Town Hall meetings - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

rahl · 08-11-2009, 09:10 PM

[quote=Tully Mars;2686519][quote=rahl;2686515]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I'm not going to search youtube for you right now, I have things to do at the moment. These have both been on CNN, Fox, and all the major networks. I'm sure the videos are out there somewhere.

And they absolutely have to do with health care (that's the topic of this thread, yes?) If there were a public option and safety net these people's care would have been paid for and they would have received care. No 9-11, no natural disaster... just didn't have coverage.

No actually the topic of this thread was about the townhall meetings, but anyway what I said was it had nothing to do with insurance companies that a hospital may have ushered people out, or someone waited 17+hours in an ER waiting room.

Tully Mars · 08-12-2009, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

No actually the topic of this thread was about the townhall meetings, but anyway what I said was it had nothing to do with insurance companies that a hospital may have ushered people out, or someone waited 17+hours in an ER waiting room.

You're right this thread isn't about health care reform. This thread is about town hall meetings... where the main topic is health care reform.

WSJ Story here

Left on Skid row story here

Cimarron29414 · 08-12-2009, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

That's so interesting. I have a bunch of questions about that, if you'd be willing to flesh this out a little for me. The only other person I've seen lay it out so plainly like that is Rush Limbaugh, and he's not available for my questions. I really don't mean these questions as point-scoring questions. It's just that this statement is so unfathomable to me, I'm really interested in getting where you're coming from about it.

Do you consider yourself a patriot? If so, how does hoping for the failure of the President of the United States square with that?

See, I think if the president fails, the country fails. I think we failed for almost the entirety of our last administration, as a result of that administration failing. Are you really saying you want more of that? Or, perhaps you want us to fall down the other side of the mountain instead? OR perhaps you reject my assertion that if the president fails the country fails?

What does "fail" mean, in this context?

Will "Obama failing", whatever that means, restore the America you know and love?

What will "Obama failing" produce, exactly? What would his failure be useful for?

As opposed as I was to Bush, I always hoped he'd turn things around. All I really wanted from the guy was for him to not be such a miserable disappointment. I never would have said I hoped he'd fail. I observed his actions and interpreted them as failure. But I think that's different. I don't quite know what my question is related to that... something like: your thoughts

While I would not expect any level of agreement on your part as we have different political ideologies, I appreciate the fact that you asked the questions that were only ever so slightly condescending.

I am a Libertarian. I believe the federal government should build roads and ports for the sake of interstate/international commerce; maintain an army and defend our borders; maintain relationships with other nations; and settle disputes among states. I believe all social programs from gay marriage, to abortion, to retirement programs, to drug legalization, insurance programs, welfare, education, health care, et al. should be state funded and state specific. I believe citizens should live in the state with the correct mix of taxation/benefits.

Having said that, you can see that Obama's entire ideology would be counter to mine. Hence, his failing to enact anything he wishes would bring the country closer to what I see as ideal. I also sincerely believe that my view of how the government should work (see above) would provide the most opportunity and prosperity for the people. One can also see that I don't care any more for the Republican party than I do the Democrats.

So, there's my answer. I accept that yours is different and that yours is wrong.

There's no reason to debate the merits of them as I seriously doubt we will ever agree.

dc_dux · 08-12-2009, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

While I would not expect any level of agreement on your part as we have different political ideologies, I appreciate the fact that you asked the questions that were only ever so slightly condescending.

I am a Libertarian. I believe the federal government should build roads and ports for the sake of interstate/international commerce; maintain an army and defend our borders; maintain relationships with other nations; and settle disputes among states. I believe all social programs from gay marriage, to abortion, to retirement programs, to drug legalization, insurance programs, welfare, education, health care, et al. should be state funded and state specific. I believe citizens should live in the state with the correct mix of taxation/benefits.

Having said that, you can see that Obama's entire ideology would be counter to mine. Hence, his failing to enact anything he wishes would bring the country closer to what I see as ideal. I also sincerely believe that my view of how the government should work (see above) would provide the most opportunity and prosperity for the people. One can also see that I don't care any more for the Republican party than I do the Democrats.

So, there's my answer. I accept that yours is different and that yours is wrong.

There's no reason to debate the merits of them as I seriously doubt we will ever agree.

Have you wanted every president in your lifetime to have failed with such equal vigor?

