Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Life and Death And Disinformation


“Please don't lie to me, unless you're absolutely sure I'll never find out the truth.”
Ashleigh Brilliant

English Author and Cartoonist, b.1933

“He who does not need to lie is proud of not being a liar.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

German classical Scholar, Philosopher and Critic of culture,
1844-1900

Rush Limbaugh has been using his radio show to promote disinformation that the HR bill "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" would include provisions for euthanizing the elderly. www.politicususa.com/en/Rush-Euthanasia

It is obvious that Rush is not himself reading the bill, which is available for free on Scribd.com, under a simple search for Health Bill 2009, to anyone who is curious about checking some of these egregious claims. Given the nature of the statements, and the availability of the bill itself, and the recurring pattern, it is not credible that these errors are accidental. It suggests a calculated and intentional reliance on an audience that will not question what it is told, and will not fact check what it hears, so long as it is told what it wants to hear.

After the question, "why would anyone seriously believe something so ridiculous?", the next question which presents itself is -- "where is he getting such strange ideas?"

One source for consistent right wing misinformation is Betsy McCaughey. Ms. McCaughey is a former Republican Lieutenant Governor of New York, who switched to become a Democrat in 1997, in anticipation of a run for Democratic candidate for governor in 1998; she lost that candidacy race to another Democrat. McCaughey ran as the Liberal Party candidate for governor of New York in 1998. The New York Liberal Party is a minor party specific to the state of New York and its politics; it has supported an interesting array of both Democrats and sometimes Republicans for a variety of local and state offices in its history.

Looking at McCaughey's history in politics, it is fair to say her loyalties have had a lot of variety as well. Variety to the point that I find myself as skeptical of her sincerity and integrity, as I am of her accuracy.

McCaughey has a BA with distinction from Vassar, and an MA and PhD from Columbia in history. In this regard of being well educated, McCaughey reminds me of our Minnesota representative Bachmann, who holds advanced degrees which demonstrate an ability to perform research and critical thinking, but who seems to consistently fail to use them, or alternatively, deliberately chooses to present false information to serve an extreme political cause. In the area of health issues, McCaughey has been found on more than one occasion to have misrepresented critical information. Like Bachmann, McCaughey presents and attractive appearance; arguably this is used in a calculated effort to persuade.

McCaughey has appeared all over the mainstream media, including Lou Dobbs program on CNN, back in February of this year, and more recently on the radio show hosted by Mark Levin. That Levin interview, and others, are available on YouTube.

The interview with the false assertions about forcing the elderly to commit suicide opens with an ominous black background, and the frightening words that state:

Page 425 of Obamacare Bill: Mandatory Counseling Sessions pushing SUICIDE for the elderly and seriously ill. Pages 16 - 17: NO NEW private health insurance policies.

Well, no. Page 425 doesn't say that. Nowhere in the bill does it say anything like that. That someone has read, or at least scanned through nearly a thousand pages (double spaced pages with large margins) to locate a section that does deal with end of life issues, to the point of specifying a single page, and then misrepresents the content, begs an explanation of accident. That Rep. Bachmann would at approximately the same time be caught misrepresenting page 16, cannot be a coincidence.

What IS talked about, on page 425, are things like living wills and health care proxies, end of life planning, and hospice care.

I would refer you to that excellent organization, Fact Check.org, where any number of items of misinformation about this health care plan are addressed; there is a lovely section that addresses an email that I had come across my computer just yesterday. Limbaugh and McCaughey are certainly not the only individuals on the right, with access to a media pulpit, preaching misinformation and messages of fear, who are noted in the Fact Check.org Health Care legislation analysis. It covers a LOT of ground.

It is in all of our interests to be cynical and skeptical, and to check the information supplied to us. This is not a liberal versus conservative matter, it is not a Democrat versus Republican concern. It is AS important to fact check information with which you agree, as it is to check information which is not in agreement with your views.

I feel most compelled to check information presented as fact which promotes an unreasonable fear, or which exaggerates grotesquely. I feel compelled to check and to resist assertions which demonize too broad segments of the political spectrum. I also find myself compelled to check information which appears to be or could be slanted to what someone believes I want to hear, out of concern that it may be manipulative.

Too much of the political discussion that takes place on all levels, local, state, regional and national, is deliberately divisive. Too much of that discussion begins with a difference of information, where instead of seeking common ground and greater accuracy, there is a failure to challenge facts, in good faith and with integrity, as part of a larger effort to achieve a meeting of the minds. I do not like to be lied to; apparently some people thrive on it.

102 comments:

  1. I'm no fan of Rush and do not listen to him. I wonder if you have though or if you're just repeating what you've heard other people say? No offense meant I'm just trying to get to whether we're dealing in 1st hand info or 2nd hand info. Rush is primarily an entertainer (which is the principle reason I choose not to get my news from him) so I'm certain there will be some exaggeration from him. I have not read the entire bill. I have gone and read specific sections that I’ve heard mentioned that I deem looking into because they sound too disturbing to be true. That said, I have looked at the bill and I think you're mistaken. While you’re correct that on page 425 there is no mention of euthanasia and no specific mention of euthanasia that I’ve seen in the following pages it is suggested or hinted at. On page 425 line 5 is the beginning of an outline detailing “Advanced Care Planning Consultation”. On page 425 lines 6 thru 12 discuss that the patient should be given a consultation on “advance care planning” once ever 5 years. Then on page 426 line 4 states that the individual conducting the consultation should include the following “An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice…”. Now the KEY WORD is PALLIATIVE. If you didn’t know the meaning of that word (I had to look it up to hehe) it specifically deals with treating pain rather than curing a disease. This is essentially telling the patient that the state can provide you with a less painful death should the patient choose it. Now that’s not necessarily a bad thing EXCEPT nowhere I saw did was it stated that this consultation should be given only to what are deemed terminally ill patients. Essentially it states that practitioners are OBLIGED to conduct a consultation with their patients every 5 years giving them the option to die without pain rather than getting treatment or cured of a disease. Which is in essence euthanasia. I’ve never fought a life threatening illness so I can’t really make a personal judgement on it but I think in general it’s wrong. What I find most disturbing, however, is that the government should have ANY involvement OBLIGING practitioners to telling, hinting, suggesting, recommending, etc., etc. to the sick and old that it would be more cost effective for you to die peacefully under a doctors watch via pain-killers rather than trying to treat/cure the disease. Please note one important fact regarding this section. It ONLY applies to individuals utilizing Medicare. So you’re too poor to afford health care the state deems you’re too costly to cure/treat and subtly insists you die.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One more comment to add regarding this bill. I mentioned jokingly in an earlier post that Obama was a little "f" fascist. If he signs this bill as it is he's a big "F" Fascist with all the works including the Musilini posturing and gleaming bald head. He's just missing the little Hitler mustache. Mind you I said IF he signs it as it is. I state this because he is either unaware (which makes him incompetent) or knowingly restricting all Americans freedom of choice regarding their health care. On page 16 lines 10 thru 16 spell out that private health insurance providers may not enroll new individuals on or after the first day of the first year this bill goes into effect. I quote "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1." So I as a self employed individual having no health insurance am automatically put into the state provided health insurance where I'll remain for the end of my life. Further, my children won't be allowed to get private health insurance. This is essentially the governments way of grandfathering out all private health insurance from the US. Below that paragraph I quoted I goes on to state that dependents of individuals can get coverage from the same private health insurance provider. However, you can't change you policy nor can you switch companies. If you change jobs and your new employer has a different provider than your old one you can't enroll you must go to the state run option. Does this make any sense to anyone outside DC?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jas wrote:
    "KEY WORD is PALLIATIVE. If you didn’t know the meaning of that word (I had to look it up to hehe) it specifically deals with treating pain rather than curing a disease. "

    As someone very familiar with the use of palliative care in veterinary medicine, I understand the full meaning of the word, and with respect, you have an incorrect understanding.

    I offer my understanding not only from practice, but my usage is based on having taken formal classes in medical terminology. I 'speak' medical, fluently.

    In addition to more than a decade and a half in insurance claims where I used the language daily, I have had formal classwork as well in ethics, specifically medical ethics, and my professor who held a PhD in ethics was at that time the senior most medical ethics expert for the Fairview Hospital group of facilities. (To my surprise, when I had occasion to inquire about an error on a transcript - he actually remembered me as his student, more than 15 years later. I guess we both left rather vivid impressions on each other.) I understand fully the aspects and implications of palliative care.

    So, you will I hope excuse me if I feel qualified to correct you. There is NO NO NO NO NO implication of euthanasia here. NADA, zip, zero.

    Palliative DOES refer to care which is for pain management. It does not EVER refer to treatment that is offered instead of a cure, but either when there is no cure that works, no other option that will offer recovery. OR, it addresses that aspect of medicine that deals with treating symptoms, where for example cause and origin have yet to be determined.

    To claim this bill is sneaking in euthanizing people who are old and sick would be as flat out wrong as claiming that because a procedure has iatrogenic potential, the bill was authorizing medicine intending to hurt people as its goal.

    Iatrogenisis is defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as: "inadvertent and preventable induction of disease or complications by the medical treatment or procedures of a physician ". Now that SOUNDS like it means simply hurting people.

    In actual practice iatrogenesis means things like, you have to cut someone open in order to get out their inflamed appendix that is about to explode. It means that in vaccinating someone, you are making them sick with a very limited, controlled low grade infection or infectious response to stimulate their immune system to produce antibodies so they won't get seriously ill and die from the full blown dangerous form of the disease. Iatrogensis means you might have a minor side effect, like a red sore spot at the site of an injection, where that is a calculated trade off to a necessary treatment. In the sense that the person providing treatment is doing something that in the most literal sense is a harm, like cutting off the bad skin around a wound and maybe just a tiny bit of the healthy tissue, aka debriding a wound, it IS preventable, it is a choice. It is inadvertant, in that it is not the main intent of the procedure or treatment, but incidental to it.

    And Betty McCaughey fully understood the terminology. She has written books on the subject, heads up a medical technology firm, previously headed up another firm in the medical field. AND, no coincidence, the organization where she is a fellow is funded by the big pharmaceuticals. In short, she lies for money.

    I'll hand this off to Pen, like a relay race baton to correct the errors in your second post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jas wrote:
    "I'm no fan of Rush and do not listen to him. I wonder if you have though or if you're just repeating what you've heard other people say? No offense meant I'm just trying to get to whether we're dealing in 1st hand info or 2nd hand info. "

    Yes, I have listened to him. I can't take as much of him as his fans do. To argue that he is an entertainer only, is specious. He is the source of opinon forming information. Before I decided to indulge my love of science, I was a speech major with a specialty in broadcasting. While out of date, and while I was not employed in the field, I do know the coursework, what to look for, and understand especially the persuasive aspects of what he does.

    If you think he is intending to merely be amusing, think again. Most of the instances where someone says "he's an entertainer" are aimed at deflecting critical analysis of what he does.

    Begin with who is his intended or target audience, and secondary to that who is his excluded audience - who does he NOT care about persuading, perhaps even seeks to antagonize on behalf of the intended audience. Next, what is his intended outcome or goal of his presentation; there is always one, sometimes secondary additionals. After that, what are his techniques; how does he persuade, how does he gain trust, interest, what are the steps he goes through from beginning to conclusion to persuade and / or manipulate emotions and ideas. What are his individual topics, and what are his leitmotifs - his recurring themes, often underlying the individual topics, and tending to connect individual topics together both in an individual episode of his programming, and linking between episodes.

    My particular favorite aspect to examine in understanding how he uses persuasive techniques is to examine if he aims to initiate critical thinking and clarity of fact, or if he aims to confuse analytical thinking and obscure fact. A more metaphysical interpretation would be does he, consistently, shed light, or darkness.

    Limbaugh understands the craft of what he does. It is very clear when examined analytically; he is calculated, he is manipulative, and he is intentionally, deliberately deceptive.

    The final fun question with any analysis, but especially with Limbaugh, is--- who benefits by what he does? Clearly Limbaugh makes a lot of money; secondary to that his employers and their advertisers profit. But I would suggest that the pattern of his goals with each topic may routinely benefit others, and not financially.

    JUST an entertainer? No. Hell no.

    ReplyDelete
  5. KR wrote:
    "Yet you have no problem when Obama claims 47 million Americans can't get health insurance, eh Dog Gone.

    KR, I found very credible that there are far more people who are underinsured, above and beyond the number uninsured. Personally, I think there is a good argument to be made that numbers have been under reported, in some respects significantly so, simply due to the lag with quantifying keeping up with the economic impact of the past couple of years.

    I am not commenting AS actively here right now as I have on other topics, only because I am hip deep in a couple of other projects. Pen has an excellent grip on the health care reform topic, and is addressing health care capably without any help from me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. KR wrote:
    "Sometimes the only real pain management is to euthenize, DG; thanks for making Jas's point."

    Not correct KR. I believe I quite clearly made the opposite point.

    That control over their own death should be ultimately the decision of each individual in consultation with their medical practitioner is a different matter, and was brought up by Pen under another heading.

    KR, Jas, if you believe that those who operate under the guise of entertainers are somehow trivial or not significantly in the currents of politics and society, I would refer you to a better understanding of the history of the media -radio, tv, print, and movies; now more recently, add the internet.

    An example in point would be the disparate opposition that was effective in ending McCarthyism, persuading the public away from supporting 'Joe'. Those who were influential included playwrite Arthur Miller; plays are art, but also entertainment. And Edward R. Murrow, not in his capacity as a purveyor of news, but as the host of his 'magazine format' entertainment program See it Now. Historically, comedians have been especially influential in shaping and changing dominant / majority public opinion.

    That Limbaugh pursues his influence in the guise of entertainment does not alter the validity of what I wrote.

    An FYI, I look at everything I watch, read, hear with the same analytical perspective. It takes an act of will to shut it off and keep it off, even briefly.

    I believe in sampling as wide a range of opinion, perspectives and ideas as I can. No one point of view has all the answers, or even all the questions. Whether I agree or disagree, I still find it essential to try to understand all of those points of view.

    I wish more people were as adventurous outside their usual comfort zone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Science Dictionary
    euthanasia (y'thə-nā'zhə)

    The act or practice of painlessly ending the life of an animal or a willing individual who has a terminal illness or incurable condition, as by giving a lethal drug.

    Still wrong KR.

    Palliative care is managing the pain or symptoms of someone who is ill, or injured. It has no connection or intent to do anything EXCEPT manage pain or other symptoms.

    It is not another word or concept for euthanasia. It is not in any way shape or form a description of a health care professional killing a patient.

    Further, euthanasia differs from suicide in the aspect of being something someone else does to or for you, including not only actions towards assisting an easy death, but can also be by withholding extraordinary measures at the request of the ill or injured party. Suicide, including legally assisted suicide, differs from euthanasia, in that it is an action a person takes regarding their own life, not an act done by others.

    This is already the practice in do not revive/ do not rescusitate orders, which are routine in certain situations. The 'DNR' decisions reflect the wishes of the patient, not the choices of the care provider.

    ReplyDelete
  8. KR, you are of course free to re-define the English language to your heart's content.

    Agreeing on the meaning of words is with a few exceptions like ToE's profession, a voluntary exercise. However, that random redefinition as individually satisfying as it may be, does tend to impede any meaningful conversation or discussion. Without an agreement on meaning, for concepts, there can be no useful exchange of ideas or any real meeting of the minds participating.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jas,

    I listened to Rush daily for 4 years from 1988 into 1992. I also listen to him occassionally/infrequently now.

    He's not a news source, he's an entertainer and propogandist. He can be relied upon to:
    a. Present the information in a cherry-picked way, usually misrepresenting the intentions of those he politcally opposes.
    c. NEVER EVER EVER truly complain about any business. In 4 years I never heard him once criticize any business.

    On palliative therapy, it is more than just pain treatment - it is also treatment which will extend life, but not cure the disease which is known to be terminal (as I understand it's common usage).

