace, but the Israelis don't!

Moderator: That's fine Mr. Arafat, but are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?

Arafat: Why don't you ask the Israelis if they will stop their terrorism against our people? Why don't you ask them that?

Moderator: Mr. Arafat you seem to be ignoring my question.

Arafat: Are you questioning me? Do you know who I am? I am general Arafat! This interview is over!

When they duck the question, it's a pretty good indication that they don't have an answer anyone wants to hear.

7) Motives Matter, Results Don't: Oftentimes when people on the left are losing an argument or can't explain why they seem to be so inconsistent on certain issues, they start questioning the motives of their opponents. For example, if you favored going to war with Serbia based on nothing more than humanitarian grounds, then logically you should also be in favor of invading Iraq for exactly the same reason. But of course, that's not how it works for a lot of people.

So to get around that, they just claim that there are impure motives afoot. The Bush administration may have claimed to care about stopping terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian causes, or UN Resolutions, but it was really all about stealing oil, getting payoffs for business buddies, getting revenge for an attack on "daddy", because Bush needed Iraqi sand for his garden, Bush was jealous of Saddam's rugged good looks, etc, etc, who cares -- they're all equally ridiculous. When the real issues are too tough to deal with, it's all too easy to just pretend something else is what you're really upset about.

8) That Context Is On A Need To Know Basis: Stripping away the context of a situation is a favored technique of people who hate the United States. They talk about something the United States has done without discussing the reasoning behind it, the actions that provoked it, or other things that the United States might have also done that would place us in a more favorable light. It's very easy to make someone look like a bad guy if you simply don't include every detail that doesn't support your case. For example,

Lawyer: Your honor, I intend to prove that my client is innocent of all charges and that the police shot him maliciously, recklessly, and without cause as he was minding his own business at the park.

Judge: He was minding his own business? According to the police report I have in front of me, your client had shot 3 drug dealers who were standing in "his spot" and was firing off rounds from an Uzi at a passing school bus, two nuns on a nearby park bench, and at the officers as they arrived. That doesn't sound like he was "minding his own business" to me.

Lawyer: It does if his business is being a drug dealing thug -- ha, ha, ha! Hey, that's just a little joke. It was getting a little tense in here....you're not laughing. OK, just checking -- is that plea bargain still available?

9) That's Mean, Mean, Mean! When it comes to certain subjects, ordinarily rational people turn into complete bubbleheads. For example, you could probably put together a bill that called for nuclear waste to be dumped in every Walmart in America and as long as you called it the, "Feed The Children For A New Tomorrow Bill" about a 1/3rd of the American population would support it. So naturally, some people take advantage of this and claim that certain policy proposals are "mean". Once you say that, results, logic, how expensive the project is, etc, etc, goes out the window and the argument becomes over whether someone is "mean" or not.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/stupiddebate.php

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


36 posted 02-08-2010 10:26 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

For those interested:

The Modern Health Care Maze--
Development and Effects of the Four-Party System
CHARLES KRONCKE AND RONALD F. WHITE


A comprehensive article upon the subject of Health Care found on The Independent Institute.

The file is in pdf format on that site, but can be found at various .edu sites.

The article offers some interesting facts that may help one to more effectively understand what’s taking place on the Hill and how we got there. Maybe not? But it’s certainly worth a go, as I think it’s well written & easily read, and it addresses many/most of the posts here, including Massachusetts, & a particularly interesting conclusion that may spur a whole new debate!

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


37 posted 02-08-2010 08:38 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

     I want to know, for example, exactly how you came to the conclusion that the Insurance bill was an attempt to make a government take over of the insurance industry, and what proof you have to offer that this assertion is true.  You have made this assertion several times, and I haven't noticed anybody call you on it yet.  I am doing so now.  Where is your data, and where is your proof?



     Your response fit into the catagory of changing the subject and insult.  I notice that you still haven't addressed your lapse, and are still apparently pretending the Federal Government is trying to take over the Heal;th Care System instead of trying to provide a plan to escalating health care costs.  You have still pretending that your claims should be taken as true without substantiation.  Where is your substantiation from neutral and objective sources, Mike?