Not one comes anywhere near your ideology.

roachboy · 08-12-2009, 05:55 AM

what i dont get is the contradiction between libertarian doctrine, which calls for state control as opposed to say federal because it's closer to "the volk" and so capable of being more nuanced and/or responsive. and the way in which libertarians approach political questions, treating their own position as a kind of inflexible a priori, and not even feeling the need to engage the actual issues in any real way. it makes no sense to me. why would flexibility and responsiveness not apply to how libertarians use their own political viewpoint?

Cimarron29414 · 08-12-2009, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Have you wanted every president in your lifetime to have failed with such equal vigor?

Not one comes anywhere near your ideology.

I have always voted for the Libertarian candidate, if that is your question.

ratbastid · 08-12-2009, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I have always voted for the Libertarian candidate, if that is your question.

I don't think that's his question.

I got there's never been a president you'd consider to be "your" president. The question is, did you wish for Bush's failure, and Clinton's, and Bush's, and Regan's? Was there ever a president you didn't hope wouldn't be able to implement their vision?

Cimarron29414 · 08-12-2009, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what i dont get is the contradiction between libertarian doctrine, which calls for state control as opposed to say federal because it's closer to "the volk" and so capable of being more nuanced and/or responsive. and the way in which libertarians approach political questions, treating their own position as a kind of inflexible a priori, and not even feeling the need to engage the actual issues in any real way. it makes no sense to me. why would flexibility and responsiveness not apply to how libertarians use their own political viewpoint?

I don't know what to tell you. My experience is that anyone who does not agree with the Libertarian ideology writes it off as lunacy. I'm not going to spend time here trying to convince you that I'm not crazy, nor will I waste my time here trying to convince you that my way would be better for everyone. I know that isn't possible. There is zero personal responsibility written into the current flavor of liberal doctrine, therefore the Libertarian principles would certainly seem alien.

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I don't think that's his question.

I got there's never been a president you'd consider to be "your" president. The question is, did you wish for Bush's failure, and Clinton's, and Bush's, and Regan's? Was there ever a president you didn't hope wouldn't be able to implement their vision?

There have certainly been policies by other president's which fell in line with what I wanted to see out of the federal government and I supported those things. However, the current administration hasn't done one yet. When they do, I'll let you know and I will support it. Again, I don't expect to adequately explain any of it to you since I'm now officially the elephant man in the room, looked upon with intrigued disgust. If you want to better understand where I am coming from, you should just read up on the LP and the texts written around the birth of our nation.

dksuddeth · 08-12-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what i dont get is the contradiction between libertarian doctrine, which calls for state control as opposed to say federal because it's closer to "the volk" and so capable of being more nuanced and/or responsive.

are you totally incapable of expressing anything other than disdain for non liberal/democrat groups? 'the volk' is so cute, to attempt the intimation that libertarians are associated with the third reich.

aceventura3 · 08-12-2009, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Except that the movie in no way portrays the outcome of the assassination as positive or desirable... that is akin to saying that "red dawn" was a call for a communist invasion...

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

how is that in any way a "death panel?" First, if it's something already in place then it can't be a feature of the proposed reform. Second, how is this a "death panel?" Third, so is she advocating that doctors be forced to take medicare?

It is not a "death panel", I think they are called Quality Improvement Organizations or QIOs. Among other things QIOs investigate and resolve issues relating to non-coverage and appeals for coverage reconsideration. If you have an issue, you present your case to one of these panels.

Medicare pays claims that are "deemed medically necessary." And the medically necessary procedures are subject to treatment and care based on a set of "approved charges". If you are poor and you have a doctor that does not accept these charges, if you face a life or death issue with lets say using some some cutting edge "experimental" procedure or drug, you may have no options other than death. So the question is what criteria is used and what criteria will be used under Obama's plan.

This is a legitimate concern. The issue is being ignored, Obama's platitudes and dismissive attitude is disturbing.

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Don't the insurance companies already decide to not cover certain things or perform recission? It seems to me like the insurance companies are the death panels.

Yes, insurance companies make these kinds of decisions, and I have some problems with our existing system. However, Obama ignoring the question regarding the public option is not helpful. Simply saying it is being done in the private sector does not make me feel better about it, nor does it address the problems with it.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

Insurance companies don't decide not to cover someone based on a "death panel". If a procedure or condition isn't covered it is stated clearly in the policy that is issued.

Not always. And in HMO's with the "gate keeper", that person has too much power in my view. And I will say it again, I doubt having the "gate keeper" being a federal government employee solves that problem.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

As an outsider, I am simply (and continually) amazed at how your nation manages to even function with such division over such basic ideas (and ideals).

