Printable View
That depends on your position.
The CNN poll.
41 percent think the bill is just right.
13 percent don't think it is liberal enough .
The remainder think it's too liberal
Do I think it is all it could be? No
Single payer would have been a smarter way to go. Reducing prices for the average health care consumers. However some people think that packages can only be sent via UPS while the US Postal service does the same thing for less.
but was it better then what obama initially tried to get passed?
It will be cheaper in the end:Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
1. emergency rooms will not be used by uninsured, which will reduce overall hospital costs.
2. former uninsured will now go to get checked regularly and advanced diseases will to some extent be prevented.
If the public option would have been got through it would really have become cheaper. In the end the Republicans tried to kill this bill because they want to destroy Obama. This was and is not about Healthcare any more.
If what's reduced is funding spent on waste and fraud then I can accept that, just as my wife would gladly accept a reduction in my McDonald's funding to help pay for more vegetables. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Your attempt to gloss-over the current situation is beneath you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
This is not an isolated incident by a single nutjob and the "liberals" in this country have not behaved in any manner like what's going on now on a national level.
Republican leaders, not some isolated loon, are knowingly inciting and promoting violence, rage and terrorist acts from their followers.
Republicans leaders are standing in Washington, waving their followers signs, shouting out "babykiller!" and "you lie!" during official business, telling followers waving signs of gun threats that it's up to THEM to stop the dems, and posting maps online showing democratic politicians home addresses with rifle crosshairs over them.
Republican leaders are knowingly emboldening the actions of the extremists by their examples of incivility and demonizing the opposition.
The results of this are unprecedented in our lifetime and to try and sweep it under the rug is as despicable as the acts themselves.
No, there weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
While there were alternative plans spoken of, none were proven to cover everyone (or even as many as this one) or reduce prices.
Besides, you should blame Bob Dole.
This is almost exactly the same plan he and the repubs proposed in response to Clinton's heathcare plan.
...or you could just as easily argue that our quality of care will go up as indicated by every other form of disease, health issue, life expectancy, and infant mortality as is shown in countries with single-payer systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Please post a link to the evidence that shows this.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
The only thing I could find was an opinion by two authors who wrote a paper under a grant by the SSA titled "Low Life Expectancy in the United States: Is the Health Care System at Fault? by Samuel H. Preston and Jessica Y. Ho".
I have read that paper and while their personal opinion agrees with you, even the heavily cherry-picked stats in the paper doesn't, so I'm guessing there must be another source for your assertion.
There are lies, damned lies ....and then there are statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Alternatives were widely discussed. The idea that the Republicans didn't have alternative ideas about this was simply a false Democrat talking point.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Alternative ideas included variations of:
Tort reform
Allowing interstate purchase of healthcare
Removing tax breaks for companies buying plans
Vouchers
Health Savings Accounts
CNN also shows a negative job approval rating for Obama: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Frets
Also, a majority think that the country is on the wrong track and that the health care bill should be repealed. It appears that the GOP will make large gains in the coming election: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...enate_map.html
If there was waste and fraud occurring in Medicare that could be "reduced", a bill wasn't needed to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
What is really occurring is that the new bill cuts the popular Medicare Advantage plan.
Yes they have. Do I really need to dig up the link showing the multitudes of death threats, Bush pictures with Hitler moustaches, etc.? You yourself have contributed to religiously bigoted sentiments on this site. Statements that could constitute violations of civil rights in some contexts such as a work-place. One impressionable young liberal I worked with told me (comfortably in front of several co-workers at a job) that he would "shoot Bush in the head" if he had the chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Democratic leaders have slandered troops, police, corporations, religions, demographics of poor and rich people alike, etc. All groups that have experienced prejudice, threats, vandalism, violence etc. that could be attributed to Democrats according to the same logic you're using.
Associating wrongful acts performed by some with other people or groups who had no control or involvement whatsoever is despicable because it risks inciting violence. That looks like it could be the case in the unfolding story about the gunshot that hit Republican Eric Cantor's office this week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Double-standard fallacy. Obama's plan has never been "proven" to cover everyone or reduce prices either. It has never been a requirement to prove what will happen. That simply isn't possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The difference is that the alternative ideas being discussed do have a proven track record of the results we want in other applications. Obama's plan has a proven track record of not achieving the results he claims it will based on other failed applications of the same concepts.
That would be true if any of those things actually were better in countries with single-payer. However, they are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I already have. Why should I bother re-substantiating a point to a person who has already seen the evidence but chooses to deny it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The problem with your statement is that you can't "re-substantiate" something that you've never substantiated in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Unless your definition of "substantiating" means to repeat a falsehood often enough until people start believing it's true.