     The number of swings to take at me or at Grinch or at Jennifer or at any other person who disputes you doesn't lift your obligation to substantiate things that you assert to be true.  Where is the substantiation from which objective sources?

     Or have you been looking frantically and been unable to find any?  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


38 posted 02-08-2010 08:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Geez, Bob, do you have to attach insults and innuendos to everything you say?  Is that some kind of obsession with you or what??
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


39 posted 02-08-2010 10:28 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear R wood,

             I googled The Independant Institute.  This is the first report that I found:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Independent_Institute

     This doesn't mean that the report is bogus, fo course, but it does mean that I need to bear in mind the slant I expect.  That will be that anything other than free market is trash.  If I find that in the conclusion, there really needs to be some very fancy and innovative footwork in between for the essay to be of much interest, doesn't there?  If I know the conclusion from reading a bit of background?

     But let me not not get ahead of myself.  I'll have a look and see.

Regards, and thanks for going to the effort of doing the research into the field.  I respect that a lot.

Yours, Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


40 posted 02-08-2010 10:38 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    
Dear Mike,

          This is getting funny.  Directed at me, and still unable to address the emptyness of your assertion.  Unable to find any objective references yet?

     This is usually the point where you say something about not being obliged to answer the questions of others and that this is a free discussion, isn't it?  You can choose what to say and what not to say!

     It would be simpler to offer your best answer, if you can in fact find one from an objective source, in context, that actually says the government is doing what you assert the goverment is trying to do.  That way I could check it out.  If it were solid, II'd shut up about the issue.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 02-08-2010 11:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, Bob, it's not that funny. You can't seem to direct a comment my way any more without tossing in a little ridicule, innuendo or sarcasm. I stopped finding it funny a while back.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


42 posted 02-08-2010 11:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

that actually says the government is doing what you assert the goverment is trying to do.

Obviously, the government is not doing what they are trying to do because they are still trying to do it....and not being allowed.

Their plan was to set up a government-run insurance company to compete with private ones. There would be no competition. Since they can do it much cheaper and are not hampered by doing it for profit (which the government doesn't seem to be able to do with anything it runs), employers would certainly be going with the government insurance. The employees really would have  no voice in the matter. Once the millions of employees would be beholding to the gov't program, private insurance would not be able to survive. Once they go out of business, then it will be a complete government takeover. The government will dictate what doctors you see, what tests and treatment you get, and everything connected with your health issues. I call that a takeover of the system.

Those are my thoughts. That's my opinion based on what I consider to be logically sound. Take them for what you will. It really doesn't matter to me.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


43 posted 02-09-2010 03:40 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:

Their plan was to set up a government-run insurance company to compete with private ones. There would be no competition. Since they can do it much cheaper and are not hampered by doing it for profit (which the government doesn't seem to be able to do with anything it runs), employers would certainly be going with the government insurance. The employees really would have  no voice in the matter. Once the millions of employees would be beholding to the gov't program, private insurance would not be able to survive. Once they go out of business, then it will be a complete government takeover. The government will dictate what doctors you see, what tests and treatment you get, and everything connected with your health issues. I call that a takeover of the system.



     Even my own preferences don't go that far, and my preferences are considerably to the left of what I consider to be the tepidly centrist Obama administration.  There is no such plan in the legislation on offer.  If you can find it, point it out.  If the government can do the same or a better job without turning a profit, then it seems to me that the insurance companies have failed in the marketplace.  This is the test, isn't it?  They certainly have no problem putting other people out of business for any reason or using any tactics they can, including the use of new technologies.  If in fact the insurance companies want to compete with the government, then they should do so.  Perhaps they might come up with a leveling technology of some sort.  They certainly have no compunction about excluding or trying to exclude the government from various places to make a profit from various enterprises to the detriment of the public coffers and occasionally public safety.  I have offered the example of centralizing mess halls in Iraq when the mess services were privatized in Iraq.  Mess halls were centralized as a cost cutting measure, saving money, yes, but encouraging mortar attacking on the large new mess halls.  The military had known better.

     You need to show that this particular government planned to set up a government-run insurance company.  I am in favor of such a thing, by the way.  I think it's a great idea.  Even if such a thing had managed to get through congress, and it hasn't even gotten full support of the democratic party by a long shot,  all that does is throw a monkey wrench in the plans for the insurance companies for making still higher percentages from the public's health care dollars and returning fewer dollars in services.  It doesn't regulate the health care industry.  It doesn't suggest rates or fees for doctors or hospitals.  It doesn't say which doctors you can see or when.

     In fact the current system does all these things.  The system that you are fighting to support.  The current system gets in the way of doctors relationships with their patients, which services may be prescribed and which services may not be prescribed.  Some degree of this is probably necessary, since there is some medical abuse of service provision.  Some services or overprovided to some sorts of patients and underprovided to others.  Regular physician visits are much more regularly available to people with higher incomes, for example.  This often breaks down along diagnostic lines.  Schizophrenics, whose class and economic status tends to decline over the years, tend to have less stable and regular physician availability as they age.  (Or they used to when I was doing my EdM and I had to research this stuff, back in 1980.)

     The current system, with it's emphasis on capitation and cost custting for hospitals and physicians, has drastically cut the availability of care for many people.  In some cases this has been great, and I will acknowledge this.  It's led to some terrific inovations in care, including  lots of very short term hospital stays for operations that used to require very long term in-patient care.  A gall bladder operation used to require a three week hospital stay; now people are frequently out in a matter of a few days because of lapriscopic surgical techniques.  Wonderful and in many cases, driven by the insurance limitations.

     On the other hand, the time for inpatient hospitalizations for depression has often been cut down to three days when the time it takes to evaluate the effectiveness of many anti-depressant medications is often at least ten days and often as much as three weeks.  There is only about a 66% chance that any single antidepressant will work for a single patient, and even if it does, it will quite possibly not be the best of the group for that patient.  This has not been a happy turn for many psychiatric patients.

     The current bill on proposal suggests one government plan on choice among the regular insurance plans.  It will not be a choice for anybody with a current plan or with current coverage.  Anybody who wishes to keep their current plan is welcome to do so.  If any of the current insurance plans wishes to compete with the government ibnsurance plan, they have only to cut their rates modestly instead of pushing for the increase they they have been requesting in the top possible profits they are allowed to make.  Their current maximum profit rates are in the vicinity of 15% per year.  It is a fortunate year indeed that I can make a 15% return on one of my investments.  It seems to be insuficient for the health care industry as a whole.  They seem to wish to increase that margin to the range of 30-35%.  They also seem to wish to cut the benefits they provide at the same time.

     Is this how you would suggest a market economy should work?  Where is the competition?  Without government intervention, these folks are behaving as though they have a monopoly, not competing with each other but colluding with each other.

     I would suggest to you that if private insurance wishes to survive, they are doing the right things.  They are maximizing profits by raising rates and minimizing outlay.  They are also making sure that the people who make the rules are running things to favor them and not the people that need the protection, which, in this case, would be the consumers.  It seems in the long run, a cheaper strategy to buy the regulators than to convince the consumers.

     The would and could conditions that you describe as possible things to fear in the future as outcomes if the government gets its way describe the current state of affairs under the present system run by the insurance companies, now made worse by the possible imposition of an actual requirement for everybody to buy insurance at rates inflated by the excess profits trhat the insurance companies are pressing legislators to allow them to take.

     What you have provided is a chain of speculation unsupported by evidence, Mike.  The speculation is understandable if you start off with the presupposition that everything that government does is bad for you.  I am only willing to go along that path so far.  I do go along that path, mind you.  The founders tell us to be suspicious of attempts to take away our civil liberties, and I am.  Many of the founders were very nervous about slavery, and they were right.  And I'm frankly concerned about rapacity in whatever form it presents itself.  I get nervous when folks seem to leave the word "enlightened" out of the phrase "enlightened self interest."  They're the kind of folks who'll cut their own feet of to get the money for a stylish new pair of boots, and blow up the road they use to walk on with them too, to get at the coins underneath it.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


44 posted 02-09-2010 09:33 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

"WILLING TO TALK -- WITH PRECONDITIONS....  

Leading House Republicans raised the prospect Monday night that they may decline to participate in President Obama's proposed health-care summit if the White House chooses not to scrap the existing reform bills and start over.
...
Republicans are effectively arguing that the only way to talk about the health care reform proposal is to ensure that there is no health care reform proposal."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022312.php

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


45 posted 02-09-2010 09:56 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Dear Mr. Bob,

Kroncke & White’s article is permeated with many “neutral & objective” non-partisan sources, extensively listed at the end of the article. Most of those sources are equally searchable on the sourcewatch.org site you posted.

Health care objective: As far as “anything other than free-market is trash,” the article provides a past-to-present day objective upon the current status of policy:

quote:
The current maze of health care policy wrought by years of accumulated enabling legislation has in effect disabled free-market mechanisms. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, fourth-party employers and U.S. tax payers have imperceptibly shouldered most of the financial burden. Economic reality is beginning to creep into the industry, as price-sensitive and quality-sensitive patients pay more out of pocket for their health care (White 2006). However, politicians are once again poised
to “fix” the system. In order to advance the goal of providing universal access to
high-quality health care at a reasonable cost, legislators will have to resist the collective will of well-funded lobbyists associated with patient advocacy groups, the AMA,the AHA, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association.
(Page 23, end p~. Kroncke & White)

So, if a free-market “policy has in effect [already been] disabled,” there’s really nothing there to sustain an argument that supports a “maintaining” of such. Which pretty much disables the platform of each party “poised to fix the problem” on the Hill, as the article builds, point by point, page by page, and certainly all points are up for debate

But I’m out of time to expand on that notion.

ciao for now and have a wonderful Tuesday all.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


46 posted 02-09-2010 09:57 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

THE PARTIES ARE SUPPOSED TO DISAGREE.... I've never held House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in high regard. But I couldn't agree more with something he said this morning.

    Despite White House overtures for congressional Republicans to work with Democrats, the top GOP official in the House said Sunday that such opportunities are limited.

    "There aren't that many places where we can come together," House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said on the NBC program "Meet the Press."

    Republicans were elected to stand by their principles, and those principles are different than the "leftist proposals" offered by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, Boehner said.

    "Leadership is about standing on your principles and opposing those policies that we believe are bad for the country," Boehner said.

What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing (except the part about President Obama pushing "leftist proposals," which is a silly assessment).

While I didn't see the exchange, if this report is accurate, Boehner argued that Republicans intend to push their ideas, and oppose the policies they find offensive. The goal for congressional Republicans isn't to find "common ground" or "bipartisan solutions" with those they completely disagree with; their goal is to fight for what they believe in, opposing the majority's agenda.

The remarks should make it pretty clear that Republicans have no interest in working with Democrats on finding solutions to pressing policy challenges. But here's the thing that so often gets lost in the discourse: Republicans are the minority party, which means it's their job to oppose the majority's agenda
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/monthly/2010_01.php
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


47 posted 02-09-2010 11:07 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Thanks for the link, Balladeer.

Here's an article that made me stop and think. It's a quick read so please give the link a click.

“We are free to treat health care for the poor as an ideological football instead of a test of our human compassion.”

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100208/OPINION12/2080310/1002/OPINIO N/Falling-out-of-health-safety-net

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


48 posted 02-09-2010 11:50 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

A heart-wrenching story indeed and I'm sure there are many like her out there. One thing I'm not clear about, however....

njuries severe enough that she was quickly declared fully disabled by the Social Security Administration.

But, like many other Hoosiers with devastating illnesses and injuries, Alice has been told by the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration that she does not meet our state's standard for being disabled, and thus does not qualify for Medicaid health insurance coverage.


Social Security considers here fully disabled and the Indiana Social Services Admin does not. That sounds like the problem lies with state and federal organizations not being on the same page. The Medicaid help is there and the state won't give it to here, even though the federal gov't declares she is entitled.

Sounds to me like someone needs to review Indiana's requirements.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


49 posted 02-09-2010 03:05 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“When Republicans take President Obama up on his invitation to hash out their differences over health care this month, they will carry with them a fairly well-developed set of ideas intended to make health insurance more widely available and affordable, by emphasizing tax incentives and state innovations, with no new federal mandates and only a modest expansion of the federal safety net.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/health/policy/09health.html?hp


.

 
 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 >> SO how's Health Care Going?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] 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