I am amazed by stuff like this:

Quote:

More than 70% of adults in countries with government-controlled health care — Britain, Germany, Australia and New Zealand, as well as Canada — complain that their systems need either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

That's because they wait longer for treatment and die sooner than Americans from common cancers and other diseases, according to a study by Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.

Consider breast cancer mortality, which is 88% higher in Britain and 9% higher in Canada. Or prostate cancer mortality, which is 604% higher in Britain and 184% higher in Canada.

We have better cancer survival rates not only because we have better treatment, but because we have earlier detection. And we have earlier detection because we have better access to tests that screen for cancer.

For example, almost 90% of middle-aged U.S. women have had a mammogram, compared with 72% of Canadians; more than half of U.S. men — 54% — have had a prostate-specific antigen test, while only 16% of Canadians have had a PSA, and fully 30% of Americans have had a colonoscopy — the procedure for detecting colon cancer — compared with 5% of Canadians.

Investors.com - Third World Care?

Derwood · 08-12-2009, 07:25 AM

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Not All Socialist Countries are Alike

Cimarron29414 · 08-12-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It is not a "death panel", I think they are called Quality Improvement Organizations or QIOs. Among other things QIOs investigate and resolve issues relating to non-coverage and appeals for coverage reconsideration. If you have an issue, you present your case to one of these panels.

Medicare pays claims that are "deemed medically necessary." And the medically necessary procedures are subject to treatment and care based on a set of "approved charges". If you are poor and you have a doctor that does not accept these charges, if you face a life or death issue with lets say using some some cutting edge "experimental" procedure or drug, you may have no options other than death. So the question is what criteria is used and what criteria will be used under Obama's plan.

This is a legitimate concern. The issue is being ignored, Obama's platitudes and dismissive attitude is disturbing.

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

Yes, insurance companies make these kinds of decisions, and I have some problems with our existing system. However, Obama ignoring the question regarding the public option is not helpful. Simply saying it is being done in the private sector does not make me feel better about it, nor does it address the problems with it.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

Not always. And in HMO's with the "gate keeper", that person has too much power in my view. And I will say it again, I doubt having the "gate keeper" being a federal government employee solves that problem.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

I am amazed by stuff like this:

Investors.com - Third World Care?

Socialized medicine: You're dead, but it's cheaper to get there.

roachboy · 08-12-2009, 07:48 AM

dk: fine, i retract the word. substitute another you like more. "real americans" say or "patriots" or whatever. it's not important.

but how about you answer the question?

dksuddeth · 08-12-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

dk: fine, i retract the word. substitute another you like more. "real americans" say or "patriots" or whatever. it's not important.

but how about you answer the question?

the question I see you asking is this:

Quote:

why would flexibility and responsiveness not apply to how libertarians use their own political viewpoint?

it's a moot question when you consider that the libertarian doctrine sees no flexibility and responsiveness in a bloated government. Smaller governments and entities are better capable of dealing with most crises due to the lack of beauracratic red tape and increased logistics in pursuing actions to react to said crises. Despite the usual rhetoric about Libertarians being 'me, me, me', it's more historically accurate to depict the libertarian philosophy of smaller government is better government because it doesn't hamper the individual in liberty, spirit, or collective cooperation.

roachboy · 08-12-2009, 07:56 AM

so i take it then that you have no particular problem with the existing health care system and oppose current efforts to alter it?

filtherton · 08-12-2009, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am amazed by stuff like this:

I'm amazed that some folks are so quick to believe uncited statistics that support their preconceived notions whilst decrying the deceptive use of statistics that don't support preconceived notions.

Like refuting the "desperate lies" of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius by citing completely irrelevant facts. If her lies were so desperate, one would expect them to be easily refuted with information that actually refutes them.

Or quoting unattributed stats "poll after poll" about how much more satisfied Americans are than their socialist peers. If these polls are so damning, why not link to their results or mention their names?

Or relying on the results of an unnamed, possibly unpublished study as explained by a doctor who may or may not have an axe to grind. Does his study have a name; is it findable? Did he do the study by himself? Was it performed at the behest of the think tank he works for, or Stanford Medical Center?

All of the claims made in your link could be true, but you'd have to be either very naive or very unconcerned with basing your opinions on verifiable data to accept them at face value.