    Your comments on terminal illness are appreciated. I made a post several posts back exactly on this. Euthenasia implies a lack of choice - NO one, no one had better suggest a lack of choice, yet, those who fight/face it, should have a choice eventually.

    Also, this is terminal illness here we're talking about, we're not talking about telling an older person, "It's more cost effective if you die" - we're saying, "you can get palliative therapy, and it will extend your life, but, understand, it will be harrowing at the end. In the final weeks, you will be incoherent - you should decide now whether you want to be in that state - i.e. in a life suspended by medical care in a pain induced stupor, or whether you desire to have things end a bit sooner. Also, Jas, the option to simply die, is ALWAYS something offered to terminal patients when certain organs start having impaired funciton. My father in law was dying, his kidneys were failing - they gave him a choice, you can have a couple of weeks of fairly pain-free death process, or we can insert a shunt, you'll live 6 more months, but you'll be i a lot of pain at the end. He chose the latter, he later wished he hadn't.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I proposed that we start addressing this so called "crisis" by looking at 5 million citizens that truly need help."

    This would be the quote I was referring to in the other thread. However, let's not thread jump here - ok?

    KR - again we are at the place of you deciding that a fact simeply doesn't pass your muster, but we are asked/expected to accept the misuse of the term fascist/Fascist simply becausse you say so because a book, from a rather questionable/biased source, made a point.

    Whether it's 47M or 37M, it's a lot. Your 5M number has not been substantiated by you. Please do so.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jas,

    Fascism has several elements:

    One, totalitarianism - if the current proposal FORCES people into the program after Y1, it IS totalitarian, and I won't disagree with you that it is.

    Two, hyper-miltarism - you can't really apply that to Obama

    Three, hyper-nationalism, again, that's a non-applicable.

    Four, seeking/using single-party rule - not applicable.

    If you want to call it totalitarian in it's approach, that's fine, but the use of the word fascism or Fascism carries a very specific meaning - and with it a certain very sinister import - I don't think it's any more applicable to call Obama fascist than you'd have accepted calling Bush the same. Let's use the term authoritarian instead, agreed?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also, Jas:

    I would want to read the entire excerpt - I'm not a lawyer, but I did administer health programs for a LONG time - and I feel reasonably competent to read legal documents most of the time.

    Do you have a link handy?

    I am asking because I find it unlikely that such a bill would be offered - it flies in the face of what most of the centrist and even pro-government program Democrats are pushing. They've all favored the French model of freedom to exit/use your own insurance - so that's a very surprising situation if true.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As an overall comment:

    Folks, clearly if any government were TRULY considering euthanizing patients against their consent, that would be ABONIMABLE.

    I don't think it would tolerated for a day, and there are NO Democrats I've known anywhere who would agree to it, nor are there any Republicans.

    I understand you have some fears around this, but those fears don't seem to represent anything close to likelihood.

    The terms palliative and extension of end-of-life care are reasonably synonymous in usage - it really (IMHO) is a stretch to think that people are going to (who have been trained to do the exact opposite) start putting people "down" without objection. It's also suggesting something pretty ugly about a HUGE number of people, not the least the President. I think we can reasonably move past these kinds of ugly ideas, ideas with no standing whatsoever in reality as far I have been able to find.

    Also, there is the illusion of choice for most Americans with medical insurance. They get a handful of 'gatekeeper' doctors to chose from, who refer them to other specialists not of their choice when needed. They have a restricted formulary list of medicines, a restricted list of services in some cases for care they can receive, and are often FORCED to buy drugs through mail-order pharmacies to get the best reimbursement. So, while I understand people don't like 'government' as a knee-jerk belief in over-beuarocratic systems being customer service poor and inefficient - I promise you, at this point, most insurance programs are horribly unresponsive, have smile-and-nod customer support which can't change anything, and an appeal process which is cryptic at best - usually impossible (or nearly to navigate).

    ReplyDelete
  14. KR -

    Please don't pretend to answer questions for me. You clearly don't know what my answer is, so it's just wasted rhetoric.

    I do not agree there are ONLY 5 million people needing care.

    However, I take you at your word that you didn't intend to imply it.

    I agree that addressing 5 Million people is a start, but it's not a sufficient start, and I answered this point on the other thread. It's 10% of the problem (roughly). That doesn't effectively change the dynamics.

    So, when will I admit there aren't 47 million people without health care - when you show me credible evidence that the number is dramatically different. Note, I'm not saying 47 Million American citizens, I'm saying 47 Million people in America - and for all intents and purposes here, Americans because the American health care system has to handle them.

    Thanks for the reply.

    ReplyDelete
  15. KR, much as I consider Wikipedia to be to research what a kiddie bicycle with training wheels is to Lance Armstrong's racing bike, it isn't all bad. It had this under palliative care; if you don't have a better understanding than your incorrect interpretation of a dictionary entry, you should try it.

    In the interim - this line was pretty good: "Non-hospice palliative care is not dependent on prognosis and is offered in conjunction with curative and all other appropriate forms of medical treatment."

    ReplyDelete
  16. KR said:

    "Bluntly Peni, your tone is unacceptible."

    Physiker - heal thyself - you called me liar, as well as DG. You've not been called that by either of us that I recall certainly, and neither of us told you to STFU.


    "Your apology was pathetic, as usual."

    My apology was a for misunderstanding your tragically flawed phraseology. It is a small man who doesn't accept an apology honestly given, or insults the person providing it.

    "You still won't admit that there are not 47 million Americans that can't get health insurance."

    No KR, I won't, neither will most poeple, because the data comes from the US Census bureau and the World Health Organization. Your 'facts' come from where again, exactly?


    So, tell me, how many people do you think TRULY need insurance?

    You've spent what, 10 comments? creating conflict needlessly on these points rather than simply saying "I wasn't saying ONLY 5M need it, I was saying cover 5M who do. I believe 10M really NEED it." and thereby end the confusion created by your innarticulate commentary.


    "I proposed that we start addressing this so called "crisis" by looking at 5 million citizens that truly need help."

    'So-called' - which means you think the number is FAR less than 47 Million obviously - and is tangentially insulting to those who feel the number is near that - even Terry has said he supports a number of 44.5 (though not all are Americans). However, in the interest of speed, rather than answer, shall I assume you truly think 10M TRULY need coverage?


    "We already have several programs that might be useful "

    SUCH AS? Please identify which programs are going to cover those under 65 (i.e. those without coverage) at a Federal level - or since you didn't state at a Federal level (though that's where the program is being created) - what at a state level in Minnesota would do so? We just gutted MinCare, SCHIP is only funded over the objections of Republicans, so it's damned unlikely we'll use IT, and further it is ONLY for children. The largest pool of people without coverage are between the ages of 18 and 40, so please, what programs?


    "instead of creating a new program that could easily balloon into a program covering 200 million Americans and illegal aliens and people making over 200k per year."

    Well, on that we agree - unless those 200MM decide it's what they want - but I've been pretty damned clear I don't advocate for a forced government program, so why even worry about that? It ISN'T what is being proposed by the current comprimise and would not pass muster in the Senate, so again, we're back to stoking fear by claiming that people will say "199M need coverage." or that it's forced on them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You have two threads running on this subject, I will comment on the other post instead of this post."

    NO KR, I don't - I had one, DG has one, and they aren't on the same subject. YOU chose to post here about how many people had coverage - that was you. You seem to be having some difficulty accepting your participation in this process.

    "I hope you are able to stick to the subject and be truthful to the issue. A bit of criticism toward Obama is not too much to ask, is it Penigma?"

    First, I stick to the subject FAR moreso than you, who ignores every point you don't like, and constantly are shifting back to this BS Fascism argument.

    Second, I am scrupulously honest. I value honesty as a virtue above ALL OTHER TRAITS. You are NOT speaking truth to power, you are speaking babble, repeatedly. Your last post was reasonably decent - this one is crap.

    I've criticized Obama time and again on this blog and in the comments section. That you don't care to recall it is too bad for you. Perhaps you MISSED the post called Opportunity Lost - except you didn't miss it - yet you make these kinds of ludicrous comments.

    Let me be clear - the LEFT (including Obama) is WRONG to think curing administrative costs will solve everything. They are ALSO wrong to think nationalized health care will result in dramatically reduced costs because the wage pool has been fixed - you REALLY need to take a moment to actually read, KR - really really. Your poorly worded comments lead to a great deal of misunderstanding, which you then seem to relish picking at the edges of - yet you don't seem to want to take the time to actually contemplate the comments of most others.

    MY patience is pretty much gone with you K - if you want to continue to post here, you need to take your comments up a level - meaning, you need to actually present some facts - conjecture about how many people need coverage which is nothing more than your personal opinion, really isn't factual. Further, 'offering' to cover 5M poeople isn't a comprimise, it's a it's a backhanded offer at best - demeaning the issue. Yet - you STILL didnt' explain how you'd pay for it.

    "I can spot Liberal Fascism a mile away."

    I'm sure you can, just like you can find Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and other fictions, but you can't spot a fascist or a Fascist.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dog Gone, I think you are mischaracterizing the subject of Limbaugh's remarks.
    Limbaugh's comments were hyperbole, and were not in reference to the current "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009", but a government monopoly on health care in general. In fairness the politicususa.com piece never quite says that his words are directed at the bill now under consideration. Politicususa does, however, headline their story:'Limbaugh Tells Old People they will Be Euthanized under Obama Healthcare'.
    In the quote from Limbaugh's show politicususa uses to justify their headline Limbaugh does not say that.
    Here is the entire quote:

    The Blue Dogs' constituents and most constituents, most voters are opposed to this. That's why they're struggling to get this vote done now before the recess 'cause they know when these members of Congress go home they're going to catch hell from voters at town meetings, and if the vote's already happened, fine. If the vote hasn't happened, this is going to make it even harder for them to get but they're not ever going to give this up. Obamacare is ball game. Obamacare is the end of the United States as we know it. It's not just the end of health care as you know it. With government-run health care, every aspect of our lives will be regulated as it relates to the cost of health care. People at a certain age and with certain diseases will be deemed not worth the investment, and as Obama said, give them some pain pills and let 'em loop out 'til they die, and they don't even know it's happened. It will be rationed. You're not going to be able to choose your doctor, probably after a while will not be able to hold onto your private insurance or your current insurance, which is all by design.

    But they're going to be able to regulate, call you a risk based on do you smoke, do you not smoke, how far do you drive to work, do you wear polyester, it's more flammable. It could get ridiculous but that's who these people are and that's the kind of control they want. That's why they're not going to give it up, especially this bunch. This bunch looks at this as the greatest opportunity because they know the Republicans can't stop anything. It is really wrong to focus on the Republicans in any of this because they can't stop it. They can't come close to stopping it. This is all the Democrats. That's why the Republicans should get out of the way and not even show up, especially in this health bill. Don't even show up, go out to make speeches, be on TV, but don't even show up. Let this be a total, 100% Democrat Party show so that everybody understands just who is behind this debacle.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072809/content/01125111.guest.html

    Limbaugh's statement People at a certain age and with certain diseases will be deemed not worth the investment, and as Obama said, give them some pain pills and let 'em loop out 'til they die, and they don't even know it's happened.
    Was clearly in reference to this exchange between Jane Sturm and Obama:

    Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

    “Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”

    “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said. … “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“

    ReplyDelete
  19. "One of the tactics of the Liberal
    KR wrote:

    "Fascists is to distract from the real issue at hand. Rush Limbaugh is one of the favorites they like to use to keep people from truly discussing the important issues. Please discuss the issue instead of talking about some talk show entertainer!!!"

    I believe I AM talking about issues here. My ISSUE is not health care, which is covered by Pen under his separate heading. My issue is using the provisions of the proposed health care reform to lie and to fear monger. My issue is the differences produced by fact checking from lies told as news (as by McCAughey on CNN) as well as on talk radio, which is aguably more current events in origin, and about culture wars, but even if you define it as entertainment - it is still attempting to deceive.

    I wanted to know where the bogus assertions originated. So I went digging; and I was very pleased that I successfully researched the origins, at least a primary origin if not the only one, ahead of many media sources with entire paid research staffs available to them.

    My issue, for those who didn't get it, was to track where DISinformation started, and how it then disseminated, tracking its course through the larger public audience.

    Given that 'death-ers' are the newest version of 'birthers', this seemed doubly interesting.

    Less successful, someting I accept that no research exercise can accomplish, is to explain why people, even some otherwise smart people, willingly believe some pretty dumb things without questioning and fact checking.

    ReplyDelete
  20. JUST for KR:
    "Yes, [insert vulgar language here] yes!"

    I noticed the change.
    Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  22. K-Rod, I have basically stayed out of this debate until now, but I'm getting quite tired of you spouting inaccuracies and misquoting others.

    There has been credible evidence presented relying on the US Census and the WHO that there are 47 million people in the United States without health insurance for one reason or another. That evidence has been presented to you over and over, and you refuse to address it. If you wish to continue to deny facts, you can continue to live in whatever fantasy you wish.

    In 2005 the US Bureau of the Census released this document, http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html. That document describes that there were, in 2004, 45.8 million people without health insurance in the United States. A US Bureau of the Census Report entitled The Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006 stated that there were 47 million people in the US without health insurance. A link to that report is provided here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf. I suggest you re-evaluate your position about the number of people without health insurance. The facts are clearly to the contrary.

    K-Rod said:
    Wait it gets worse, trust me, one of the dumbest things I have ever heard: Obama suggesting pain killers might be a better option than a pacemaker. S-T-U-P-I-D


    K-Rod, again, you are using someone elses unattributed comments as fact. Here you quoted Terry, (without attributing it to him), and obviously without checking to see the accuracy. Had you checked, you would have seen that Terry has taken President Obama's comments utterly out of context. This was a question asked of President Obama and here is the You Tube clip of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo. Listen closely to the answer: President Obama said, quite clearly, that we need to have our health care providers talk to the patient and tell the patient, in some cases, this may not make you feel any better, perhaps it would be better for you to not have the surgery and take some painkillers. He was suggesting that we need to cut out on a lot of the unnecessary tests and sometimes unnecessary surgery which keep adding costs to our health care system. He was NOT advocating mistreating anyone, as Terry seemed to want us to believe. Terry, next time you present such a statement as evidence, make sure you present it in the proper context.

    K-Rod said,
    Why is it OK to lie and fear monger, DG?
    Dog Gone said nothing of the sort. In fact, her statements have been condemning the lying and fear mongering that have been largely done by right wing extremists. Although I do not classify you as a right wing extremist, K-Rod, you've been guilty of manipulations of the truth and have been spreading disinformation, although in my opinion out of ignorance rather than malice.

    SCHIP stands for State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is a federal program by which children and pregnant women who have income too high for medicaid but who can't afford health insurance are eligible for health insurance at a reduced cost. It covers mostly children, and will cover a pregnant woman, but does not cover adults otherwise. Source: US Health and Human Services: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/LowCostHealthInsFamChild/

    K-Rod, as I've said repeatedly, if you did better research you would find it easier to discuss the topics here without appearing foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  23. KR - I deleted your comment. It had no meaningful facts.

    Further, if YOU get to be pedantic about wording, then you need to grasp others are going to be pedantic back. You accused me of having two threads, I didn't, I had one - DG had one.

    If you want to focus on this kind of drivel - ok, but you will have to leave the insults out - period. I've put up with as many of them as you're going to be allowed to post. period. Either shape up, or your comments are going to be removed. Others are able to do so - you seem unwilling to. We're not wasting further space on it. period.

    And obviously, since Terry, TTuck and JAS all have ALL of their posts retained, AND they actually point to facts and answer questions - this has nothing to do with cencorship of the truth, and everything to do with being civil.

    I'm sorry you feel inclined to be so pedantic, abusive, and hostile, but that's enough - I've been working critical production issues at work or your post wouldn't have been up for even as long as it was.

    ReplyDelete
  24. KR - I deleted another of your comments... however, in the interest of addressing your comments which have some narrow sense of value or at least ask a pertinent question - I'm going to post your comment, edited to be what it would look like if you were willing to be civil.

    (editors note) Comment about lying - not substantiated - removed - and what would have NOT caused me to delete the post on it's own - however, you really need to stop with it - I have no tolerance for it from you. You refuse to answer nearly any questions about 'facts' or opinions you assert to be true - yet demand evidence from others - evidence you then call lies.---

    TOE, will you admit that there are NOT 47 million Americans that can't get health insurance or will you continue to spread disinformation?


    "Here you quoted Terry"

    I didn't quote Terry - if you mean I made the same point - that's true, but I was making it on my own.

    -- Editors Note: comment which got this post deleted--- And in reply KR, Terry was the FIRST one to point to 47M being incorrect - you say you didn't springboard off that - my reaction is, says you. You clearly have said, time and again 47M was way off, but you certainly didn't say it first, and TERRY is the only one who provided any reasoning. Once again, you are getting upset about someone feeling you used someone else's facts - and through no intent to disparage your thoughts/works, made such a reference. Your reaction was to become abusive and ridiculous - again.---

    The fact remains (though I am clearly expressing only MY opinion of this supposed fact) that Obama suggested pain killers might be a better option than a pacemaker. S-T-U-P-I-D in my opinion.

    TOE, I have consistantly disagred with you. It is time for you to admit I'm right. Your bias is showing in my opinion, --third consecutive insult deleted--

    "ONLY for children" ONLY?

    I'll provide some facts to substantiate my feeling, for the first time -

    "Some states use SCHIP funds mostly for adults. Wisconsin covers almost twice as many adults as children -- and spends 75 percent of its SCHIP funds on them. Minnesota spends 61 percent on adults, Illinois 60 percent, Rhode Island 57 percent, and New Jersey 43 percent.

    This year, 13 percent of SCHIP funds will go to adults other than expectant mothers. Nearly 30 percent of these adults are not even parents.

    Of the 14 states that were projected to exceed their federal SCHIP allotments in 2007, five cover children not considered low-income, and five cover adults other than expectant mothers." - www.hhs.gov

    TOE, did you say I was ignorant - I think you are too. Shame on us both for such language.

    You might want to spend a bit more time countin them beads.


    My fate just outwitted your belief set
    ...............

    How much will this National Health Care cost?

    Who will pay for it?

    Will the cost be covered by just those in the program?

    Will the costs be covered by those with private insurance?

    Will private insurance recieve the same subsidies as National Health Care?

    ReplyDelete
  25. K-Rod, I said that you have been guilty of manipulations of the truth and spreading disinformation, but in my opinion through ignorance, not malice. I did not mean to offend you with that statement, and I apologize since I clearly did.

    What I meant was that you have restated others' statements on here as being true without adequately researching the veracity of those statements. In other words, you were ignorant of the truth or veracity of the statements. That doesn't mean that you are ignorant as a whole. In fact, I am convinced that you are intelligent and I have seen some of your writing that can be quite good. If you research your topics a bit better you will find that the discussion becomes more enjoyable for all, I think. When researching, its always good to look beyond the initial source that might come up in a Google search. I often make sure that I look at the original documents when I can, and if its on legal matters, I want to read the statutes and the case law for myself. (Just as an example). If you start researching and backing up your statements with attributable sources I think you find that your posts on this blog will be much more effective in arguing whatever cause you are making.

    ReplyDelete
  26. K-Rod,

    No, I will not admit that 47 Million people are without health insurance. I substantiated my source, and I have yet to see you provide me with information to the contrary. A link to a document would be appreciated. Even IF, and I repeat, IF the number is not exactly 47 million it is close to it and it is still unacceptably high.

    However, the topic of this discussion was the disinformation and outright lies being propagated by a variety of people about health care reform. I wonder how many of the people who have put forth some of the most outrageous disinformation or outright lies about the health care reform bill have offered their own solution?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Penigma, what was it you said about Mitch Berg editing your comments? Heh heh heh

    The difference, K, is that yours were edited SOLELY to remove offensive language - Berg edited mine to both convey a (false) impression his dissenters were stupid and incapable of putting together a proper sentence AND to cover-up real fact about his post being deceptive.

    That's different - and if you dont' see it, that's your opinion, but I do.

    "What? With all due respect to Terry, but NO way in [insert vulgarity here] was Terry the first to figure out the FACT that 47M is incorrect"

    Terry was the first to say it on this thread - that was what I was referring to.

    Further, your 'common knowledge' reference isn't particularly either common, or knowledge from what I can ascertain from various attempts at research. It is a commonly held opinion of the right-wing, but that neither makes it factual nor true.

    However, in the interst of moving forward, what number do you feel are uninsured, is it the 10M you seem (underscore seem - my words - not yours) to have said?

    "Pen/TOE, are you claiming the HHS has deliberatly provided false data on SCHIP? Oh, then I must be right, AGAIN!!! No surprise."

    KR - while you've strayed off into hypberbole land here - it's not particularly offensive.

    First, I didn't say SCHIP only covered kids.

    Second, SCHIP was vetoed by Bush - do you support using SCHIP to cover the 5 million you suggest we start with?

    If so, how will you pay for it?

    My point is, it's no different than one form of national health care - it's smaller, ineffective, but otherwise the same as funding care directly from taxes.

    "TOE, will you admit that there are NOT 47 million Americans that can't get health coverage or will you continue with Penigma to spread disinformation?"

    Well, until you can show credible proof otherwise (and by the way, I mean MEANINGFUL proof, a difference of 1.5M is NOT meaningful), I respectfully suggest it isn't disinformation. I also suggest your wording is a tad inaccurate. I "spread" what I have found in research, so in truth, I'm repeating what I believe to be accurate fact. IF it is not accurate - then I'm still not 'spreading' anything. Furthermore, unless it's grossly innacurate, it's hardly disinformation. That would be akin to comparing your claim that Obama increased the debt by 25% in one year (when it was really 20%) was disinformation - it was simply slightly off. Let's keep the discussion in the realm of good sense and reasoned statements.

    "People have opinions. The facts are the facts. Just because you don't want to believe in the truth does not make it false."

    True enough, but neither did I claim opinions were fact or facts opinions. Your claims about there being (as I understand your claim) 10 Million people who are uninsured - is not supported by evidence. Terry's claims that 44.5 or 47M people uninsured, or life expectancy and infant mortality NOT being good measures of health care delivery ARE opinion only, they are not fact. The expert opinion, by contrast, is still opinion, but is closer to fact than inexpert opinion - I'm sure you'll agree (well, ok, I hope you'll agree). If we decide to cast aside reasoned and expert and vastly supported opinion because there is a minority, inexpert, unsupported opinion, it will be a LONG LONG time before we make progress on nearly ALL subjects. For example, there is considerable dispute about the nature of the edge of the universe. We make hypothesis, we test, we make educated conclusions, and form expert opinions, from those guesses/theories we often create usable technology (though not yet in this case) Just because there is dissenting opinion, which in this case is at least credible, it doesnt' mean we STOP trying to move forward. In the case of good health care metrics, the counterveiling opinion is NOT expert that I have seen.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Also, the FACTS of measurement of our health care statistics are FACTS, they are not reasonably in question, they are not, in fact, opinion.


    "Obama suggested pain killers might be a better option than a pacemaker. "

    When?

    "S-T-U-P-I-D, not only in my EXPERT opinion but also scientificly stupid. "

    Certainly, if he'd said it - but I don't think you can qualify as an expert - I trained for 18 months on medical procedures before adminsitering claims - and I'M not an expert.


    "Unfortunatly, kids, a pain pill does not treat nonresting relative bradycardia.."

    Obviously, it also doesn't treat arhythmia. As you are an engineer, I'm assuming you did some reseach to find out about bradycardia - good research.

    As an aside, do you ever want to ask the flight attendant if, when they say 'turn off everything with a battery' they mean pacemakers too :)?


    "Mr. Obama, does scurvy run in your family, oh, in your genes eh?"

    Obviously a joke - scurvy, being a nutritional deficiency, runs in no ones genes.

    "It covers mostly children, and will cover a pregnant woman, but does not cover adults otherwise."
    WRONG See the facts in my comment above.
    TOE, as I've said repeatedly, if you did better research you would find it easier to discuss the topics here without appearing foolish."

    He makes mistakes - this he was mistaken in, contrastingly, KR, you've been decidedly wrong several times, show some acceptance that people misunderstand things, and perhaps you won't seem like such a hypocrite every time you are in error.

    "Pen/TOE, are you claiming the HHS has deliberatly provided false data on SCHIP?"

    Of course not, you've leapt to a ludicrous conclusion.

    "That will be all for now; class dismissed.
    Have a nice weekend!!!"

    The day you are my teacher is the day I've ceased learning. OMG. Be serious. LOL. You know far less about this subject than I do, and I suspect you know it. (if we're talking about health care and health care administration).

    "Oh yes, I almost forgot, thanks for reminding me.
    Your homework for the weekend:"

    Physiker - heal thyself.

    How much will this ObamaNation Health Care cost?

    Considering I was the first asking this question - obviously this is not something you, nor I, nor anyone has a good handle on. I think the CBO's estimate may have some basis in fact, but if we switch most of the country to it, it's going to be much more. Obviously, that's offset by savings to employers at NOT paying into the program and consumers by paying taxes rather than premiums.

    Who will pay for it?

    I think you can answer that one for yourself, young padawan.

    Will the cost be covered by just those in the program?

    Clearly not, but I think you know that - why do you ask rhetorical and brain-numbingly easy questions?

    Will the costs be covered by those with private insurance?

    If it is a broad tax, yes, so yes, in my opinion.

    Will private insurance recieve the same subsidies as ObamaNation Health Care?"

    Clearly no , again, if your point is you think they should or you just want to know - I'll answer the former from MY OPINION. This clearly is going to be something those who CAN help support (just like the rich and Social Security and Medicare) they may be asked to help support - the dye is not cast however. But just like Social Security - there will be no payment from the Government into a private persons private retirement fund.

    BTW, I happen to wholeheartedly agree that members of Congress should have to be enrolled in this program while in Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  29. comment part 1

    This was Terry's quote, but also addresses some comments by KR:

    "Limbaugh's statement People at a certain age and with certain diseases will be deemed not worth the investment, and as Obama said, give them some pain pills and let 'em loop out 'til they die, and they don't even know it's happened.
    Was clearly in reference to this exchange between Jane Sturm and Obama:

    Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

    “Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”

    “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said. … “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“

    The key words for me in reading this, and what I believe were the key words for Obama as well, were these :

    "“Outside the medical criteria,“is there a consideration that can be given ”

    May I point out that this 100 year old woman was denied a packemaker, ostensibly because of her age as the reason offered. AND she is seeking a consideration OTHER than medical criteria.

    On the SOLE basis of medical criteria, it is highly unusual for a person to be a legitimate candidate for a pacemaker in many - probably MOST - situations at 100 years old. FOR MEDICAL CRITERIA. That includes things like being an excessively bad anesthesia risk - the anes is more likely to kill because of problems with your health than the procedure / pacemaker is to help you (more likely, by a LOT). In other words, doing this will absolutely do more harm, anesthestizing you, and cutting you open, and has essentially no chance worth mentioning of a good outcome. Some of the other considerations have to do with routine medications (which nearly all centenarians take for chronic problems; at 100 years old, your body has substantially worn out) which make it impossible to safely do surgery. Creating the choice of the harm of discontinuing those essential meds, and having the patient suffer from those complications - or, do the surgery, and have a different set of complications due to the health issues unavoidable to someone that old.

    ReplyDelete
  30. comment part 2


    Just because this woman was ultimately able to find someone to install a pacemaker doesn't mean it was a good idea. What is most startlingly absent is any indication that it was useful or successful to try - no "and she lived for another 8 years", or "she was healthy/ conscious/ much improved afterwards".

    Where is the question and answer to "and did it make a difference?" and "If so, what?" And there is nothing offered, which suggests to me a BAD outcome, but the woman is satisfied by the attempt. I am confident in guaranteeing this woman 'asked more than another doctor'; she must have done a heckuva lot of doctor shopping, and she never asserts that the procedure was paid for by ANY insurance. Not Medicare/ Medicaid, not private, not anyone.

    More than that, the argument is being made here that "Obamacare" is going to provide less than current private insurance care. Not the case, IF your argument is for decisions on OTHER than medical criteria. Private insurance won't approve it either; they do not now, they never have, they never will.

    The position that any health care, public payer, or private payer, can, should, or would approve something like this pacemaker is a false argument.

    Obama is properly addressing that there are some cases where for MEDICAL CRITERIA, there are limited solutions. He is asserting that MEDICAL CRITERIA, NOT what you want, including what you believe as a spiritual basis for decisions, will ever determine that kind of decision.

    And he is RIGHT. Hard as it is to hear. The proposed bill - and I have not read it all, but I have read this part - is exemplary in dealing with the issues and decisions surrounding end of life. However much we don't like it - paraphrasing how Terry put it under another thread - getting off the carousel is hard.

    At some point we WILL all die. In that context, the provisions of this bill are excellent, and build on previous work in the field. Including Bush (Ha! surprised you I bet, me saying something nice about 'W'!) who made the month of November National Hospice and Palliative Care month. I spent a part of today reading up on organizations like the well respected National Hospice and Palliative Care Org, the AARP position on the proposed legislation, and the Consensus document created by the leading national groups on the subject. Oh, and the provisions they have in a number of European countries and the UK.

    Limbaugh, McCaughey, Bachmann, Foxx, and a number of others have NOT presented this either well or fairly. Obama DID. Sadly, at some point, your body wears out, you are sick and do not recover, and treatment like a pacemaker can no longer change that, however much we might wish it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. KR wrote:
    "K-Rod said...
    Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

    Penigma, what was it you said about Mitch Berg editing your comments? Heh heh heh"

    If I may interject. I HATE when it seems necessary to me to delete / decline to post a comment. It is a painful decision.

    But when I do that, or Pen, it is not EDITING the comments. They are not changed; YOU are notified, and asked to resubmit them, with YOU making the requested changes.

    What I do, what Pen does, is technically exercising censorship; prior restraint to what is published. We CAN do that, because we are not the government. We have an obligation to do that, by the standards we agreed upon with each other to enforce, by the requirements of the blog site, by any number of criteria to which we adhere (for example, we might have to make a decision based on respecting copyright, hypothetically, or liability exposure).

    But NOT for pleasure. For the record, I am comfortable with that decision, because in every case, we do our best to invite the substantive content to be re-presented, and we do not attempt to stifle honest exchanges of thought or fact.

    If I'm being considered for editing, I have to understand why those decisions are made, and be able to justify them. I believe I do understand the concepts, and exercise them fairly, and with good will and good faith, not malice or anger.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I've been researching palliative care, and hospice has frequently been paired with the items I've ressarched.

    There has been a surprisingly long and NON-partisan support for this care. Overwhelmingly, the most important reason for it has been quality of life, and to empower each individual with decision making ability over their end of life, or alternatively, when faced with the challenges of serious illness.

    In stark contrast to that has been the twisting of the well-thought out provisions under discussion. The hallmark of the opposition, unlike the pattern for the preious support, has been exclusively partisan, and their stated goal has been exclusively political.

    NOT the welfare of ANYONE, much less genuinely caring about the old, or infirm, or those who are facing death. And at least some of the more egregious behavior appears to track with profits in their pockets.

    Palliative care and hospice will KILL YOU. That is sad. And untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I would echo what DG said in this way...

    First, for those of you who chose to use inflamatory rhetoric to claim that Obama's normal conclusion would be to recommend pain medication over a pacemaker, you left out extraordinarily pertinent facts. That's the epitome' of disinformation.

    When someone is 100 years old, as DG said, there is no chance their insurance - except in self-funded programs which have more discretion AND which would have to have some outstanding compelling reason - anyway, there is NO chance their insurance will pay for it EITHER - so Obama, who is NOT in administration, was making the point that AT SOME POINT end-of-life care needs to be about quality of life, about medically supported good practice, not just 'do anything at any cost.' THAT was his point - if you desire to engage in hyperbole, that's not to your credit, nor is it to Obama's discredit. Focusing on these kinds of commentary, rather than on actual facts about how the plans will behave, is also an immense distraction from the real problem. This is done, in my opinion, by people like Limbaugh, because they know that if we have a REAL conversation about REAL challenges and solutions, we might just come up with something their sponsors don't like. We might just talk civily, we might just even decide that what is good for the vast majority, even if it inconveniences the tiny, powerful minority, is still the right thing for the country as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Is 'sponsors' the word for the day, Penigma?
    What a cheap shot. The left has no new ideas these days, just slogans and catch-phrases. That's what happens when you decide it is more important to control popular culture than the intellectual high ground.

    ReplyDelete
  35. It wasn't a 'shot' at all - it was the truth as far as I see it.

    Look, are you really trying to argue someone like Limbaugh IS interested in in-depth, meaningful debate? Do you think focusing the attention of his listeners on this kind of hype is looking for moving the ball forward?

    As for sponsors, who do you think Limbaugh works for exactly? Do you think Snapple, or the RNC, or a host of other ultra-conservative groups back Limbaugh's words because he's BAD for their views?

    Whether you like it or not, it's been pretty broadly covered that we don't have real discussions any longer - we engage in EXACTLY the kind of debate which this comment thread has been - so unless you think focusing on taking Obama out of contect (about painkillers vs. pacemakers for 100 year old ladies) as Limbaugh would have us do - is meaningful, it seems rather self-evident spending time on drivel is EXACTLY the intent of those who throw out inflamatory 'facts'. They want to give their 'fans' something to 'zing' people with, to distract them from the fact that Obama's comments, when taken in context, are ANYTHING but inflamatory. You MIGHT disagree, but he's hardly a villian for saying them.

    Do you think Limbaugh's intent was to portray Obama as a reasoned, thoughtful person? Do you think the comments of Louis Farakhan are intended to develop meaningful debate or Al Sharpton's, or Mike Malloy's? It certainly appears to me the leaders of BOTH parties desire for US, the citizens, to continue to be mired in animous created of ignorance, than to engage in a real discussion. If you think otherwise, ok, but that is your opinion alone, and I didn't take a shot at anyone, cheap or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  36. part 1

    I believe Pen hit this target center on, when he wrote:

    "Look, are you really trying to argue someone like Limbaugh IS interested in in-depth, meaningful debate? Do you think focusing the attention of his listeners on this kind of hype is looking for moving the ball forward?

    As for sponsors, who do you think Limbaugh works for exactly? Do you think Snapple, or the RNC, or a host of other ultra-conservative groups back Limbaugh's words because he's BAD for their views?

    Whether you like it or not, it's been pretty broadly covered that we don't have real discussions any longer - we engage in EXACTLY the kind of debate which this comment thread has been - so unless you think focusing on taking Obama out of contect (about painkillers vs. pacemakers for 100 year old ladies) as Limbaugh would have us do - is meaningful, it seems rather self-evident spending time on drivel is EXACTLY the intent of those who throw out inflamatory 'facts'."

    I do not feel any antogonism for those who feel differently than I do - to either side, left or right. Terry was particularly thoughtful when he addressed the issue of determining numbers, how numbers can be used well, and how they can be used to deceive.

    Consistently, I have objected to the use of inflammatory terms that are used to insult people into making reactive comments that are equally offensive. We are bombarded with this kind of language, with attempts to distract from civil reasoning and candid, cordial debate with each other. We are consistenly GOADED into intransigent positions, if we listen to the prevailing influences, call them entertainment, pundits, commentators or whatever title you wish to give them.

    It is profitable for those who goad to do so. It makes money, it whips up sentiments, it fabricates interests that wouldn't be there otherwise. Reasoning in a civil way, with respect and consideration for those who differ doesn't do that.

    Don't believe me about these created controversies?

    Saturday I wrote a quick little piece about the 2 year anniversary of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis. I found a cutesy, clever way to tie in nursery rhymes like London Bridge is falling down as the 'hook' on which the piece hung, something to lighten up the information about the changes in infrastructure since the 1956 Interstate Highway act. I figured it would take a matter of a minute, maybe 2 tops, to put it up on Politicus.

    No. It still wasn't up, as of last check a few moments before accessing Penigma. I gave up; sent the story on to my editor to see if he could do it for me.

    Here is an excerpt from the email I received in return, by way of explanation:

    "Well getting it on the site today looks unlikely as the Jon Stewart/Limbaugh story tied up the site to the point where I couldn't get on for hours. It has done over 32,000 reads with 1,900 people still on the site. I was thinking about it anyway, but I upgraded our server tonight. "

    3 - 2, - 0 - 0 - 0

    over a stupid feud over issues of current events between two "entertainers".

    I have alternated between laughing my tush off, and wondering if this might spill over to boost MY reader numbers higher. (YES, utterly vain and selfish, I freely admit it!!!! and competitive to boot - normal would be around 5,000)and being really annoyed at not just MY being shut out of a site where I have limited admin access, but that the owner and editors were shut out of it as well.

    ReplyDelete
  37. part 2
    Thirty two thousand people got their knickers in a twist, their undies in an uproar, over Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh taking verbal shots at each other.

    If that doesn't crack the knob on the crazy meter, I don't know what does.

    And I wonder how many of those 32,000 people are MORE interested in personally verifying a single fact, or in trying to understand an opposing viewpoint? I'm thinking not many, because it is more FUN to watch all the hot emotions flying around, than it is for most people to do drudge reading. And sooner or later, to join in those emotions.

    We had, all of us, DAMN (sorry) well better start paying attention to each other more seriously than stupid name calling, and listening, and talking - really taking WITH each other and not AT each other. Because if we do not, we are going to continue fracturing into little separate factions, like shards of broken glass in a window.

    ReplyDelete
  38. KR-

    First, I agree your ONE post was edited, as a form of education about civility.

    Second, speaking of civility, it is uncivil, and disengenious (AT BEST) to focus on his ONE comment about a 100 year old woman who would NOT have been given a pacemaker by a private insurer either. His comment (and you seem to be ignoring my post about this) was a GENERAL comment about end-of-life care. Essentially his point was that sometimes it's wiser to treat the symptom than the illness when we are talking about people who number their age using three digits.

    This is HARDLY controversial - but attempting to overhype the issue is certainly not looking for reasoned discussion, or is calling Obama a bafoon.

    Finally, yes, if you have a good understaning of brachycardia, arhythmia etc.. you are an expert with knowledge FAR beyond that of 99.9% of the populace. It may be reasonably simple, and other than rocket science, nothing is rocket science (i.e. astro-physics) - but it is not well understood. It would take a couple of pages to describe the problems to sufficient detail the aveage layperson would understand it - and so getting worked up over the relative ease or difficulty of the procedure because of that understanding when the comment was more general, is rather (in my opinion) missing the forest for the trees.

    Finally, I understand what it takes to program a pacemaker - my comment was that the requirement to turn off all electronics is silly, and clearly they DON'T mean what they are actually saying.

    Past that, other than Richard Davis and whoever the goof-ball was who thought he could mix an explosive on a plane - 9/11 didn't really make substantive changes to airline security - we have TSA employees, we take our shoes off, you can't carry scissors, but as for complying with silly requirements like electro-magnetic frequencey side-lobe interference - that didn't stem from 9/11 and the ACTUAL impact is utterly inconsequential.

    ReplyDelete
  39. NO, K-Rod I will NOT admit that there are not 47 million Americans don't have health insurance. While the actual number may be a bit more or a bit less than this figure, it is MUCH, MUCH higher than any verified number that you have presented to us.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sorry for a lag in response but I've had computer issues the last few days. Let me respond to the first couple of posts rather than the entire list of 53.

    Actually Dog Done you either choose to misquote intentionally or by mistake. I never said in my post that Pallaitive is euthanasia. I said:
    "Now the KEY WORD is PALLIATIVE. If you didn’t know the meaning of that word (I had to look it up to hehe) it specifically deals with treating pain rather than curing a disease. This is essentially telling the patient that the state can provide you with a less painful death should the patient choose it."

    Which is not the same arguement you tried to make against my post. So I really can't comment to that portion of your arguement to you ACTUALLY address what I put in my post.

    Please note that NO WHERE in that section of the bill that we are referrencing for this discussion does it EVER discuss cures or other actions for saving life. Potential or otherwise. Therefore this is EXACTLY as it seems. This is a discussion of ending someones life as comfortably as possible. So lets review. Yes this part of the bill does indirectly discuss euthanasia. You can not reasonably dispute it if you read it. Your mistake is taking the word out of the body of the text and making an arguement that the word by itself doesn't not refer to euthanasia for which I never argued. Put the word BACK into the body of text and read it. Now argue we aren't discussing euthanasia. You can't.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dog Gone it's clear from your post you haven't read the section of the bill under discussion. It specifically uses the term END OF LIFE SERVICES. This is SPECIFICALLY a discussion regarding preparing individuals for death. It mentions Living Wills and Health Care Proxies. So please before you make comments go read what you're commenting on. This IS about consulting patients with an option to end their lives thru a pain free process. The ISSUE I have and question I pose to you Dog Gone is do you believe it's ethical to offer to a patient in pain but potentially curable a death by pain medication? I hope your answer is no. Here is where the bill gets "sticky". No where in this section does it make mention that the patient recieving this consultation need be in the determination of the physician TERMINAL. If it did I suppose I could agree that a terminal patient should be given the option to limit their pain so that they might get a view more minutes with loved ones. That they should get a consultation about living wills and health care proxies and all the other issues with ones death. However, it doesn't ever discuss the condition of the patient. It just plainly states that every 5 years an individual should get such a consultation and that pallinative care (ie pain free but not cured nor attemtping to cure a disease) is available. Now ask yourself. Does a patient in major pain really have the mind set to be making such a choice? Is this a government savings program hoping that a individual in severe pain might make the choice of pain management freeing the government for having to spend money on a cure? I don't know the answers to be honest. I just know that they don't discuss curing the patient in the consultation. Hence the fear of how this portion of the bill potenially could be twisted.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dog Gone I can't be influenced by anyone or anything I choose not to be influenced by. I find it funny how democrats and left leaning individuals find Rush and his ilk so distasteful and then swallow so much more from their own mouth pieces. The opposite is true as well if you don't mind me saying so. Rush is an entertainer. Sure he has a political slant to it but he's no different than John Daily and the Daily Show. That one side takes a comical to politics slant while the other attempts a more serious slant doesn't make them that different. They both have basis and agendas they just have different ways of framing the discussion and argument. If Rush was all powerful why haven't the Republicans followed his opinions in lock step? On many occasions Rush and the Republican party were at odds and continue to be. I would hardly call him a mouth piece for the Republican party. I would say he is someone that has a conservative agenda. But he really isn't anything more or less than someone with a message (like it or not) that uses entertainment to get it out there. Rush is first and foremost an entertainer and that's what the liberals never understood. If he wasn't entertaining no one would listen to him. Radio America learned that. John Daily would never have an audience if he wasn't an entertainer. To claim either of these people are more than entertainers is giving them more power than they deserve....and at that point it's YOU that's empowering THEM.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Penigma please site a portion of that section that specifically discusses giving this consutlation to only Terminal patients. I got news for you, I live in a country where they do EXACTLY what's discussed in this bill. This bill is mind boggling similar to many European health care plans. Please don't be fooled into believing the government won't decided....Oh gee your cure is too expensive we're just going to have to put you down. It happens a lot over here in Europe. I have personal examples of it in my own life. I have friends in several European countries that have had similar expiriences as mine. My wife can't receive treatment for a life threatening disease because the Italian government decided it's too costly. SO PLEASE do not explain to me how government health care will not be distorted and so that medical decisions become financially based. This part of the bill IS specifically a discussion on end of life not curing a patient even if one is available but is too costly.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Oh and about the lauded French system....SPARE ME. My inlaws live in France and continually moan about the two tiered system. One in which those that can afford private health care go and get it rather than stand in line for rationed health care by the state. My wife's uncle has been diagnosed with heart issues but can't be seen by a specialist for at least 1 year. He can't even have tests ordered until he sees the specialist. It could take another 6-8 months from his visit with the specialist to get the tests done. Then another 4-6 months to schedule another visit with the specialist. So it will take almost 2 years from the moment he was diagnosed with the heart issue till the moment his specialist can even begin to understand the problem. Or how about my Italian friend that lives up the street. Seven years ago he goes to the doctor with bad reoccurring head-aches. It takes almost 1 year, due to the wait on spot for a MIR, before he's diagnosed with a brain tumor. The Italian Ministry of Health Board decided that his type of cancer is so difficult to treat and the mortality rate is so high that they can't justify the expense to cure him. I wish I was lying when I tell you that the doctor gave him pain medication (sounds like palliative care) and told him to go home and organize his life and die. He even received a mandatory consultation. He was 31 years old. He is now 37 going on 38. Not because of the national health care. Nope. Because he and his family and his wifes family have spent virtually every penny they have on a cure deemed to expensive by the national health care program. Did I mention the cure comes out of the USA? Did I mention that via the private health care they've sought out he gets an MIR 2 weeks after calling for an appointment? Did I mention that he decided to do this when his first born son was only 1 years old and has watched him grow up? Now let me turn the screw a little more. His cancer has come back. He was cancer free but has recently suffered a reoccurred. His doctors faulted the lack of quick action by the initial health care providers (the state) in that they took over a year to diagnose the cancer. So it's likely that he will die....sooner rather than later. But if it had been for the state his son would never have known him. Oh and did I mention that his income tax is at 50% roughly (he installs car windows for a living it's not like he's in the top 10% income bracket). He still was obliged to pay into the health care system that denied him treatment. So please SPARE ME the argument about modeling our health care reform after ANY European style. If they do it's certaintly not going to be better than what we have now.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Just an update.

    I am WAAAAY behind in reading comments, much less responding to them.

    In part this is due to some screwy technical difficulties with blogspot that has been intermittently obstructing my accces to Penigma, which is still not completely resolved. If this has delayed posting anyone's comments, my sincere apologies; the only additional information I can offer is that I am hoping to resolve the problem sooner than later.

    But although I will address the substance of the comments as soon as I am better able, if I might briefly direct the focus back to the concept of information / disinformation. One of the other distractions from keeping au courrant with Penigma comments has been the continuing surprising volume related to a Politicus piece re: Limbaugh being angry at Jon Stewart. Last I reported back, on Saturday afternoon, volume of traffic on the blog was 32,000; necessitating a server upgrade.

    Traffic did not slow down appreciably either; by Sunday morning, it had exceeded 60,000, with site traffic at any given moment of several thousand. Clearly these were not some kind of automated site visits; comments were left, other stories were subsequently accessed, etc. Live people, very PARTISAN live people, pro and anti Limbaugh, pro and anti Stewart. I don't know at the moment, what the numbers were for yesterday and today, but my impression is they continue to run higher than usual. Doubly unusual as this tends to be a time during previous years where traffic hit a seasonal slump.

    There have been other traffic surges over topics for this blog, almost as large, not quite so sustained. But I don't think it is a fluke that these two 'entertainer' pundits are generating the big interest.

    So, now I can go back to pursuing my own learning curve about the scheduled [as opposed to UNscheduled] server upgrades, formalities of copyright legalities regarding attribution / credits for photos and other material, and suggestions for topics to include in an anticipated informal 'staff meeting'.

    Good or bad, I don't think there is anyone in EITHER elected, OR appointed government service that has an equivalent serious influence on political thought and understanding that a small, select group of 'entertainers' has.

    SHOULD it be this way? Is this a GOOD THING? Arguably NOT. But it is what it is, and from my personal perspective, it's a little disturbing and a lot surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  46. KR disengeniously said, "What?!?!?!?!?
    I strongly disagree; it is NOT "uncivil, and disengenious" to point out the disinformation Obama has spread, even if his statements are ridiculously stupid.

    Penigma, are you saying dissent of Obama and his statements is unpatriotic? "

    Please provide a quote - I don't think I ever said it was unpatriotic, but some dissent is foolish, such as this.


    "It is hard to follow the liberal "logic"; "

    NO, actually, it's pretty easy, you're hyping nonsense. It's unecessary, and so it's uncivil, further, you undoubtedly aren't stupid enough to not understand the point was about appropriateness of care - so your comment is disengenious.

    That's not hard to follow- it may be hard to admit to - but it's not hard to follow.



    "just a year ago they said dissent was patriotic but now it is "uncivil, and disengenious"."

    Dissent about a war which was badly prosecuted, poorly planned, entered into under false premise and based on lies, well then it IS dissent to question a government which behaves that way.

    Dissenting against a President for ANY reason is still patriotic because dissent is part of the American experiment, but when the dissent is wilfully distorted to present an idea even the author knows (or certainly SHOULD know) isn't truthful, then the dissent is S-T-U-P-I-D or uncivil and certainly is disengeniuous.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Jas,

    "The ISSUE I have and question I pose to you Dog Gone is do you believe it's ethical to offer to a patient in pain but potentially curable a death by pain medication?"

    ToE has said you are a quite capable and civil person in discussions, and so I'm assuming you truly think there ARE people who would suggest such things.

    Let me assure you, no one SANE should suggest such things - and I think even discussing it at any length is simply playing to fears, rather than rational discussion.

    OF COURSE it would be highly offensive to suggest pain medication and suicide as an alternate treatment to a curable disease - in the main. Of course, no one rational would truly feel such a suggestion was acceptible at all - I hope no one truly feels the President or anyone else is truly advocating euthenasia to cure.

    That said, clearly, when someone is 100 years old, operation to provide them a pacemaker is at best highly risky. Unless the patient is at high risk of death, it's almost certanly to be avoided as not the medically proscribed method of treatment.

    Further, end of life counselling exists in private insurance, it exists in the everyday ordinary world of medical care at this point. I don't think you are pretending otherwise, but it is a falsehood to suggest that such counselling is somehow akin to suggesting suicide.

    However, I will also be plain, if someone prefers to end their life, rather than undergo the harrowing ravages of end-of-life palliative chemotherapy (and in this context palliative means 'life extending') - that should be THEIR choice, not some health administrator's and sure as hell not a church, or some government.

    As well, living wills and Do Not Resussitate (DNR) orders, etc.. are common practice these days to prevent EXACTLY the kinds of extreme measures being taken to extend life when the patient prefers such actions not be taken, but might not be able to say so when time permits. This is fully legal, and fully in practice now. Including such instructions in a health care approach is prudent, not predatory.

    As for the French system, I don't believe I was lauding it, I was saying they allow for choice to seek care privately, which should be included.

    That said, their life expectancy and IMR rankings are:

    5th per this table at 80.87 (life expectancy)

    and 12th.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy


    Ours, are 30 and 33rd, respectively. So they may have flaws, but they are apparently better, on average, than our delivery.

    ReplyDelete
  48. TOE, will you admit that there are NOT 47 million Americans that CAN'T get health coverage or will you continue with Penigma to spread disinformation?

    All I am asking is you stop ducking the question and answer it with a bit of intellectual honesty. Trying to hide the truth from yourself or your God seems so terribly wrong. If we can't count on you to be honest with yourself what can we count on from you? More disinformation?


    So, KR, you were asked, time and again to justify your numbers of people who need insurance (whehther that was 10M or some other number). I don't believe you done that yet.

    Heal yourself on intellectual honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  49. KR - I rejected one of your comments.


    If you insist on quoting things out of context, and then feigning (or even I suppose actually being) offense/offended - and then spewing insult, it's going to be rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  50. KR,

    Seriously, quoting another right-wing blog and a web-video as 'evidence' of Obama's nefaarious plans is hardly evidence at all.

    Why do we spend so much time worrying about these 'Birther', 'Deather', 'Eliminator' conspiracy theory level goofiness rather than talk about actual solutions? Is an honest discussion simply not to be had?

    ReplyDelete
  51. KR asked (disengenuiously):

    "Penigma, do you deny that there are 5 million Americans that CAN'T get health coverage?"

    KR - I'm not going to play your childish game - clearly I've already indicated what I believe, it's in this thread, and it's not hard to find.

    I asked you to provide evidence/substantiate that the number of uninsured is anything close to only 10 Million, or for that matter to provide anything meaningful to substantiate it's ANYTHING substantially lower than 47 Million.

    You make claims to wanting to have a 'real debate' about the current House Resolution, yet you continue to post only the same old, tired-out, hackneyed five word cliche's.

    While I like Jas, and consider his replies civil, I don't agere with his commentary. It is NOT substantiated that because the government talks about end of life counselling that they are desiring to push people to commit suicide.

    Frankly, those kinds of accusations are 'tin foil hat' level discourse. I've spent as much time as is appropriate on it. If you want to continue to spew fear mongering, that's your call, but you will not be permitted to insult the participants of this blog.

    You aren't promoting meaningful discussion, you are attempting to bully and shout down those who don't agree with you, and I simply won't permit it.

    ToE has already told you his views as well. When you want to provide some shred of evidence that the number is meaningfully less than 47MM, we can talk. Until then, you are simply a shrill screamer attempting to constrict the discussion to claiming that 47MM is wrong (for reasons not substantiated), and that the number is a lot less, for reasons not substantiated, and that reasonable, decent people desire to implement a health plan to promote forced suicides. That's nonsense. We're far from idiots, and we'd NEVER, ever allow such a thing, and you us a great injustice to consider us that ignorant, especially when you've been shown to be wrong on so many factual points in the past. You'd think you'd learn a lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  52. K-Rod, I've made my opinion on the matter crystal clear. I have said that I think there are probably at LEAST 47 million people in the US without health insurance coverage.

    I'm going to say this slowly, so that you understand.

    1) US Bureau of the Census reports from several years ago indicated that there were 47 million people without health insurance coverage.
    2) You disagree with this figure. That's fine and you may do so if you wish.
    3) You have failed to provide any reputable or solid evidence on what you believe the number to be. (a quote from a right wing blog, or another member of this blog is not evidence)
    4) The topic of this post was disinformation. I have not been spreading disinformation about the health care plan being debated in Congress. However, I've told you over and over on this topic what I believe and you cannot or won't read what I've written.
    5) Even if the number is not exactly 47 million, its still way too high and is a problem that is harming our government, our economy and threatens all of us.

    Jas:

    When I see an elderly client in my office for a simple will, I usually have to bring up the topic of end of life measures. This includes advanced health care directives such as a living will, a power of attorney for health care, and other documents to let the PATIENT (note, PATIENT, not their doctor, or an insurance company) decide what health care they want if they are unable to communicate their needs to medical professionals. I categorically deny when I am doing this that I am encouraging them in any way to commit suicide. If any physician or other health care provider, (even if it were legal) were to administer a legal dose of a drug to a patient against their express will and desire, it would be murder. If a physician (or perhaps even insurance company) willfully withheld treatment for a treatable and curable disease from a patient AGAINST THEIR WILL, it would be manslaugher, or perhaps murder.

    Its also been the policy of American hospitals, (and I think its federal law, in fact) to ask all patients being admitted if they have a living will, and most hospitals have a basic, fill in the blank form that they offer patients if they don't have one and would like to use it. This is NOT and I repeat NOT the same thing as recommending that the patient commit suicide.

    You're making leaps of logic that aren't supported either by the legislation or by your arguments. I HAVE read the health care bill sections you're discussing, and they do NOT, regardless of what any fear monger might state, they do NOT in any way legalize or push assisted suicide.

    I am going to do some digging and find out, but I do recall from some of my pastoral care in one of our local hospitals that approximately 10 years ago it became a requirement that all hospitals ask a patient on admission if they have a living will or end of life instructions, (ALL PATIENTS, not just the terminally ill).

    ReplyDelete
  53. ThoughtsOfEternity-
    Why is it that no one actually seems to have read the document that is the source of the 47 million number?
    http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
    It is clear from the document that the 47 million number includes ten million non-Americans and 17 million with family incomes over $50k.
    I have seen this number mangled and abused time and time again by people on the pro-Obamacare side of the political divide. I have heard it used as '47 million Americans without health insurance' -- lie -- and '47 million without access to health care'--another lie.
    Here is one example of truth-bending from webmd:

    For the sixth consecutive year, the number of Americans living without health insurance has risen, according to new U.S. Census Bureau data. Approximately 2.2 million people were added to the uninsurance rolls in 2006 — the largest one-year increase in the number of uninsured Americans since 2002.

    Annual Census Bureau estimates released in August show 47 million people, or 15.8 percent of the U.S. population, were without health insurance during 2006 — a 4.9 percent increase. In 2005, census figures showed that 44.8 million people, or about 15.3 percent of the population, lacked health insurance coverage.

    The number of uninsured Americans has increased 22 percent since 2000, at which time 38.4 million people lacked health insurance.

    Note how they transition seemlessly between the the phrases 'percentage of US population' and 'Americans'. The two words do not mean the same thing at all, and the difference is important when discussing the issue of the uninsured in AMerica: nearly 90% of American citizens have health insurance. Two-thirds of non-citizens living in this country do not.


    And there is this bit of propaganda from the National Coalition on Healthcare:
    http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

    # Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1
    # The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.1
    # The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.2


    In the first bullet point they use the phrase '46 million Americans. In bullet point #3 they admit that 20% of the 46 million are not, in fact, Americans.
    As Limbaugh would say "You can't make this stuff up, folks".

    ReplyDelete
  54. KR,

    I've answered your question several times.

    Clearly I believe there are MANY MANY more than 5 Million people in the US without health insurance.

    Clearly ToE believes there are 47 M (or close) people without health insurance.

    Re-asking the same question is neither productive nor engaging in discourse.

    Terry, I agree, I'm not drawing out specific points in essay format - but let's be consistent for a moment then.

    First, you make some claims about health care numbers being propoganda - but then point to discrepencies of what 2.5M in one post (44.5 vs. 47) and 1M in another. The use of the term 'propoganda' is at best, tortured. Second, I didn't make (nor do I believe Toe) make the point that it had to be AMERICANS - but you focused on that. I offered an answer to you that it didn't matter if it was Americans, because in the end, we have to pay for ALL unreimbursed care, not just unreimbursed care for Americans - so your point about 10M non-Americans being covered was specious, and answered. Yet, you bring it up again as if you are bringing up something meaningful.

    Bluntly, I can agree I didn't tie a. to c. by stopping at b., because honestly, these comments sections (including this one) have NEVER been expected to conform to such hide-bound structuring. Yet, I'd much rather be addressing points, right on factual relevance, and making logical statements drawn from them (which I do not see you do as often), than worrying about pedantic 'essay format' concerns. I'm assuming your objections are effectively a joke. So, seriously, isn't it more relevant to discuss the point that 20% of those who don't have coverage being non-Americans as irrelevant (or relevant) than worrying about structure of argumentation?

    Finally, while you may not LIKE the structure of the argument, I think you would be hard-pressed to successfully argue that we are somehow NOT a nation under the direction and control of corporate interests (by and large) - dramatically more 'pro-business, pro-wealthy' by and large, than we were 50 years ago (whichw as addressing Jas' points). If you'd like to have that argument, rather than derail things (once again) off into drivel (like the idea of essay construct) - fine, but then, I hope you'll understand, nor have your, or Jas' and most certainly not KR's posts risen to that level either (in the main).

    ReplyDelete
  55. K-Rod:

    Your question has been asked and answered. I won't do so again.

    Terry:

    I really don't care whether people without health insurance are US Citizens or not. The immigration question is another topic, and one that perhaps this blog will tackle sometime, but that isn't the topic of this discussion. The topic of this discussion is, rightfully stated, the disinformation and outright falsehoods which have been made during the debate over health care reform. When an uninsured person needs medical care they likely as not end up in an emergency department, which can't, by law, refuse to care for them. If they have no insurance and can't pay for the care, (and emergency departments are the most expensive way to obtain medical care), then we, those who have insurance, end up paying the bill due to higher charges by hospitals, physicians, etc for their services. (A hospital doesn't ask for immigration status when treating a patient)

    As to the second part of your information, from the US Census, I reviewed the link you provided. According to the table on page 27, in 2005 there were 21% of those without health insurance who had family income over $50,000, and in 2006 that figure rose to 22.9. Now, its difficult to speculate on the reasons for that. Some of this may be the younger, single people who, if their employer doesn't offer health insurance, decide to voluntarily forego health insurance. They're taking a gamble and praying that they won't get sick. If you look at the cost of purchasing health insurance for a family of 4, however, it can be enormously expensive if the cost isn't assisted by one's employer. A decent health insurance plan that doesn't have enormous deductibles can cost from $500 to $1,000 per month depending on the health of the individuals. And, if one of the family has a pre-existing condition, insurance may be even more than that if available at all. My point is, regardless of what one makes, there are still uninsured who end up in our emergency rooms and needing medical treatment. Therefore the argument about over 20% of the uninsured having income over $50,000 (I note that in both studies, less than 10% had income above $75,000), doesn't really pertain to the central core of the debate over whether we need to reform our health care delivery system in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Penigma-
    The topic of this post was disinformation.
    I have given concrete examples disinformation used by the pro-obamacare side of the debate.

    I don't understand your (&TOE's) reluctance to address the fact that a significant portion of the uninsured (over half) are either non-citizens or make enough money to buy insurance.
    In the first case there is no country in the world that assumes the costs of treating foreigners on their soil. If you are an American & are visiting Europe when you become ill, you will be charged or the matter will be taken up with representatives of your native country. The fact that 2/3 of non-citizens have no health insurance is highly significant. One of the reasons that businesses do not offer health insurance to low-skill, low paid employees is because we have a large population of illegals who will work for low wages & no benefits. It's the classic race to the bottom.
    As for those in the over $50k/year bracket who do not have insurance, I think that there are at least three issues.
    1) In the United States we have traditionally made individuals, rather than the state, responsible for paying for their health care, either with insurance or out of pocket. If people have enough money to buy insurance but choose to spend the money on something that is less important, that is a deep moral failing which the government can address in some way other than taxing me and making it more difficult to provide myself and my family.
    2) if someone makes a good income but cannot afford health insurance or insurance that covers a pre-existing condition, this can be dealt without socializing 20% of the GDP.
    3) I suspect that the 17 million people without insurance who have incomes over $50k is exaggerated. The people who wrote the report admitted as much.

    I've heard the 'emergency room for primary care' story before. What I have not seen is real numbers that back it up. If you have a heart attack or break your leg you go to the ER regardless of your insurance situation. If you come down with a high fever on a weekend or holiday, ditto.
    I want numbers. This is a very important issue and anecdotes & appeal to emotion are signs of non-seriousness.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Therefore the argument about over 20% of the uninsured having income over $50,000 (I note that in both studies, less than 10% had income above $75,000), doesn't really pertain to the central core of the debate over whether we need to reform our health care delivery system in the US.
    I could not possibly disagree more. A significant portion of taxes are paid by poor people, people making minimum wage or a little more, often working two jobs to make ends meet. Why should their tax dollars go to subsidize the health insurance of people making a good living who simply choose not to buy insurance?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I think something no one is bringing up is that when Congress says I will be able to keep my own insurance they forget that I will not be the one that chooses if I can keep it, my employer will. These are some of the same corporate people who made loans to people with $1500 a month take home pay and a $1400 a month payment and acted surprised when they defaulted. These are the same people who ship jobs to India, Dominican Republic, China, and other third world countries and then complain that no one is spending money in the US. Does anyone really think that if they can save the company 30-40 million a year by dumping their employees into the government plan they would hesitate out of the goodness of their heart? With unemployment approaching 10% people could not just find another job they would have to get the government plan. And if that plan is so great why do they have provisions that exempt Congress and the President from having to participate?

    ReplyDelete
  59. I will discuss it more completely in a future post. However, I believe ALL federal employees (Congress, Executive, Judicial) should have to participate. No exceptions. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I think I need to say something more about the relatively wealthy people who pocket the money they should have spent on health insurance.
    The notion that insurance is optional because hospitals have to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay is an oversimplification.
    Hospitals may have to treat you, but they don't have to do it for free. They will attempt to collect every penny that is due to them. This means that they will bill you and turn your account over to a collection agency if you cannot pay them or if you refuse to pay them.
    The only way to stop the collection process is to negotiate a settlement with them or be declared bankrupt.
    There ain't no free lunch. A hospital may have to treat you without regard to your ability to pay, but they sure as heck can damage your financial future.

    ReplyDelete
  61. K,

    In one breath you accuse me of lying (posted incidentally immediately after I AGAIN answered you), in the next, you admit I've answered you... whatever. Your question was answered several times previously, and then directly AGAIN - clearly, OBVIOUSLY, when I post statistics that say there are 47M uninsured, and then argue that such statistics are to be believed - I OBVIOUSLY am saying such statistics are sufficiently correct as to be useful and relevant. This seems to be one of your key logical hurdles, you seem to think that making claims, however erroneous, unless you say I BELIEVE OBAMA IS FROM KENYA, carries no responsbility for the claimant. I however, think that saying something I don't believe is lying (unless I point out that I'm joking or playing the devil's advocate), and further I think asking questions like DO YOU REALLY THINK OBAMA IS A CITIZEN, means that people should reasonably believe I think otherwise (again unless I say something like - oh, I really think he is, but I want your opinion). Again, asking those kinds of questions is disengenuious if you think the answer to the question is 'yes he's a citizen.' Asking those kinds of questions is disinformation about yourself at best and a distraction, wilful attempt to confuse the situation at worst, which can be reasonably described as disengeniuous conduct.

    My question for you continues to be, what ESTIMATE do you suggest is correct for the number of uninsured in the US? Please answer this question - please provide some support for your answer.

    You further seem to think that asking loaded, ludicrous questions, like WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ADMIT THAT THERE ARE NOT 47 MILLION PEOPLE IN AMERICA WHO CAN'T GET HEALTH INSURANCE? WHEN WILL YOU STOP SPREADING DISINFORMATION?! - has meaning, it doesn't.

    Those who've not spent their time spewing knee-jerk eptithets and paid attention, note that several people, including me, have said that there obviously may be minor variances in the actual numbers, of even as much as 2.5 M, both from year to year, and because such measurements could NEVER EVER be 100% correct. However, that doesn't make the aggregate figure incorrect to use as a reference point when discussing how large the problem is. It is, after all, an ESTIMATE. Claiming such a position is disinformation is purely, oh, especially from an Engineer - well, it's purely disinforomation.

    ReplyDelete
  62. As for your comments about O'Neill - you call him a moron. Name call much?


    On taxation, there is a reason Jackson MS is not the epicenter of the business universe, and places like Minneapolis and NYC are - there are abundent qualifed and educated workers in the latter, and a paucity of infrastructure in the former - so O'Neill, who was FAR more successful than Bush as a business person - apparently knew something the rest of the business community knew as well. Your comments about maximizing profitibility are at best a gross oversimplification of reality - business OFTEN make decisions based on risk rather than profitibility, on public image, rather than profitibility - etc..

    Lastly, you attempt to shrowd yourself in the flag (USA, USA, USA), while then expressing disdain and even (apparently) disregard for the plight of illegal alients by suggesting we 'look after ourselves first.' In order that I deal with your undoubted unreasoned reply about (post a quote or STFU) let me be clear, when you say 'look after AMRREICANS FIRST', it carries the implication that we should not pay for care for illegal aliens. Perhaps you should have read my post more carefully - post a quote where I said we shouldn't look after Americans - but either way, the fact is that we don't get a choice in paying for emergency room care for someone who fails to present an ID. The law requires such facilities to treat EVERYONE who shows up to the point that they are at least stable/not going to die. I wasn't advocating for covering ILLEGAL aliens under any plan - but the fact is they ARE covered right now by US, the tax payers whether you like it or not. Nationalized health care, in any form, will neither change that upward nor downard, so it remains the case that there are AN ESTIMATED 47 Million people in the US without health care. If you want to post meaningful evidence to the contrary, fine, but you need to cease with the insults. I'd also suggest you post information which is germane without the blithering chants - frankly, your comments about USA! etc.. could certainly be seen as xenophobic/ethno-centric - and don't do you justice. In my mind, America's greatness in part comes from embracing the 'melting pot', not running from it. That said, I really don't support paying for primary care for illegal aliens - there are some benefits of being a citizen which are not transferable, and national welfare programs really ought to be one of them. However, I also don't have a suggestion for what to do with them in general, because NOT paying for preventive care is actually MORE costly than paying for emergency care.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Terry said:

    "I don't understand your (&TOE's) reluctance to address the fact that a significant portion of the uninsured (over half) are either non-citizens or make enough money to buy insurance."

    There was no reluctance, I've addressed it several times (as pertains to non-citizens.

    Further, if they are LEGAL aliens, they deserve full coverage, period.

    As for comments about either low income people NOT contributing, frankly, I believe they SHOULD contribute in proportion to their ability to pay - as we have done with progressive income taxes. However, obviously, you really CANNOT, if it truly costs $7500/person for health insurance, ask a family of four to pay $30,000 if their income is $50,000. You really can't even ask a family making $75,000 to fork over that kind of money.

    I hope I've adequately addressed your latter question. As I had not seen it addressed to me in the past, I don't feel there was any 'reluctance' and I've bene pretty clear about the former question in the past. It doesn't matter if they are aliens - they drive up expense - so we have to have some way to account for that unreimbursed care. You've said the same yourself in your last post (it seems to me) - so we pretty clearly are in agreement.

    The only question is, to what extent do you pay for preventive care for illegal aliens, and how - past perhaps a nationala sales tax?? - would you get them to pay for it?

    ReplyDelete
  64. We've spent 80 plus comments talking about the validity of Census Bureau data - rather an enormous and fairly meaningless distraction.

    Spending time on whether aliens should be covered is more meaningful, but whether covering the 14 Million or so illegal aliens in the US get primary health care coverage probably won't make a dramatic change in the cost of health care.

    Spending time on whether the working poor can afford SOME of their costs, is meaningful as a philosophical argument, but it won't change the overal cost of health care very much - in fact, in aggregate, it only changes WHO pays, not really how much we pay.

    Consequently, all of these points are to some extent (some greater than others) a distraction. We are spending time on less than meaningful points - meaning, we're nibbling at the edges of the problem. That's precisely what I attempted to avoid by dealing with the frivolous arguments around malpractice and administrative costs.

    Instead we're spending time on other nonsense...

    Well, we're not the only ones, apparently:

    http://centrisity.blogspot.com/2009/08/rationing.html

    and

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/05/politics/main5215880.shtml?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

    Notable, that it's a flat-out myth that anyone is advocating for forced euthenasia. We've avoided most of the rest - though rationing has been mentioned obliquely.

    We'd do much better to talk about how to pay for all of this - and about how to get control of costs, than quibbling over whether it's 44.5 M or 47 M.

    ReplyDelete
  65. KR said two things:

    "I don't support increasing the deficit to almost $5 trillion."

    KR - the deficit for 09 just passed 1 Trillion, with federal tax receipts down 22% - so obviously that means a significant portion of the deficit for 09 is in part created from a HUGE economic downturn. However, adding $2.5 T to somthing undefined isn't factually supported, where is the OTHER 2.5 coming from?

    That said, don't put words in my mouth about what I support or don't support. I didn't ask you a fatuous little question like "So are you saying there AREN'T 5 Million blah blah" creating an impression that I SUPPORT deficits of 2.5 Trillion, let alone 5 Trillion. The ONLY thing I've said agrees with a point George Bush made after he was elected (interestingly lying about haveing said during the campaign) - that deficits really are only appropriate in a national crisis. He stole the reasons from Al Gore, who talked about economic crisis, military conflict (and a third reason I no longer recall). But no big surprise that Bush would steal from Gore and lie about it.

    My comments have been that Obama is an awful situation - he is and was facing a massive financial collapse - in such situations I support deficit spending, not without limit, but SOME. To this point I am comfortable with his decisions, I don't love them all, but I DO, in aggregate support them.

    What I find gauling in the extreme, however, is to hear 'fiscal hawk' talk coming from poeople who voted for Bush (and Reagan). You all bitch about deficits and programs you don't like, but NEVER EVER have stopped spending far faster than the Democrats in the same positions. You just spend differently, including taking things like the Iraq war 'off-book' to mask your debt creation. You ALSO pass vast tax cuts for the rich which the rest of us have to carry the burden for - which will have the eventual effect of bankrupting the government.

    Do you support bankrupting the government?

    "59.9 - 12.6 = 47.3 - 18 = 29.3 - 9.4 = 19.9 - 8.4 = 11.5 million Americans haven't signed up for government health programs!!!"

    Please identify your plusses and minuses and where those numbers come from.

    ReplyDelete
  66. K-Rod, I think Penigma's cost-per-insured is too high by at least a factor of two. From what I can find on the web insuring a family of four costs between $1000 and $1500 per month in a group plan.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Terry,

    Let's take these two groups and deal with them seperately.

    The non-citizens: As Penigma has said, if they are a lawful permanent resident (under any classification) then for the purposes of this discussion, they should be treated as a citizen. Be eligible for insurance (regardless of what is eventually decided in this debate). If they are an illegal alien, we can't simply turn someone away at an emergency room, and I think you agree with that statement. I don't know how many illegal immigrants receive their health care at emergency departments, but I will try and find some numbers for you. I think we're in agreement that an emergency department isn't the most cost effective way to receive primary health care. (I'm not talking about care for a heart attack, or a high fever and sore throat. Those are clearly ER cases. Primary care is obiously something different) Now: Do we need to provide emergency care for illegals? Absolutely, at least to stabilize them and prevent death. What we do with them after that is more in line with an illegal immigration topic. (I still like TTucker's suggestion that we care for them and then bill their home country's government)

    As for those who are US Citizens and don't have health insurance, let's see: I went online yesterday and got an "instant quote" posing as a family of four. The lowest cost was $500 per month and that was with an enormous deductible and pretty crappy coverage. The best plan was nearly $1,100 per month.

    I then spoke with a collegue who is in private practice and does bankruptcy law. I asked him to provide me with an average expense list for a family of 4 with anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000 of income. Here's what he provided me:
    Housing (mortgage/rent) $1,500
    Electricity and Gas 250
    Water & Sewer 75
    Telephone 100
    Cable/Internet 75
    Home Maintenance 75
    Food 800
    Clothing 100
    Medical and Dental 50
    Transportation 500
    Recreation/Entertainment 50
    Insurance (life, auto) 250
    Auto Loan 600
    Total 4,425

    Let's take a $50,000 per year income. That is $4,166 per month BEFORE taxes. Doesn't quite add up does it? (Note: Health insurance cost was NOT added on here) Add $500 to $1,000 per month for health insurance and even a family of four with $50,000 is not making ends meet. Income of $75,000 is $6,250 per month before taxes, so its a bit more realistic to ask them to pay, but statistically, a person with $75,000 per month income also will have higher living expenses. The point of me providing all this information is to explain why I think the fact that we have more than 20% of the 47 million people who don't have health insurance making more than $50,000 isn't germane to the debate over dealing with rising health care costs and reigning in the costs.

    You are correct, Terry, in that if someone with money and no insurance ends up in the ER, the hospital will send them a bill, and most of the hospitals will then hound them until its paid. It might surprise you to know that in my office, one of the most common reasons for consumer bankruptcies is medical bills. Most of my clients who are bankrupt aren't people who went on a spending spree. They had lost their job and the health insurance, and then had a medical problem. Facing thousands and thousands of dollars in medical bills, bankruptcy is the only solution. In those cases, the medical providers get nothing, and who ends up paying? We all do through increased costs.

    The reason its important that we take steps to make sure that everyone has insurance and/or a way to pay for their medical care is to help contain costs for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Terry said:

    "K-Rod, I think Penigma's cost-per-insured is too high by at least a factor of two. From what I can find on the web insuring a family of four costs between $1000 and $1500 per month in a group plan."

    Terry, those two things are not the same.

    I didn't make any comment about cost per insured, I noted cost per CAPITA - that's completely different. One is about billed expense to insured participants, the OTHER captures total expenses per person in the country of health care costs, including tax burdens to pay for unreimbursed care.

    Please ask me for clarification about my words, rather than doing something most people consider rude, which is to talk around someone, rather than to them.

    ReplyDelete
  69. KR said, "Penigma, seriously, quoting another far-left-wing blog is certainly spending time on nonsense"

    Ah, well then, I guess posting a comment from Shot in the (Dark) Onion was meaningful in contrast. Berg's blog is a right-wing blog - so unless you think that right-wing blogs are somehow inherently more sensible, and please say so if you do, then quoting a right-wing blog is spending time on nonsense by that same measuere, isn't it? If so, why did you quote it? Was your post a joke? Do you NOT believe what Berg said? Was what Berg said nonense on it's face because it was from a blog?

    KR, you so continuously operate in this hypocritical vaccuum of not seeing your own exactly equal conduct to that which you complain about you seem to FAIL utterly to see how foolish you make yourself appear and how easily you can be chastised for it. Your only apparent reply seems to be asking either loaded, ludicrous questions asserting we believe things we've never said OR focusing on hair-splitting differences between what you've said and what can be reasonably inferred OR making inflammatory comments about the conduct of good people. Please, you are capable, move away from this form of argumentation.

    As for the point you're trying to make - I might agree with your premise on two conditions:

    First, you post things from Joshua Goldberg, a right-wing screed author roundly debunked - I'm assuming at this point you'll disavow his writing as nonsense since he's a 'right wing' writer, not really different from a 'right wing' or 'left wing' blogger? If you agree to say what Jonah Goldberg said was nonsense, I'm fine with saying blogs are nonsense.

    Second, in truth posts from ANY blog, if they are actually pointing to underlying articles which present cogent facts are hardly nonsense. Dismissing them out of hand IS.

    If the blog presents a coherent, logical and well-reasoned argument it isn't nonsense, it's informative. I assume you find educationg yourself by reading informative commentary to be anything but nonsensical - assuming you'll agree, then I suggest your comment above was 'nonsense', and assume you'll agree it was exagerative and overplayed at least.

    So, assuming you'll disavow Goldberg and agree that painting with FAR too broad a brush and impugning ANY blog with a bias especially that neither left nor right blogs are somehow imbued with 'less' nonsense - then I'll agree that your comment was nonsense because dismissing something simply because of it's URL source is intellectually bankrupt. But I'll also agree that you are consistent in your commentary at least here, have ceased with the hypocrisy, where you want to include potentially unedited Wiki sites as FACT - which is different that using them as a point for discussion (as you have done re: Liberal Fascism), where you want to quote Mitch Berg, but then want to discmissively wave-off something from a left-wing blog.

    Yes, I will agree with that.

    ReplyDelete
  70. OMG -
    ROFLMAO- Mitch Berg (a right-wing bog which posts things in an ineherently inflammatory way) such as - "Anti-semitism is a key tenet of the American left" is more sensible than EVERY LEFTY BLOG.

    Wow - talk about nonsense. Well, anyway KR, thank you for stepping on that landmine and exposing just how extraorinarily 'out there' your viewpoint comes from. EVERY leftyblog is nonsense, but a blog dedicated and ADMITTED TO by it's author as refusing to acknowledge the inherent counter-arguments and weaknesses of it's own political party - THAT blog is more sensible than EVERY lefty blog..

    Wow - no, really, WOW!

    May I please direct you to:
    Factcheck.org
    Mediamatters.org
    Pleasecutthecrap.com

    just to start..wow.

    And then there's this whopper..

    Obama caused our financial crisis..

    REALLY??

    HE, not anyone else, caused 85 banks to fail. HE, caused Bush to fail to prevent Lehman Brother's collapse. HE caused the French to fail to back a hard-currency security in 2007, starting in many ways the run on credit confidence.

    OMG, ROFLMAO again.. Wowowowow, unbelievable.

    KR, you have just exposed how increadibly uninformed you are about the current financial situation to the point your opinion no longer merits reply. I give you credit for knowing somethings about heart illness most people (including I) did not know, but you don't know your hat from cattle on finance. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  71. On to the rest of your silliness:

    Finally, KR, you don't GET to add 2.5 T to this year's deficit - btw, we are NOT 6 months into 2009, we're 8, but moreover, we're 10 into Fiscal Year 2009. Your rather paltry understanding of the FY caused you to double 1.0 into 2.0 and then your equally imprecise valuation said 2.0+2.5=5. Now normally, I'd let that slide, but you are SOOO pedantic in other areas, I don't feel like it this time. First, 22% of THIS FY's budget comes from lower tax revenue - second a LARGE chunk comes from a one-time only stimulus, that won't exist in FY10 - Third, health care HASN"T BEEN PASSED AND WON'T APPLY TO FY09, so you don't add it to FY09. If we take out 22% tax receipt shortfalls, we're at 800B. If we take out the stimulus, we're close to 200B. You've aggrandized the problem into meaningless exageration once again.

    Finally, as regards your numbers on uninsured. First, it does NOT matter if some are aliens, we have to pay for the care in the end - either way, we pay for it when they use the ER, or we 'pay' for it through primary care delivery.

    Second, since when did YOU get to decide what other people can afford? You righties admonish the left for saying the rich can afford something, but you hypocrictically claiim the poor can???? At least the rich actually DO have spare capital.

    Third, please substantiate your numbers, you explained them, but you hardly substantiated them.

    Fourth, the only segment of your list that we are in agreement on is people who simply chose not to have health care, but who could CLEARLY afford it - that segment should foot their own bill - but you know what, they do, They get billed for their care by ER's, and are obligated to pay the bil or file bankruptcy.

    However, just like in car insurance, someone who doesn't have any accidents, doesn't "NEED" insurance (conceivably), yet they participate. In part because they don't know when they might get in an accident (or sick unexpectedly to merge the comparison), and in part because we understand that burden sharing works in insurance to drive down average costs per consumer. Your methodology for counting works only if those people GUARANTEE they won't get sick, for if they do, and they 'voila' find out they can't afford the care, WE wind up paying anyay.

    Again, your arguments are simplistic and ignore essential elements of who is not covered and what the impact is of such circumstance. You also (hypocritically) are claiming you know better than THEY do on what those people who are uninsured SHOULD be spending their money on. Finally, you fail to account for the fact that most of them are paying into our tax system, and so, in part, ARE paying for health care.

    ReplyDelete
  72. BTW, KR, you claim you complained about deficits during Bush, but there is a difference between just complaining and acting.

    Who did you vote for in 2000? Assusming you learned your lesson, which party received your votes for Congress in 2002, and 2006 how about for President in 2004?

    Obviously I don't know where you live, but I'm going to guess you voted:

    Bush 2000
    Republican 2002, 2006
    Bush 2004
    McCain 2008

    Am I correct? Actions, not words.

    ReplyDelete
  73. First, you post things from Joshua Goldberg, a right-wing screed author roundly debunked - I'm assuming at this point you'll disavow his writing as nonsense since he's a 'right wing' writer, not really different from a 'right wing' or 'left wing' blogger? If you agree to say what Jonah Goldberg said was nonsense, I'm fine with saying blogs are nonsense.

    Here is one such 'debunking' of Goldberg by a liberal critic:

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history

    And here is Goldberg's response:
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzNjM2E2YzgzOWVmZjg0ZDNkZjYyMTMwNTVlNjg4ODc=

    ReplyDelete
  74. Terry,

    Goldberg's understanding of history is at best, dwarfed. My POINT however was that KR had a double-standard. Unless you agree that ONLY lefties are biased, I assume you can understand how his comments, when he'll use an unsubstantiated whacko like Goldberg, and quotes from right wing blogs, are somewhat, oh, hypocritical? Further, that they expose him as nothing less than tin-foil hat level biased?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Based on a request...

    'K-Rod has left a new comment on your post "Life and Death And Disinformation":

    "I'm going to say this slowly,"
    Oh, really "father", so WWJD?"

    ToE - reply as you like.

    KR, you may reply ONLY to ToE's response. You may ONLY do so civily. If you don't like your comments being called assinine, or similar comparatives, improve your comments. If you post anything other than a respectful reply, anything disrespectful will be removed prior to posting whatever remains of your comment.

    Other than replying to that comment - you are NOT allowed to post here until 9/6/09

    ReplyDelete
  76. K-Rod,

    My first response to your questions about What Would Jesus Do is that is is not really germane to the topic of disinformation. However, I will answer it anyway.

    Jesus healed the sick, the lame, and those with evil spirits. (Today they would probably be diagnosed with epilepsy or a mental illness) He did so without asking anything in return. He healed without asking citizenship, without asking for identity papers, and without asking for an insurance card (not that they had insurance then). Therefore, I say to you, in answer to what I think Jesus would do in this situation?

    Jesus' Great Commandment in John 13:34-35 was "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." The actions of those who would deny health care to anyone based on citizenship or legal status in this country isn't one of love, and it certainly isn't an act of Christian charity.

    I think Jesus would advocate for the idea that all should have access to medical care regardless of their ability to pay. While the concept of medical or health insurance was unknown in biblical times, care for the poor is also a central Christian teaching. Care for the poor includes more than feeding, clothing and housing. It includes providing medical care if needed.

    Now, that being said, if someone can afford medical care, or insurance, then they certainly should pay for it. Sadly, the Republican party in this debate is presenting the perception that they wish to maintain the status quo, which will include maximizing profits for pharmaceutical companies, medical providers and the like, and leaving those less fortunate to fend for themselves. While that may not be their policy, perception is incredibly important in politics. For a party which has a huge base in the Christian right, one has to wonder how this is justified from the standpoint of What Would Jesus Do.

    What do you think Jesus would do?

    ReplyDelete
  77. KR, Terry, you should also know that recently, when our FRIEND Mitch found himself on the receiving end of a really rotten bit of blogging nastiness, I assume you will remember the post in question? both Pen and I rallied round Mitch, offered our support, and offered to write something in his defense, and in defense of ethics and civility, here. He declined, only to let the situation recede -- we respected Mitch's preference.

    So, understand the difference in how we prefer to deal with hostility. NOT with more hostility.

    ReplyDelete
  78. DG,

    That's kind of you to say,

    I hope you'll understand if I say I find having it pointed out makes me uncomfortable. I do not seek accolade, I feel my conduct supporting my friend is between me and my friend. I try very hard to stand up for what's right. He is my friend, and I will defend him from unreasoned attack at all turns. Ironic isn't it that we were defending him from lefty-bloggers?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Penigma & Dog Gone-
    I commented on the topic of liberal fascism because I think the relation between 'American Progressivism' and fascism is interesting.
    I own a copy of Goldberg's book and have actually read a few chapters of it.
    I think that Goldberg is right more often than he is wrong. Griffin is often quoted as response to Goldberg. Goldberg is a pundit with a lowly liberal arts degree. Griffin is an academic historian who has made fascism the center of his study. Griffin believes 'palingenesis' is a definitive aspect of fascism that does not apply to marxism or progressivism.
    Palingenesis means that fascism is focused on the past, as a sort on mythological 'golden age' that fascism attempts to recreate.
    The problem with this as a discriminator is that a) the adherents of fascism seemed to know that no such 'golden age' was ever a historical reality and b) the golden future that Marxism (and American Progressivism) demand that we hold allegiance to is no more real than an imagined Golden Age in the past. The mytholgical 'Golden Age' exists merely serve as a buttress to nationalism, because every nation must have a have myth as its foundation. Palingenesis is a sideshow, not the center ring.
    I believe Griffin realizes this, even if he never says it explicitly.
    The idea that binds fascism, Marxism, and American Progressivism together is that there is a Golden Age in the future, and that man can achieve it as an act of collective will.
    If you think that nationalism is then a defining characteristic of fascism and (thank God) American Progressivism is not nationalistic, think again. Nations don't have to have borders, or even hold territory. A nation can be thought of as a community that is organized on the basis of a shared myth of foundation. If communities share physical and economic space, but have different founding myths, you have nations as distinct and as alienated from one another as, well, Jews and Palestinians.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Terry, I'm still chewing my way through reading Griffin, and waiting for the interlibrary loan copy of liberal fascism to arrive.

    Off topic, but yes, I am still working on the fascism series. I can only ask for your patience in the interim.

    In the meantime, for all of the assertions that Limbaugh is an entertainer, and therefore not apparently responsible for making accurate statements, the same cannot be said of Sarah Palin who is now claiming Obama 'death panels' will be intending to kill old people, and children with disabilities like her down's syndrome child Trig. The hubris of this disinformation is that under Palin, the Alaska medicare and medicaid was so badly mismanaged that the feds had to shut it down, and some 250 people, most of them elderly and vulnerable, DIED. This is somewhat unique in terms of the feds and other states. http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/864670.html

    Not 'Obamacare' death panels; Palin was the scary one when it came to medical matters, and real people really dying.

    ReplyDelete
  81. for those who would claim that Palin while governor of Alaska did not have knowledge or responsibility for the problems with medicare and medicaid in her state, I suggest looking at the first line of the first page, upper left hand corner of this:
    medicaidalaska.com/.../AK_Provider_Application_Standard.pdf - Similar -

    ReplyDelete
  82. More innuendo, Dog Gone?
    Do you know who oversees the Alaskan Medicaid program? Do you when these problems started, or what Palin has or has not done to try to correct them?
    I don't think you even care.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Terry said...
    More innuendo, Dog Gone?
    Do you know who oversees the Alaskan Medicaid program? Do you when these problems started, or what Palin has or has not done to try to correct them?
    I don't think you even care."

    You would be wrong Terry. First of all when this came to my attention, I read everything I could turn up using a couple of different search engines, which produced several items, including the pdf that has the medicaid / medicare applications going out under Palin's imprimateur - which I believe makes it legit to assert she knew or should have known what was going on. I also researched the organization that is responsible for bringing most of the law suits on behalf of the low income / poverty level individuals who were found to have been denied their benefits, the Northern Justice Project. THEN, I exchanged a series of probing emails with the person who wrote the article that brought the whole thing to my attention.

    Upshot, Palin did little or nothing to correct the situation; in fact she spent pretty much all of her efforts in the area of health and human services exclusively on involving herself in the wording of proposed legislation requiring parental notification for abortion; and she appears to have refused to be available for any efforts for this area. However, she had a lot of time to be busy as a celebrity away from her job as governor.

    Last but not least I explored her statements made during the campaign for veep on the subject of medicaid and medicare. The woman is at best ill informed, at worst, indifferent to those who need help.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Let me know if you want a summary of the medicaid / medicare problems in alaska btw. I only went back as far as 2000, but that covers this becoming a problem on Palin's watch and the unprecedented neglect.

    ReplyDelete

  85. The hubris of this disinformation is that under Palin, the Alaska medicare and medicaid was so badly mismanaged that the feds had to shut it down, and some 250 people, most of them elderly and vulnerable, DIED.

    Sigh.
    Five minutes of research showed that this program was not medicare and medicaid, it was a program designed to keep people in their homes or with their family rather than a nursing home. It began in 2000, and increased dramatically in cost -- tenfold between 2000 & 2005. The 2.5 year period mentioned began before Palin took office as governor. It was directed by a hanger-on from the Murkowski administration until the middle of 2008, when Palin replaced her.
    A web search showed that the article you linked to, Dog Gone, was the basis for dozens, if not hundreds of left-wing blog & political sites in the last few days.
    Palin resigned her position as governor two weeks ago.
    None of these left wing blogs carried a counter-article, http://www.adn.com/guestcolumns/webextra/story/882095.html which pointed out that the people who died were in nursing homes or hospitals in a queue to be approved for home care.
    Your accusation, that these people died because of Palin's mismanagement of medicare and medicaid, is shoddy, shabby, and a sham.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Five minutes of research showed that this program was not medicare and medicaid, it was a program designed to keep people in their homes or with their family rather than a nursing home."

    Do more than five minutes worth of reading Terry. This was still a medicaid / medicare funded program, providing services more cheaply to people in their homes rather than other kinds of care. The breakdown of those who died fall into two categories, those who had not been given the evaluation they required to receive care, and those who did not have care they were approved for provided. If you like I can send you to the sites where waivers for receiving this care were being modified, etc., as the problem developed.

    You remember that application form under Palin's name and title? 61% of the medicaid /medicare money spent in alaska is federally provided, while the program is essentially state administered. Palin was remiss in allowing large numbers of people to be denied care and coverage they qualified for, and for not following up on why so many many people were still not being evaluated - left waiting in line so to speak. Do you think there are no other states with similarly rising medicaid / medicare costs other than alaska? think again. None of those other states required the feds to shut down taking new people, or massive reviews.

    I looked at both conservative and liberal sources in my search, and I looked at them critically.

    It is a fair criticism that Palin spent more time and energy on stupid personal stuff like her feud with Letterman than she did on the care needed for people's lives and health. If you look at things like the time she spent away from office, and the quality of her understanding about medicaid and medicare from fact checking sources, she does not come out very well for accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  87. The hubris of this disinformation is that under Palin, the Alaska medicare and medicaid was so badly mismanaged that the feds had to shut it down, and some 250 people, most of them elderly and vulnerable, DIED.
    You have little cause to accuse anyone of not doing their fact checking after writing a paragraph like the above, Dog Gone.
    1) Alaska Medicare/Medicaid was not "shutdown" during the administration of Palin or any other AK governor.
    2)The 250 people who died did not all die when Palin was governor.
    3)The home care program was in such deep trouble in 2005 (before Palin became governor) that the AK state legislature ordered reorganization and cost cutting measures.
    4)A result of these cost-cutting measures by the state legislature was a long wait for initial/secondary nurse visitations.

    Your reference to the Palin/Letterman feud is egregious. It reminds me of what low-life lefties said about Palin: that she was a bad mom for getting into national politics because her kids needed her.

    PDS: Palin Derangement Syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Terry, I did not state that all of the parties involved died under Palin's administration. Nor did I state that all of medicaid / medicare was shut down; but it is a major problem when no new patients who qualify for care, who need care and services, can be accomodated, when intake is shut down. FOR MONTHS ON END. That is a bad bad screw up.

    1. Palin was aware of the problem when she assumed office; she did not take anything like adequate action to clear up the existing problem OR to keep additional problems from piling up.

    2. Palin failed to follow logical steps, such as reviews of deaths, that the federal administration found to be a basis for criticism. While it could be argued that this was an oversight, it is also true that without those reviews of fatalities, Palin could better try to hide both the scope and severity of the problems -- it was in her interest to avoid those reviews.

    3. the feds had to find out that the problems were as bad as they had gotten from complaints that went outside the jurisdiction of Palin's administration, and subsequently, the feds found out from law suits. Not the pattern with other states; another item which suggests cover up rather than transparency and accountability.

    4. those cost cutting measures are still in place, and changes have been instituted to keep the problems from escalating and to manage existing problems. Palin is faulted for failing to competently and responsibly administer where others are now doing so under close federal supervision within the same limitations and resolving the prblems.

    Terry says:"Your reference to the Palin/Letterman feud is egregious. It reminds me of what low-life lefties said about Palin: that she was a bad mom for getting into national politics because her kids needed her."

    I have spoken out here and on Sitd in defense of Palin and against Letterman, and against the awful things that were done re: Trig.

    But neither has Palin been a very conscientious governor; she has been the source of a new acronym GINO, governor in name only, for having spent more time and energy promoting herself in the media and outside of alaska, than she has focussed on doing her job since the end of the vice presidential campaign. You make an unfair criticism there.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Terry, at what point, given the relatively small population of alaska, would you agree that it was appropriate to fault Palin for failing to address their problems with medicaid and medicare?

    Is it ok for 250 people to have died because of staffing problems, problems that could have been prevented; but 300 or maybe 500 are just too much? How many people is it ok to have in more expensive care that could be taken care of more cheaply at home? How many that became more severely ill because of waiting for the care for which they were eligible? Eight lawsuits are ok, no fuss, but ten or twenty are enough to take seriously?

    Keep in mind that this is the woman who is asserting "death panels" will be putting her son and parents at risk, while if not outright rejecting, at least objecting to stimulus money that could have been used for a variety of problems, including health care jobs.

    This is the woman who was bragging about how self sufficient financially Alaska was while taking some of the highest percentages of federal medicaid money compared to other states, but providing crummy service with it.

    This is the woman who as governor didn't care enough to do her job very well, but faults others who are trying harder than she did to improve services nationally with bogus attacks, complete fabrications.

    So, how bad should it be before it is fair to fault Palin, whose name and office were right there on top of every medicaid application, all the while going on and on and on about how much you love the state and its people? That gives a new definition to tough love all right.

    Is it just possible that YOU aren't willing to hold her fairly accountable because she was the darling of some conservatives and republicans? Would you be just as tolerant of a democratic or liberal governor who was gone so much, who focussed so much time nd effort on other things, many of them trivial things? I don't think so. I'm not saying you intentionally apply a double standard, but that you should consider the possibility that you aren't being fair.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I am absolutely no fan of Sarah Palin's. I've written of her critically in other posts on this blog. But, I want to make one gentle correction here: The fact that Sarah Palin's name appears at the top of an application form does not indicate she has any clue what's being asked on that form, nor is it an indication that she approved the form. State agencies often use state letterheads at the top of forms that they create, and its not common practice for those agencies to ask the Governor's approval before the form goes out.

    Sarah Palin MAY be responsible for the problem in other ways, including failure to adequately supervise or manage the people who were directly responsible, but she isn't responsible simply because they used letterhead at the top of the form.

    ReplyDelete
  91. ToE the entire population of alaska is smaller than some of the larger metropolitan areas in the U.S.

    Given the statements Palin has made about death panels, her statements about medicare / medicaid made while campaining for vice president, and the fact that it was known there was a problem in the state when she took office, I think it is absolutely reasonable to hold her responsible for the deterioration that included deaths. While there were cost issues prior to her assuming office, most of the deaths occurred in a 2 1/2 year period that largely encompasses her term of office. That form is not the only item which argues for accountability; were it stand alone, I would agree with you. As part of the cumulative information, I think it is fair and reasonable to hold her accountable for what is done in her name. Not to know, is negligent.

    ReplyDelete
  92. DG, please understand me: I did not wish to imply that Sarah Palin wasn't incompetent or even worse, intentionally derelict in her duties as Governor of Alaska. I think she did a great disservice to the people of that great state, and she's going to be a continuing liability to the Republican Party.

    Unfortunately, her continued and intentional disinformation and outright lies about health care form shows that the Republican Party will do anything to make its real masters happy. (I.e. large companies including but not limited to the pharmaceutical companies). Eventually, it will come home to bite them even worse, but the American public has to be shown that these lies are exactly what they are. They aren't mistakes. They aren't exaggerations. Lies.

    ReplyDelete
  93. A clarification; while I hold Palin accountable for what happened on her watch as governor, I don't want it to appear that I think she was the only person to bear responsibility. The buck stops at her desk, but it bounced on quite a few more before it reached Palin. However, Palin had the power at the top, and that means the responsiblity goes with it.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I don't see much charity in the current corporate health care system. In fact, I see companies interested in more profit without really caring whether their products help people. I see insurance companies denying people for prior existing conditions, and when they aren't denying people for that, they are looking for any reason not to pay the claim.

    You asked, perhaps Tongue in Cheek, What would Jesus do. While it is not your or my place to know the mind of God, I think that Jesus' teachings about charity and care for the poor give an excellent example of what Jesus would do. Would He use the government to accomplish this goal? I don't know, since government at the time was utterly uninterested in any health for anyone except the Roman officials, and health care as we know it today didn't exist. Nevertheless, my point is: Jesus didn't care about insurance. He didn't care whether or not people could pay him for his services. He was interested in making people well again, so they could love and praise the Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Alright, back and my apologies for another long delay. I've been struggling with a dying (now dead) computer. Last Saturday I broke down and bought a new one (old one was 7 years old). If ANYONE is still reading these posts let me state that

    1) I am not saying that the current bill calls for doctor assisted sucide.

    2) I am saying that the bill is open to a lot of interpretation.

    3) Every nation that has nationalized health care also has rationing and frequently denies "cures" to it's citizens and practices pallative care till death.

    You aren't looking deep enough or thinking far enough down the road if you can't understand the danger this bill poses. On the surface I completely agree that it seems to be a well thought out bill to bring health care to those that can't afford it.

    However, the reality is another. Consider the following:

    1) Any public option will be in competition with all private health care.
    2) To pay for any meaningful public option it will undoubtedly require raising taxes on the middle class.
    3) Raising taxes removes the amount of disposable income avialable to the middle class.
    4) Less disposable income will be the economic motivator for the middle class to insist on the public option being avialable to them as well (if it isn't already). Why pay for private health care when public is availabe and being paid for by my taxes? European countries have private health insurance providers but only the wealthy can afford them. I know this because I live this.
    5) Private health care will disappear or only catter to the wealthy.
    6) With a growing number of people joining the public option the cost to the government will grow.
    7) The bill calls for the establishment of a board to oversee costs and procedures. This board will inevitably make cuts in the quality of the care to save money. This is what happens every year in European countries. My wifes thyroid disease was removed as a disease supported by the government health care because it was too costly. Now we pay out of pocket and still pay high taxes.

    This is what will happen under the current form of the bill. Do we need health care reform? Yes. Is this bill the answer? No.

    ReplyDelete
  96. One other comment. I find it striking that during this discussion no one commented on the point I made regarding how this specific bill kills private health care. From my second post to this topic:

    "On page 16 lines 10 thru 16 spell out that private health insurance providers may not enroll new individuals on or after the first day of the first year this bill goes into effect. I quote "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

    Don't tell me that this bill doesn't attempt to grab ahold of all Americans and force them into a public option removing their options and choices. This bill is wrong and broken. It should be questioned. I find it appalling that Obama and the Democrat leadership wanted to push this down our throats without allowing consideration and debate. If they had had their way this bill would've been law before the August rescess. How can the public have a truly meaningful examination of a bill containing 1100 pages? It's not possible. No wonder people like Rush are able to fear monger. If a salesman is trying to pressure me into a sale it's unlikely it's a good deal for me. I think most Americans feel the same way. So when the Democrat leadership is pushing so had to pass a bill without even themselves having read it nor allowing the public time to read it one begins to wonder why. And if in while wondering what's the rush someone named Rush opens up with possiblities that are aimed to incite fear it's easy to see how things can develop. If you want to be mad at someone be mad at Obama and the Dem leaders. It's their fault that Rush has a leg to stand on. If they had instead said, lets write several bills that address health care reform and slowly introduce them to the public so that they can digest them none of this would've happened.

    ReplyDelete
  97. ToE at the time you made the comment about elected officials having to take part in the public option I believe you're mistaken. To my knowledge 2 attempts by Republicans to apply an ammendment to the current bill oblidging our elected officials to the public option were voted down by some of the same people demanding a public option. Goose? Gander? Fortunately, the second amendment was passed. It was a weaker version of the first. Sen. Tom Coburn R-Okla purposed an amendment that oblidged all Congressmen, their families and staff enroll in the public option. It passed by 1 vote with 9 of the 12 Democrats voting against it. An earlier amendment also included the President and Vice President, thier families and staff. I think with the addition of this amendment to ANY health care bill it's DOA. No Congressman is going to give up their cherry Federal Employees Health Benefits Program which gives them access to 283 private health insurance plans. I think it's a great idea. I'd even vote for a bill that obliged all federal employees into the public plan. So long as it would not allow them to carry private insurance. At that point I know I'm getting as good health care are the people making the decisions. I'd bet my wifes thyroid med's would be covered if Italian senators were forced into the public health care system.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Jas,

    In relation to what you're complaining about on Page 16, have you read the entire section? I encourage you to do so and I would be happy to email you a PDF version of the entire bill.

    You have taken lines 10 through 16 entirely out of context, and when reading law, that's a very dangerous thing to do. After you stated it here, I went and actually read the bill, and that is part of the "grandfather clause" which guarantees that people who like their present insurance can keep it. You're doing yourself and everyone here a disservice when you tell us what quite plainly it doesn't do.

    NOTE: I did not claim that the federal government employees were covered by the health care bill. But, I think they should be: I think all members of congress, their staff and all other federal employees except active duty military should be required to be covered.

    ReplyDelete
  99. K-Rod, I think you have misunderstood my comment. Jas had claimed that the health care bill would result in getting rid of private insurance, and he cited Page 16, lines 10 through 16 as his evidence of that. I reviewed the relevant section of the bill, and it does not do that at all. In fact, its part of the beginning of the bill where it guarantees that those people who like the insurance that they have now will be able to keep that insurance.

    ReplyDelete
  100. K-Rod, I will be happy to forward you through the site administrators a PDF file containing the entire bill. Specifically, on Page 16, Line 1-2 it states, "SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
    2 COVERAGE."

    Reading further, and reading this entire part of the bill, we see that this section is a definitions section of the bill, which defines various terms. This section defines "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage" to be coverage that is in effect on the effective date of the bill, as long as the company doesn't enroll anyone into a grandfathered plan after the effective date of the bill. In other words, if a person likes what they currently have, then they may keep that coverage. Their insurance company cannot, however, enroll anyone else into that grandfathered coverage. That is the classical definition of grandfathering in... if it was already in effect, or a person is already eligible, they are allowed to stay in their plan if they wish.

    On Page 19 of the bill it does state "(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
    coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par
    ticipating health benefits plan." In other words, any new insurance written after the effective date of the bill will be part of the new health insurance system.

    I stand by my earlier reading of the bill, and Page 15, LL 10-16 do not do what Jas has claimed.

    ReplyDelete
  101. ToE I think that's the PRIME issue with this bill. I think you effectively made my point. The bill does indeed destroy private health care insurance. Though I didn't spell out the exact nature in which it does it I'll attempt to do so here. The Obama admin has used the phrase time and time again that we need a public single payer option to "compete" with private health care. I can site examples for you if you wish. Obama himself has made that exact claim using that exact term. If I compete with another I am effectively seeking to beat them. I ask you all to site ONE example of where the guy making the rules is also a competitor? Imagine baseball referee's forming their own team and at the same time officiating at the games they play in. Essentially what this bill does is forbid private health care providers from creating their own health care plans. Here's how it plays out:

    1. You can't enroll individuals into your old plans.
    2. Government creates a single payer public health care option.
    3. The government single payer health care option will set the bar for the insurance plan that all other private providers will seek to match.
    4. The government doesn't care about profit and has the taxpayers to make up the loss when claims are greater than their budget planned for.
    5. Private health insurance providers will never be able to compete with a government program that has limitless funding and no concern with creating profits.
    6. Forbidding private health care providers from enrolling individuals into "grandfathered" plans essentially guarantees that private insurance dies a swift death because they are no longer allowed to supply plans with low monthly payments and high deductibles.
    7. The government plans have low monthly payments and low deductibles because they don't care about 1)profit and 2) have limitless funding.
    8. Private health insurance providers will be forced to either 1) close up shop or 2) create gold ticket plans for the very wealthy.

    I guess as a side note one should ask if this is such a great idea why are the Europeans moving away from it? Also, I don't think the true costs of this have even begun to be established. The ultimate goal (again if you like I can site examples) of this bill is to create universal coverage for all Americans. In itself it seems like a worth while cause. Now consider this, if we gave the approximate 300 million Americans $10.00 of health care it would cost $3 billion. Raise that to $100.00 and you're at $30 billion. At some point in this discussion ToE made mention of a family of 4 paying $500.00 a month. That's $125 per person a month or $1500 a year. So lets see if I have this straight the BASIC plan for all Americans would cost $450 billion a year. This is the plan that supposedly isn't good enough (no argument from me). Now the best plan was $1,100 per month. That plan for nation wide health care would cost a mere $990 billion a year. Oh look that's ALMOST 1 trillion a year. Where do we get that money from? Raising taxes I guess. Lets see if Obama can keep his promise....BUT wait...maybe he didn't lie about HIM raising taxes. This plan is about 10 years out before it will cover ALL Americans. So HE won't but someone WILL need to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Jas,

    Although the original topic here was about the amount of disinformation being spewed about the health care bill, let's ignore that for the moment.

    Assuming that you're right, and that the bill does eventually kill the private insurance industry, I'm not altogether certain that its a bad thing. Part of what has kept our prices for health care going constantly up in the US, at the same time where the quality of care has not gone up, has been the insurance companies.

    Part of this they have also brought on themselves. I honestly don't believe that (despite the photo op with President Obama at the beginning of this whole reform debate) that the insurance industry is interested in change. I also don't think that mandating universal coverage by private health insurance will work to lower prices, and here is why:

    In Kansas, where I live, until 1980 auto insurance was optional. You could drive a car without insurance if you wanted to, although it was incredibly stupid to do so. If you were in an accident, you were responsible for paying for the other parties' costs, and of course, the costs could easily bankrupt a person. In 1980, the auto insurance companies convinced the Kansas legislature that costs of insurance would go down if they switched to mandating universal coverage, with a "no fault" provision. In fact, the opposite happened. Insurance rates went up and up, and now, a lot of people have only the minimum liability coverage where before, one could often afford comprehensive and collision insurance.

    I have a healthy dose of skepticism about health care reform, including how are we going to pay for it. I haven't yet seen any plan to pay for it that is revenue neutral.

    However, I also haven't seen anything other than NO come from the Republicans and/or conservatives. I can't believe that republicans and conservatives truly believe that the system is just fine as it is. I think that in order to truly claim that Republicans and conservatives are interested in this matter, they need to come up with a counter plan and convince me and the rest of the American people that they have a better idea, and that their plan is more likely to work.

    As far as the idea of National Health Care and/or socialized medicine: so what?

    I understand your concerns because there have been incidents with you, your friends, and family. However, your objection seems to be rationing of care. Guess what? We already have rationing of care right here in the US right now. Its called insurance companies and their willingness to pay. Insurance companies often call the shots on what procedures they will authorize, which means that some functionary at the insurance company, not one's physician, is determining what is right for you. God forbid that you have a pre-existing condition, because that might mean they won't even consider paying. If you cost too much, they'll do even worse than ration you: they may just drop you altogether.

    The problem as I see it is that there is NO system on earth that is perfect. The problem is, we hear only the horror stories. As a business man, you probably are familiar with the old saying about customer service: 1 dissatisfied customer will tell 10 to 20 people about their "horror story". A satisfied customer may only tell 1, or will tell no one.

    The same thing works in health care. We hear the horror stories of national health care and socialized medicine. We don't hear the good things. While that is true about the US as well, I still remain convinced that the US must change our health care delivery and funding in order to prevent this from becoming a multi trillion dollar problem and continued drain on our economy.

    ReplyDelete