I did already substantiate that point, on this site, in a conversation with you.
That's one of the larger ironies of liberal politics. They are constantly advertising themselves as being supported by evidence and science. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. From the environment, economics, gun law, charity, health care, when life begins, you name it. They are on the wrong side of the evidence on nearly every major issue.
If someone is determined to believe that the earth is flat, there isn't much that anyone can do to change their mind.
thats for sure.
Thank you Samuel Rowbotham. ;)
So what you're saying is that you don't have a link that hasn't been debunked before.
No. The link that I last provided to actual evidence remains substantial. That's the funny thing about facts. They tend to remain what they are.
If you want to continue having faith that deaths from auto accidents and murders are indicative of health care quality, that's your deal.
The link you provided was to a rightwing political blog that had a link to a single paper that did statistical backflips, cherry-picked figures, ignored basic facts and methodology that any credible economist would use, in order to arrive at a preconceived political talking point that no other expert or legitimate economist agrees with.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Didn't you ever even consider why your "actual evidence" never made it past being a political blogpost and contradicts every official statistic by recognized experts in the realworld?
Even if we were to suspend all disbelief and join you in neoconservative fantasyland where facts don't matter, people who get get into automobile accidents never go to a hospital, people who are injured by another never make it into the healthcare system, and insurance coverage isn't a factor in treatment for either group, you are still only arguing the point that we are on equal life expectancy with single-payer countries that spend half as much on healthcare as we do.
That may be something you think is worth crowing about, but I don't.
If you and I ate at a restaurant together, both ordered the exact same meal, but they handed me a bill for $50 and handed you a bill for $100, I doubt you would be so happy.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
If you want to continuing getting your "facts" from political blogs that use deeply flawed, dishonest methodologies and unsubstantiated conclusions instead of the actual numbers and methodologies used in the realworld by the experts then that's your deal.
....and he calls me Samuel Rowbotham. LOL
This comment is a personal assertion with no basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
You are not an economist, let alone a credible one. You have shown no flaw in anyones methodology or even demonstrated that you are aware of any basic facts or methodologies yourself.
Stomping your feet is not making an argument.
I didn't wonder that because "Life Expectancy" and "Life Expectancy adjusted for accidents and other non health care related fatalities" are two different qualities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The bottom line is that evaluating health care quality based on pure "Life Expectancy" is flawed because it doesn't account for factors that are not related to health care quality. Accidents and murders are only the tip of the ice-berg. An intelligent analysis should also be adjusting for involvement in wars, rates of lifestyle choices such as over-eating and smoking, etc. It doesn't take a "recognized expert" (whoever these unspecified phantoms are that you have in mind) to understand this.
If health care quality factored in equally regarding treatment after auto accidents and violence, removing them from all countries statistics should yield the same results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
And I don't contest that we pay too much for health care. The system does need reform to control cost. However, it's false that we have lower quality of health care than countries with single-payer systems. Cost and quality are two different things.
I'm not happy about the difference in price we paid for the meal. But, I am happy that I had the bone-in fillet instead of the chicken you had (no matter how much you insist that it was the same meal).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Indeed. Your reaction in this case further demonstrates the comparison. "See! LR said so! LOL"Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
:D
It is almost painful to watch you twist and contort so while trying to maintain face even though you know you're as wrong as I do.
No basis, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Here is your original link to the rightwing blogspot blog:
http://politicalcalculations.blogspo...in-united.html
Here is the link to The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank founded in 1943) that your rightwing blogger references which is the entire foundation of your claim:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_O...esentation.pdf
I will let those with eyes to see, and minds to reason, decide for themselves.
Actually, I have whether you choose to admit it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
David understood immediately the flaw I spelled out in the methodology your study used.
Victims of violent crime and auto accidents do go to our hospitals and are part of our healthcare statistics.
Their insurance (or lack of), treatment and care does determine whether some of them live or die so for your study to say that all deaths from violence and accidents are "non-healthcare related" is obviously false.
Did their methodology take that into account?
Did they only count victims of crime and accidents that died without receiving any medical care?
Did they account for the cases of uninsured victims that died in a 15 mile ambulance ride to the county hospital because the private hospital that was 1 mile away refused to take them?
According to their footnotes, the answer is no.
I couldn't agree more, so maybe you should stop doing it and start applying a little critical thinking to your source material.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I know you're capable of it considering how much you use it on any "liberal" source I may post.