Derwood · 08-12-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

it's a moot question when you consider that the libertarian doctrine sees no flexibility and responsiveness in a bloated government. Smaller governments and entities are better capable of dealing with most crises due to the lack of beauracratic red tape and increased logistics in pursuing actions to react to said crises. Despite the usual rhetoric about Libertarians being 'me, me, me', it's more historically accurate to depict the libertarian philosophy of smaller government is better government because it doesn't hamper the individual in liberty, spirit, or collective cooperation.

I'm not sure why a shift to state/local government power wouldn't result in bloated/corrupt/ineffective state and local governments

dc_dux · 08-12-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'm amazed that some folks are so quick to believe uncited statistics that support their preconceived notions whilst decrying the deceptive use of statistics that don't support preconceived notions.

Like refuting the "desperate lies" of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius by citing completely irrelevant facts. If her lies were so desperate, one would expect them to be easily refuted with information that actually refutes them.

Or quoting unattributed stats "poll after poll" about how much more satisfied Americans are than their socialist peers. If these polls are so damning, why not link to their results or mention their names?

Or relying on the results of an unnamed, possibly unpublished study as explained by a doctor who may or may not have an axe to grind. Does his study have a name; is it findable? Did he do the study by himself? Was it performed at the behest of the think tank he works for, or Stanford Medical Center?

All of the claims made in your link could be true, but you'd have to be either very naive or very unconcerned with basing your opinions on verifiable data to accept them at face value.

Or ace and cimarron attempts to perpetuate the myth at the heart of conservative rhetoric that the current WH/Congressional proposals for universal coverage, with a public option (or a public/private cooperative exchange), is comparable to European (the socialist boogeymen) type single payer systems.

ace and cimarron:
repeat after me.....universal coverage is not the same as single payer.

dksuddeth · 08-12-2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so i take it then that you have no particular problem with the existing health care system and oppose current efforts to alter it?

you would take it wrong. the current health care system doesn't work well at all. I do not oppose altering it, I oppose the current proposal to alter it.

The issue that needs to be fixed isn't forcing price and access controls, it's removing the influence of the health insurers. They are the ones fixing the prices, controlling the care given, and even contracting who doctors can and cannot see as patients. It's totally out of hand.

Mind you, this outlook is given to me by a doctor who has to deal with insurance companies.

If you let doctors be doctors, they can control their own costs and keep healthcare affordable, but most of all, accessible.

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

I'm not sure why a shift to state/local government power wouldn't result in bloated/corrupt/ineffective state and local governments

There is no guarantee that it wouldn't, but a smaller corrupt entity is easier to remove/remedy than a monstrous federal entity. You see it every state election cycle, except in totally jacked up places like Illinois or New Jersey.

Cimarron29414 · 08-12-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

I'm not sure why a shift to state/local government power wouldn't result in bloated/corrupt/ineffective state and local governments

Because if you don't like the way your state does it, you can move.

rahl · 08-12-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

You're right this thread isn't about health care reform. This thread is about town hall meetings... where the main topic is health care reform.

WSJ Story here

Left on Skid row story here

Just so we're clear, neither stories have anything what so ever to do with insurance companies. They have to do with HOSPITALS.

Cimarron29414 · 08-12-2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Or ace and cimarron attempts to perpetuate the myth at the heart of conservative rhetoric that the current WH/Congressional proposals for universal coverage, with a public option (or a public/private cooperative exchange), is comparable to European (the socialist boogeymen) type single payer systems.

ace and cimarron:
repeat after me.....universal coverage is not the same as single payer.

Shit by any other name smells just as bad.

dc_dux: Repeat after me: The federal government should not be providing socials services for individuals.

Derwood · 08-12-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Because if you don't like the way your state does it, you can move.

wow, just that easy

Cimarron29414 · 08-12-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

wow, just that easy

Easier than leaving the country.

dksuddeth · 08-12-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

wow, just that easy

yeah, pretty much.

Derwood · 08-12-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Easier than leaving the country.

I don't see a lot of Libertarians leaving the country, probably because there isn't another country that lives up to their ideals.

filtherton · 08-12-2009, 09:54 AM

I hear Somalia is a libertarian dream come true.

roachboy · 08-12-2009, 09:57 AM

this from today's guardian (uk):

Quote:

The National Health Service has become the butt of increasingly outlandish political attacks in the US as Republicans and conservative campaigners rail against Britain's "socialist" system as part of a tussle to defeat Barack Obama's proposals for broader government involvement in healthcare.

Top-ranking Republicans have joined bloggers and well-funded free market organisations in scorning the NHS for its waiting lists and for "rationing" the availability of expensive treatments.

As myths and half-truths circulate, British diplomats in the US are treading a delicate line in correcting falsehoods while trying to stay out of a vicious domestic dogfight over the future of American health policy.

Slickly produced television advertisements trumpet the alleged failures of the NHS's 61-year tradition of tax-funded healthcare. To the dismay of British healthcare professionals, US critics have accused the service of putting an "Orwellian" financial cap on the value on human life, of allowing elderly people to die untreated and, in one case, for driving a despairing dental patient to mend his teeth with superglue.

Having seen his approval ratings drop, Obama is seeking to counter this conservative onslaught by taking his message to the public, with a "town hall" meeting today at a school in New Hampshire.

Last week, the most senior Republican on the Senate finance committee, Chuck Grassley, took NHS-baiting to a newly emotive level by claiming that his ailing Democratic colleague, Edward Kennedy, would be left to die untreated from a brain tumour in Britain on the grounds that he would be considered too old to deserve treatment.

"I don't know for sure," said Grassley. "But I've heard several senators say that Ted Kennedy with a brain tumour, being 77 years old as opposed to being 37 years old, if he were in England, would not be treated for his disease, because end of life – when you get to be 77, your life is considered less valuable under those systems."

The degree of misinformation is causing dismay in NHS circles. Andrew Dillon, chief executive of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), pointed out that it was utterly false that Kennedy would be left untreated in Britain: "It is neither true nor is it anything you could extrapolate from anything we've ever recommended to the NHS."

Others in the US have accused Obama of trying to set up "death panels" to decide who should live and who should die, along the lines of Nice, which determines the cost-effectiveness of NHS drugs.

One right-leaning group, Conservatives for Patients' Rights, lists horror stories about British care on its website. An email widely circulated among US voters, of uncertain origin, claims that anyone over 59 in Britain is ineligible for treatment for heart disease.

The British embassy in Washington is quietly trying to counter inaccuracies. A spokesman said: "We're keeping a close eye on things and where there's a factually wrong statement, we will take the opportunity to correct people in private. That said, we don't want to get involved in a domestic debate."

A $1.2m television advertising campaign bankrolled by the conservative Club for Growth displays images of the union flag and Big Ben while intoning a figure of $22,750. A voiceover says: "In England, government health officials have decided that's how much six months of life is worth. If a medical treatment costs more, you're out of luck."

The number is based on a ratio of £30,000 a year used by Nice in its assessment of whether drugs provide value for money. Dillon said this was one of many variables in determining cost-effectiveness of medicines. He said of his body's portrayal in the US: "It's very disappointing and it's not, obviously, the way in which Nice describes itself or the way in which we're perceived in the UK even among those who are disappointed or upset by our decisions."

On Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel, the conservative commentator Sean Hannity recently alighted upon the case of Gordon Cook, a security manager from Merseyside, who used superglue to stick a loose crown into his gum because he was unable to find an NHS dentist. The cautionary tale, which was based on a Daily Mail report from 2006, prompted Hannity to warn his viewers: "If the Democrats have their way, get your superglue ready."

The broader tone of the US healthcare debate has become increasingly bitter. The former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin last week described president Obama's proposals as "evil", while the radio presenter Rush Limbaugh has compared a logo used for the White House's reform plans to a Nazi swastika. Hecklers have disrupted town hall meetings called to discuss the health reform plans.

David Levinthal, a spokesman for the nonpartisan Centre for Responsive Politics, said the sheer scale of the issue, which will affect the entire trajectory of US medical care, was arousing passions: "It's no surprise you have factions from every political stripe attempting to influence the debate and some of those groups are certainly playing to the deepest fears of Americans. There's been a great deal of documented disinformation propagated throughout the country." Defenders of Britain's system point out that the UK spends less per head on healthcare but has a higher life expectancy than the US. The World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the US is in 37th place. The British Medical Association said a majority of Britain's doctors have consistently supported public provision of healthcare. A spokeswoman said the association's 140,000 members were sceptical about the US approach to medicine: "Doctors and the public here are appalled that there are so many people on the US who don't have proper access to healthcare. It's something we would find very, very shocking."

'Evil and Orwellian' ? America's right turns its fire on NHS | World news | The Guardian

so it appears that conservative---um---disinformation has reached a pitch such that it is prompting "what the fuck?" responses from england.
of course, if you don't feel like reading the above, the plot is quite simple: the right is making shit up. that people believe it is more a psychological and ideological problem than a reflection of reality.

again, this seems to me only possible because the obama administration has made a tactical blunder in taking the "hey kids let's put on a musical" approach to building consensus.

it seems pretty clear that the administration has to put forward one or more clear, definite plans in order to take control back from the noise-machine on the right.

aceventura3 · 08-12-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'm amazed that some folks are so quick to believe uncited statistics that support their preconceived notions whilst decrying the deceptive use of statistics that don't support preconceived notions.

Like refuting the "desperate lies" of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius by citing completely irrelevant facts. If her lies were so desperate, one would expect them to be easily refuted with information that actually refutes them.

Or quoting unattributed stats "poll after poll" about how much more satisfied Americans are than their socialist peers. If these polls are so damning, why not link to their results or mention their names?

Or relying on the results of an unnamed, possibly unpublished study as explained by a doctor who may or may not have an axe to grind. Does his study have a name; is it findable? Did he do the study by himself? Was it performed at the behest of the think tank he works for, or Stanford Medical Center?

All of the claims made in your link could be true, but you'd have to be either very naive or very unconcerned with basing your opinions on verifiable data to accept them at face value.

There is a pattern, and it is not clear what your expectations are when factual information is given within the presentation of an opinion. It is easy to dismiss an opinion by saying something like they quoted unattributed stats, while ignoring the key point. It is a bit more of a challenge to actually respond with specifics to dispute the information provided. Some of us who have formed our views have already done the work, and don't have the patience to provide everybody else with a dissertation, in most cases you get the abstract. Sometimes you gotta do your own homework.

The fact is that Sebelius and others have been saying that we spend more on health care than other nations and we get inferior results. We spend more on health care for many reasons and to say we get inferior results (compared to what, and on what standard do they base the comparison is never given) , is misleading at best. In my view and in the view of many it is a lie. People are distrustful of politicians because of stuff like this. People distrust the media because they do not question stuff like this coming from Obama and his team.

Derwood · 08-12-2009, 10:37 AM

The World Health Organization ranked the US as #1 in terms of cost but #39 in terms of quality. All Obama and his people are doing is quoting these stats.

aceventura3 · 08-12-2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

of course, if you don't feel like reading the above, the plot is quite simple: the right is making shit up. that people believe it is more a psychological and ideological problem than a reflection of reality.

I think I have asked this before, if I did I did not see the response. This "right is making shit up" thing - does it come from a plan, conspiracy or is it something that is a natural response to an information vacuum? Is this response typically unique to those on the "right"? Is it something rooted in "right" leaning ideology that makes them predisposed to you theory more or less than those not on the "right"?

I am curious, you present yourself as being above the pettiness that is coming from the "left" and the "right"? To me realizing there can be no unified voice of the "left" or "the "right" only a predominate voice, how can you be straddling the fence, or are you?

roachboy · 08-12-2009, 10:39 AM

ace---before we go any further, did you actually read the article?

Martian · 08-12-2009, 10:40 AM

Yeah, I don't know anything about that study. I trust the WHO.

Here are their statistics for Canada:

Quote:

Originally Posted by World Health Organization

Total population: 32,577,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 36,280

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/83

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/74

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 89/55

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,672

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 10.0

For the United Kingdom:

Quote:

Originally Posted by World Health Organization

Total population: 60,512,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 33,650

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/81

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/72

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 98/61

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,784

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.4

And for the US:

Quote:

Originally Posted by World Health Organization

Total population: 302,841,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

Life expectancy in the US is lower, probability of dying young is higher and per capita spending is higher as well. In short, citizens of the US spend more and get less, says the WHO.

But please, tell me more about how my commie system is broken.

aceventura3 · 08-12-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

The World Health Organization ranked the US as #1 in terms of cost but #39 in terms of quality. All Obama and his people are doing is quoting these stats.

PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

O.k., so I do a search and spend 30 seconds reading the report, and I come across this:

Quote:

The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

So, the very first question that comes to my mind is why use GDP? Then: Are they including pharma R&D which would be included in GDP? Does the US dominate the world in pharma R&D? Should they adjust for that? How does France rank in Pharma R&D? Do the include medical higher education spending? Do they adjust for doctors trained here and who go back home to practice? Do they include the billions in medical aid we send to Africa? Gee, it goes on and on, and that was just from barely getting through the second paragraph. so, I will read more, look at the footnotes and come to a conclusion - but Sebelius could have saved me a lot of time by explaining her statement in detail.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace---before we go any further, did you actually read the article?

Yes.

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Yeah, I don't know anything about that study. I trust the WHO.

Here are their statistics for Canada:

For the United Kingdom:

And for the US:

Life expectancy in the US is lower, probability of dying young is higher and per capita spending is higher as well. In short, citizens of the US spend more and get less, says the WHO.

But please, tell me more about how my commie system is broken.

what if the US is a more violent society than Candida or the UK? If true what value would the stats you present have in coming to a conclusion regarding health care?

what if the US is a more racist society than Candida or the UK?

what if the socio-economic differences are greater in the US than Candida or the UK?

what if life style factors affecting health are worse in the US than Candida or the UK?

Do you ignore those kinds of factors when assessing a health care system, or do you try to adjust for those factors?

Martian · 08-12-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

what if the US is a more violent society than Candida or the UK? If true what value would the stats you present have in coming to a conclusion regarding health care?

what if the US is a more racist society than Candida or the UK?

what if the socio-economic differences are greater in the US than Candida or the UK?

what if life style factors affecting health are worse in the US than Candida or the UK?

Do you ignore those kinds of factors when assessing a health care system, or do you try to adjust for those factors?

Or what if millions of Americans can't afford access to even basic healthcare?

What if millions of Americans are afraid to go to the doctor because of the expense involved?

I can play this game too.

Healthcare is not the answer to all social ills, and suggesting it is is misdirection, plain and simple.

As someone who lives in a country with universal healthcare, the idea of arguing against it is bizarre. It's like arguing that fire departments should be private, or education. This is a basic public service.

Shauk · 08-12-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Read above. Apology accepted.

no reason to apologize, there was no insult implied.

dippin · 08-12-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

O.k., so I do a search and spend 30 seconds reading the report, and I come across this:

So, the very first question that comes to my mind is why use GDP? Then: Are they including pharma R&D which would be included in GDP? Does the US dominate the world in pharma R&D? Should they adjust for that? How does France rank in Pharma R&D? Do the include medical higher education spending? Do they adjust for doctors trained here and who go back home to practice? Do they include the billions in medical aid we send to Africa? Gee, it goes on and on, and that was just from barely getting through the second paragraph. so, I will read more, look at the footnotes and come to a conclusion - but Sebelius could have saved me a lot of time by explaining her statement in detail.

Maybe you should spend more than 30 seconds reading the article. Since the measure is of spending on "health care services," no, they do not include Pharmaceutical R&D. And using GDP is because it accounts for differences in wealth and only looks at proportional spending. But using GDP is something that should make the results more favorable towards the US, given it's higher GDP per capita. If you look at just per capita spending, the inefficiency of the US healthcare system becomes even more pronounced.

Quote:

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------

Yes.

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

what if the US is a more violent society than Candida or the UK? If true what value would the stats you present have in coming to a conclusion regarding health care?

what if the US is a more racist society than Candida or the UK?

what if the socio-economic differences are greater in the US than Candida or the UK?

what if life style factors affecting health are worse in the US than Candida or the UK?

Do you ignore those kinds of factors when assessing a health care system, or do you try to adjust for those factors?

Yes, you do. But the biggest difference in spending is not caused by any disease or health problem, but by significantly higher overhead costs in the American system. And in any case, that should only make it clear that the US system is far inferior, since not only are the outcomes worse, but access statistics are also much, much worse.

And if the US is a more violent society on one hand, Canada and Europe are much older societies on the other.

The US spends more on healthcare overhead on a per capita basis than what greeks spend on private and public healthcare combined! Meanwhile, greece has more hospital beds, hospital admissions and average length of hospital stays per capita than the US.

USA wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured

Rekna · 08-12-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

More than 70% of adults in countries with government-controlled health care — Britain, Germany, Australia and New Zealand, as well as Canada — complain that their systems need either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

Well in the US the same statistic is above 80%

Health Care Polling: The Haves Vs. The Have Nots - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

aceventura3 · 08-12-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Or what if millions of Americans can't afford access to even basic healthcare?

Isn't that different than saying our health care system is inferior? I think addressing access is one question, delivering the best health care in the world is a different one. I agree that everyone in this country does not have equal access to health care. Some of it is a simple matter of education. Prenatal care for example, this can make a big difference in infant health and mortality, but low income, young, single mothers often do not take advantage of the care available to them.

Quote:

What if millions of Americans are afraid to go to the doctor because of the expense involved?

I agree this is a problem also. I don't like the fact that senior citizens often have to make a choice between prescription drugs and food. I think we can fix these problems.

Quote:

I can play this game too.

Healthcare is not the answer to all social ills, and suggesting it is is misdirection, plain and simple.

As someone who lives in a country with universal healthcare, the idea of arguing against it is bizarre. It's like arguing that fire departments should be private, or education. This is a basic public service.

The question comes down to what happens given limited resources, who makes the decision on how those resources get allocated. If government is clear and honest about this, I could support government controlled health care. My fear centers around distrust, if Obama or whoever could alleviate this fear they could win my support.

---------- Post added at 08:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Or ace and cimarron attempts to perpetuate the myth at the heart of conservative rhetoric that the current WH/Congressional proposals for universal coverage, with a public option (or a public/private cooperative exchange), is comparable to European (the socialist boogeymen) type single payer systems.

ace and cimarron:
repeat after me.....universal coverage is not the same as single payer.

If you have read what I have written on this subject you would know what my concerns are. I have no problem with universal coverage, in fact I would mandate coverage and provide single payer coverage to every child born in this country. I also, think a single payer plan could work. I think health care requires government involvement and just like there is a single payer for national defense, I think there could be a single payer for health care with supplemental options giving people choice to enhance coverage.

roachboy · 08-12-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Briefly, our findings suggest that in contrast to finding more integrated,
continuous care, in the U.S., instead of providing better access to a wide range of services
through a single entry point, Managed Care uses the single entry point to prevent access.
In Canada, integration severed by constant restructuring, competitive “tendering” and
funding (i.e., staffing) cutbacks. Evidence of more accountable and appropriate care was
lacking revealing first, that evidence based practices were often a smoke-in-mirrors for
cutbacks, and second, greater accountability meant more risks being shifted to nurses and
doctors – through their providing more care for free. We also found that Managed Care
meant more rationing of both the access to and amount of care – the former differed
across our two countries but the latter was surprisingly similar. This revealed the extent
to which U.S. style Managed Care has been integrated into Canadian health care
institutions.

this comes from a pretty interesting comparative sociological paper:

The Orientation of Professionals in Health Care Organizations in France, Canada, and the U.S.: Clients, Communities and Bureaucracies
Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, Ivan Sainsaulieu, Kristine Hirschkorn

what's interesting is the comparative approach, the focus on the interaction between insurance regime and medical organization--the differences between which become really apparent in reading these results. this interaction has considerable impace on both professional activities/trajectories and the quality of care. the central finding are in the paragraph i excerpted above.

if you want, pm me with an email address and i can send you the pdf of the article.
what's particularly good is the bibliography...if you're inclined to the game of chasing footnotes, you may also be inclined to run into actual data.

this compliments some of the higher-order arguments above that have been presented with at least some actual information, as opposed to the usual recycling of memes. the difference is that this paper---and there are others--i could barrage you with them---focus on the micro registers.

there is a direct link between quality of care and insurance regime.
what managed care says and what it does are very different from each other.
draw your own conclusions---but sooner or later, you have to start looking at evidence, thinking about how it's put together what the arguments are, how they connect to the evidence---you know, read critically.
one would hope anyway.

08-12-2009, 05:55 AM	#85 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what i dont get is the contradiction between libertarian doctrine, which calls for state control as opposed to say federal because it's closer to "the volk" and so capable of being more nuanced and/or responsive. and the way in which libertarians approach political questions, treating their own position as a kind of inflexible a priori, and not even feeling the need to engage the actual issues in any real way. it makes no sense to me. why would flexibility and responsiveness not apply to how libertarians use their own political viewpoint? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-12-2009, 07:48 AM	#93 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	dk: fine, i retract the word. substitute another you like more. "real americans" say or "patriots" or whatever. it's not important. but how about you answer the question? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-12-2009, 07:56 AM	#95 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so i take it then that you have no particular problem with the existing health care system and oppose current efforts to alter it? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-12-2009, 10:39 AM	#112 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace---before we go any further, did you actually read the article? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-12-2009, 07:25 AM	#91 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Not All Socialist Countries are Alike

08-12-2009, 09:54 AM	#107 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I hear Somalia is a libertarian dream come true.

08-12-2009, 10:37 AM	#110 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	The World Health Organization ranked the US as #1 in terms of cost but #39 in terms of quality. All Obama and his people are doing is quoting these stats.