You would never let me get away with using such an obviously flawed, biased, and uncorroborated source without tearing it to shreds.
So now after all that, you decide that none of this matters. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
lol
Yes, I agree that in a perfect world we would be able to decipher all the metrics and factors to be able to determine exactly how our system ranks against others... but that's impossible so we use common metrics that have been agreed upon by the leading economists and experts in the field to best represent a fair comparison.
...and by "recognized experts" I mean those that have been recognized by the official bodies that compile and govern these statistics as being the most qualified to do so. (not no-name bloggers and authors for political thinktanks)
I think we can probably agree that the people who have been placed in charge of compiling the official statistics for the CIA Book of World Facts as well as official stats from other government institutions around the world could be considered "recognized experts", right?
Just as quality and accessibility are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I don't dispute that we have some of the best healthcare money can buy in the USA.
Unfortunately, the vast majority cannot afford it and therefor do not receive it.
HahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I seriously doubt that David's words were because of who typed them, but rather because, much like a "flat-earther", you choose to ignore the 99.9% of actual peer-reviewed data and official statistics in favor of the 0.1% of whatever unfounded political paper you can find that agrees with your preconceived notion.
Damn, it's been a while since the last argument...
There's a saying about people who argue on the internets... but damned if I ever learned from it.
I'm sort of P.O.'d at the idea that I'd have to buy health insurance. Even though I do buy health insurance.
Hanratty makes a point that his company is going to report his health plan as taxable income, which is a good one. I'm wondering what it will do to a freelancer like me, on an independent plan. From the talking points, it looks like it could be a decent safety net; like if I have a bad year, I might qualify for a tax break / subsidy / whatever, and I could buy my insurance on their exchange. Does anyone know how that actually is supposed to work? Like, say I have a private Blue Cross plan and I have a down year where I make less than 80k. Will I get some kind of tax refund?
Actually, as I'm typing this, I'm kind of answering my own question. "Yeah right"...
I can assure you that there is no twisting going on over here. Although, I can understand how desirable the thought may be for you in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Where in those links does it show that you were correct in asserting that the authors "did statistical backflips, cherry-picked figures, ignored basic facts and methodology that any credible economist would use, in order to arrive at a preconceived political talking point that no other expert or legitimate economist agrees with"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
That's right. Nowhere.
Which leaves us with the simple observation that they are conservatives. Your implied argument has become, "It can't be true because it came from conservatives." Which is about as unscientific and logically flawed a view as it gets. I believe that this type of argument has lead to more than one book burning in the world's history.
No. That argument is obviously wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
First, hospitals, by law, are required to treat individuals in an emergency, regardless of coverage. So, someone brought in due to violence or accident would be treated. That said, many people that die in car accidents or homicides do so before they get to the hospital.
Second, there are many ways that people die that have nothing to do with the quality of their health care. Therefore, including them in a statistic for the purpose of evaluating quality of health care greatly diminishes the accuracy of the evaluation (as demonstrated by the authors you linked to above). When comparing nations for this purpose, it is even more dubious since the rates that people die in these non health-care related deaths is quite different between countries. To not account for these differences is to make the provably false assumption that all citizens in every country die of the same things at the exact same rates.
I have to chuckle at your bravado regarding critical thinking when you make statements like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Their methodology was to start with the data used for the WHO rankings that some people use to claim that Life Expectancy means the US has poor quality of health care. In other words, you are criticizing the very argument that you apparently have faith in. Of course the WHO didn't use data that takes any of that into account. It's one more reason why using unadjusted life expectancy to evaluate quality of health care is junk science. :D
Well, since you're not a recognized expert, we can all assume that your thoughts and analysis on this subject are definitely false! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Your ad hominem argument aside, the point of the study linked to above is to show that life expectancy does not accurately reflect quality of health care. They demonstrate that if we adjust only for commonly known rates of auto accident and homicides, it drastically changes the outcomes. Let alone all of the other factors that create other disparities between nations.
Hopefully, you can agree that there are many uses for the Life Expectancy statistic other than attempting to evaluate the quality of health care. You seem to have cornered yourself into the bizarre angle of implying that I am against calculating a statistic simply because there are obvious reasons why it can't accurately be applied to a specific subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
At least we're getting somewhere. However, the vast majority of Americans can and do afford healthcare and receive it all the time. Cancer survival rates for the entire population, including the uninsured, average better than single-payer countries. So, it would seem that quite a few of us are benefitting from "the best healthcare money can buy."Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue