Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Healthcare Suicide (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/153773-healthcare-suicide.html)

Idyllic 03-21-2010 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay (Post 2770382)
Really the only thing good about it, I've lived it for 32 years, Baraka for around 30 years, we have no major complaints. I've had the same doctor for I can't remember how long, at least 10 years, before that I had my doctor for probably 12 years, and before that from the time I was born, 3 doctors in 32 years seems pretty continious to me.

Not a grandiose statement at all, you seem to think you know all about the way its going to be based on your experiences with military doctors, and think you know how it will be based on that, I'm simply telling my experiences, kind of the point of this thread don't you think?


My two sons have not seen the same doctor twice in 7 years..... 7 years for two boys. I have gone to the same hospital the whole time, i personally have not seen the same doctor twice. This outside of specialist who you must demand and then wait until they can fit you in. I have waited for the appt I am having next mon for 45 days, that was the soonest avail he had, the soonest.

I meant no disrespect. I don't know what it is like in Canada, but it apparently isn't all that great here, congratulations on your fantastic country seriously, I am jealous of your free health care system and how proud you all are of it, I'm just not trusting our government to get it right, and the way they have pushed this bill doesn't help with that trust. Maybe I should try it, Canada that is. Wait, I hate snow, although I think we got more here in MD than ya'll did. I did love the Olympics though, that was awesome, I loved the four tribal nations, that was way cool.

---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2770387)
actually, it's pretty easy to show how you have been factually incorrect over and over again. that's not an opinion

Please enlightenment with your wisdom oh fingered one. I await with bated breathe to be shown the err of my ways by one so noble.



No prob. rahl, I've got a trampoline, apparently I've put myself on that same limb a couple times, as everyone seems to be so graciously pointing out. Ah, the taste of defeat, it sucks. But I'm not done spitting. fsst, fsst, fsst....

pan6467 03-21-2010 07:43 PM

I USED to have the utmost respect for Dennis Kucinich. Sure at times he was nutty Denny, but you had to respect the way he would dig his heels in and right or wrong would never break or change his vote. I have seen and heard interviews with him since announcing his change. He looks and sounds beaten and tired. I truly hope the Dem leadership likes what it did to people like Dennis and Sherrod Brown. Not only has it destroyed many careers of otherwise good people, but the leadership has destroyed Congress people that actually cared about their constituents and this nation.

FUCK YOU DEM PARTY GO TO HELL AND I WILL LAUGH WHEN YOU LOSE COME NOVEMBER..... FUCK YOU PELOSI, OBAMA, AND ALL YOU POWER HUNGRY EGOTISTICAL SELF RIGHTEOUS IDOTS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT THE POWER. FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So sad..... Dennis was truly a good person and you destroyed him...

Wonder when the markets crash tomorrow, what's going to be your spin??????

ps: I DEEPLY APOLOGIZE IF MY LANGUAGE OFFENDS... IT IS THE PASSION SPEAKING AND WATCHING WHAT THIS PARTY I ONCE SO LOVED HAS DONE TO NOT ONLY DENNIS AND GOOD PEOPLE BUT TO THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.

rahl 03-21-2010 07:45 PM

The absurd overreactions are astonishing.

silent_jay 03-21-2010 07:48 PM

Well that was annoying, guess pan figured if caps don't work to get his point across, use really annoying huge lettering.
Quote:

I meant no disrespect. I don't know what it is like in Canada, but it apparently isn't all that great here, congratulations on your fantastic country seriously, I am jealous of your free health care system and how proud you all are of it, I'm just not trusting our government to get it right, and the way they have pushed this bill doesn't help with that trust. Maybe I should try it, Canada that is. Wait, I hate snow, although I think we got more here in MD than ya'll did. I did love the Olympics though, that was awesome, I loved the four tribal nations, that was way cool.
No worries, things are different all over I know you meant no disrespect, it's all good.

Yes the Olympics were quite the even, the opening ceremonies were great, aside from the one cauldron malfunctioning. You probably did have more snow than us, we had a rather mild winter compared to normal it seemed.

dc_dux 03-21-2010 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770392)
...ps: I DEEPLY APOLOGIZE IF MY LANGUAGE OFFENDS... IT IS THE PASSION SPEAKING AND WATCHING WHAT THIS PARTY I ONCE SO LOVED HAS DONE TO NOT ONLY DENNIS AND GOOD PEOPLE BUT TO THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not offended.

I do think it is unfortunate when passion gets in the way of the facts.

dippin 03-21-2010 07:54 PM

I look forward to the day when someone actually posts something factual against the current reform. Rage is no substitute to reason.

Idyllic 03-21-2010 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2770393)
The absurd overreactions are astonishing.

Oh rahl, I might be showing my aces here, but I'm going to have to agree with pan6467 here, just not so loudly, though I want too, Please don't be to disappointed with me, you knew me all along, I feel so naughty. Oh Shut up Obama. I am smiling deep down inside somewhere, In my happy place, and right now for the first time in my life, America ain't it. So disappointed with you Obama.

filtherton 03-21-2010 07:58 PM

Why would you be disappointed in Obama? It ain't like this is a shocker. Unless you're disappointed that he didn't go as far as he said he would during the campaign? Because that's why I'm disappointed in him.

rahl 03-21-2010 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2770398)
Oh rahl, I might be showing my aces here, but I'm going to have to agree with pan6467 here, just not so loudly, though I want too, Please don't be to disappointed with me, you knew me all along, I feel so naughty. Oh Shut up Obama. I am smiling deep down inside somewhere, In my happy place, and right now for the first time in my life, America ain't it. So disappointed with you Obama.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. Just everyone who has no idea what is really in the bill. I hated it at first, partly because I'm in the insurance industry but mostly because I didn't read the bill. Now I have, and it's going to be a good thing for the country and won't hurt my business personally. It will likely increase sales. (supplemental market)

Idyllic 03-21-2010 08:00 PM

dc-dux I'll be watching you, you better check and double check all your facts, regardless of where your passions lie and whether the facts you detail are lies that where told to you, lies you trusted or believed in. Facts are sometimes what people convince you to believe. I will continue to believe this was wrong, that is a fact.

ASU2003 03-21-2010 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2770397)
I look forward to the day when someone actually posts something factual against the current reform. Rage is no substitute to reason.

I said it earlier, but this doesn't go far enough to help people become healthier and reduce health expenses in that way.

And I get annoyed when they say it's 1/6th of our economy. It shouldn't be. In most other countries it's not. Health expenses in my yearly budget are 1/50th to 1/40th of my income.

dc_dux 03-21-2010 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2770402)
dc-dux I'll be watching you, you better check and double check all your facts, regardless of where your passions lie and whether the facts you detail are lies that where told to you, lies you trusted or believed in. Facts are sometimes what people convince you to believe. I will continue to believe this was wrong, that is a fact.

That's cool! You do that.

I try to check my facts very carefully and have no problem acknowledging when I am wrong and I dont post links to partisan opinions that are misleading or factually incorrect. That comes with 20+ years of working on public policy issues.

It is unfortunate that you were not able to do the same throughout this discussion.

Idyllic 03-21-2010 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2770400)
Why would you be disappointed in Obama? It ain't like this is a shocker. Unless you're disappointed that he didn't go as far as he said he would during the campaign? Because that's why I'm disappointed in him.

I have always been disappointed with Obama, from the first moment he decided it would be o.k. to acknowledge a withdrawal date, like a sucker punch to our kids over there. Just lost all respect for the man.

pan6467 03-21-2010 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2770397)
I look forward to the day when someone actually posts something factual against the current reform. Rage is no substitute to reason.

I can say this: Dennis himself in interviews has said he was browbeaten and truly had no choice but to vote the way party leaders told him. His voice is cracking, he's showing his age..... I truly feel sorry for the man. I may not have always agreed with him but again, I reiterate, I HAD THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR HIM. Dennis in his heart always showed he cared about his district and now, watching him, listening to him.... he's a fucking shadow of himself... THAT IS WHAT PELOSI, OBAMA AND THE FUCKING POWER HUNGRY LEADERS OF THE DEM PARTY HAVE DONE.

Sorry, but I just find it very sad for the country when they have to do this to someone who actually cared. It's all about POWER.

Today, the US has officially become late stage Rome with Barrack Room Emperors.

dc_dux 03-21-2010 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770406)
I can say this: Dennis himself in interviews has said he was browbeaten and truly had no choice but to vote the way party leaders told him. His voice is cracking....

Post a link to ONE such interview, please....where Kucinich said he was "browbeaten" or "had no choice"

Every interview I saw, he explained why he changed his vote even though he does not believe the bill is perfect.

Idyllic 03-21-2010 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770406)
I can say this: Dennis himself in interviews has said he was browbeaten and truly had no choice but to vote the way party leaders told him. His voice is cracking, he's showing his age..... I truly feel sorry for the man. I may not have always agreed with him but again, I reiterate, I HAD THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR HIM. Dennis in his heart always showed he cared about his district and now, watching him, listening to him.... he's a fucking shadow of himself... THAT IS WHAT PELOSI, OBAMA AND THE FUCKING POWER HUNGRY LEADERS OF THE DEM PARTY HAVE DONE.

Sorry, but I just find it very sad for the country when they have to do this to someone who actually cared. It's all about POWER.

Today, the US has officially become late stage Rome with Barrack Room Emperors.


I just wanted what you said repeated, I wholeheartedly agree, this administration is a joke, and the American people's new "heath care" will be the butt of it.

filtherton 03-21-2010 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2770405)
I have always been disappointed with Obama, from the first moment he decided it would be o.k. to acknowledge a withdrawal date, like a sucker punch to our kids over their. Just lost all respect for the man.

If this is what made you lose all your respect for him, then I would suggest that perhaps you haven't been paying attention. The same could be said of anyone who felt "sucker punched" by the announcement of a withdrawal date. He's been pretty clear about his goals as president. It sounds to me like you're disappointed with the fact that he was able to follow through with his goals.

I'm just saying, it you're disappointed with anyone, it should be the leadership of the Republican party for its inability to muster up enough blind, seething, misplaced, fearful, misinformed enmity to successfully stymie the president's efforts. You should be disappointed that they couldn't come up with something more plausible and more fear inducing than "death panels". You should be disappointed that they couldn't come up with something scarier and less familiar than socialism to use as a motivator. You should be disappointed that the Republican party fucked up the country so badly when they were in power that they couldn't help but put the Democrats in a position to pass this legislation. The last person you should be disappointed in is Obama.

rahl 03-21-2010 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2770409)
, this administration is a joke, and the American people's new "heath care" will be the butt of it.

I know you disagree with the mandated coverage part, which I adressed in the auto insurance comparisson. But what specifically about the "new" health care do you have a problem with?

is it the 30+million who will now have access to coverage?
is it the pre-ex exclusion?
is it the fact that now all health premiums will go down due to increased risk pool?
is it the fact that it is budget nuetral?
is it the fact that you can keep the insurance you have, or choose from a plethera of other private carriers?

pan6467 03-21-2010 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2770407)
Post a link to ONE such interview, please....where Kucinich said he was "browbeaten" or "had no choice"

Every interview I saw, he explained why he changed his vote even though he does not believe the bill is perfect.

Go to WTAM.com look under Trivisonno and play the interview.

I held out hope that Kucinich would stand up and change back. I find it sadly funny you care more about where I say he said he was browbeaten and had no choice than the fact the party destroyed the man. How pathetic.

Get what you want at any cost, huh?


Isn't that what we stood against W for? Didn't we feel W did the same thing? And now, the leaders of this party are far worse and have done far more damage than W EVER DID. (And I have never been a W fan, so please don't go there.)

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2770410)
If this is what made you lose all your respect for him, then I would suggest that perhaps you haven't been paying attention. The same could be said of anyone who felt "sucker punched" by the announcement of a withdrawal date. He's been pretty clear about his goals as president. It sounds to me like you're disappointed with the fact that he was able to follow through with his goals.

I'm just saying, it you're disappointed with anyone, it should be the leadership of the Republican party for its inability to muster up enough blind, seething, misplaced, fearful, misinformed enmity to successfully stymie the president's efforts. You should be disappointed that they couldn't come up with something more plausible and more fear inducing than "death panels". You should be disappointed that they couldn't come up with something scarier and less familiar than socialism to use as a motivator. You should be disappointed that the Republican party fucked up the country so badly when they were in power that they couldn't help but put the Democrats in a position to pass this legislation. The last person you should be disappointed in is Obama.

And again, I reiterate my OP: because of what you listed and other reasons, the GOP committed political suicide, maybe not as much as the Dems tho.

The Libertarian Party right now is probably salivating over the fact they will have a serious influx of people joining now.

dc_dux 03-21-2010 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770412)
Go to WTAM.com look under Trivisonno and play the interview.

I held out hope that Kucinich would stand up and change back. I find it sadly funny you care more about where I say he said he was browbeaten and had no choice than the fact the party destroyed the man. How pathetic.

Get what you want at any cost, huh?


Isn't that what we stood against W for? Didn't we feel W did the same thing? And now, the leaders of this party are far worse and have done far more damage than W EVER DID. (And I have never been a W fan, so please don't go there.)

I dont see any Kucinich interview saying he was browbeaten.

And I just disagree with your emotional rants that are without factual foundation about Obama and the Democrats.

But carry on in your bashing crusade! That is your right and I support that right.

rahl 03-21-2010 08:39 PM

Nowhere in that interview did he say he was browbeaten. He stated that though he didn't agree with the bill he did agree that if the bill was defeated any chance for any reform would take years and years to come about again and he couldn't be apart of that. Unless there is some other interview I missed, I don't see where you are coming from

filtherton 03-21-2010 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770406)
I can say this: Dennis himself in interviews has said he was browbeaten and truly had no choice but to vote the way party leaders told him. His voice is cracking, he's showing his age..... I truly feel sorry for the man. I may not have always agreed with him but again, I reiterate, I HAD THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR HIM. Dennis in his heart always showed he cared about his district and now, watching him, listening to him.... he's a fucking shadow of himself... THAT IS WHAT PELOSI, OBAMA AND THE FUCKING POWER HUNGRY LEADERS OF THE DEM PARTY HAVE DONE.

I just listened to the interview. I think you're delusional if this is the impression you got from it. If anyone was trying to browbeat him, it was the host, repeatedly interrupting him, telling him he had to put a dress on. I suspect that you didn't think Kucinich sounded defeated until you heard the host tell Kucinich he sounded defeated. The host kept saying Kucinich sounded defeated, and he tried his damnedest to get Kucinich to admit defeat but it didn't work. If anything, Kucinich probably felt exhausted because he was being interviewed by a someone intent on acting like a loudmouthed douchebag.

Kucinich specifically said in the interview that he wasn't threatened by constituents or the party. Kucinich said repeatedly in the interview that he voted for a flawed bill because he thought it might make more significant reform possible.

pan6467 03-21-2010 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2770415)
Nowhere in that interview did he say he was browbeaten. He stated that though he didn't agree with the bill he did agree that if the bill was defeated any chance for any reform would take years and years to come about again and he couldn't be apart of that. Unless there is some other interview I missed, I don't see where you are coming from

And how did he sound Rahl? Like the Dennis of old? Did he sound happy and enthusiastic over it? If no one has ever heard Dennis talk they may not understand. But I have heard Dennis talk for as long as I can remember (going back to the days when he was Cleveland's youngest mayor ever and he fought corruption in the city and for City Power.

He's always been an idealist and up until the past week ALWAYS been energetic and very self assured in his views. That interview and others the past week, he has been a shell of himself. Broken, trembling voice.

I dare you to listen to older Dennis tapes and compare them and tell me that you can't hear the voice of a broken man in Dennis now.

He is on again with Triv today (Monday) at 4pm. Feel free to listen. I'm sure Triv will play the parts I am talking about.

dc_dux 03-21-2010 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770418)
And how did he sound Rahl? Like the Dennis of old? Did he sound happy and enthusiastic over it? If no one has ever heard Dennis talk they may not understand. But I have heard Dennis talk for as long as I can remember (going back to the days when he was Cleveland's youngest mayor ever and he fought corruption in the city and for City Power.

He's always been an idealist and up until the past week ALWAYS been energetic and very self assured in his views. That interview and others the past week, he has been a shell of himself. Broken, trembling voice.

I dare you to listen to older Dennis tapes and compare them and tell me that you can't hear the voice of a broken man in Dennis now.

He is on again with Triv today (Monday) at 4pm. Feel free to listen. I'm sure Triv will play the parts I am talking about.

So he didnt actually say he was brow beaten?

I agree he was not enthusiastic about the bill, which is not a perfect "progressive' bill..but his explanation was reasonable and rational and not a defeatest emotional response....of course, unless you wanted to be believe he was brow beaten.

silent_jay 03-21-2010 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770418)
And how did he sound Rahl? Like the Dennis of old? Did he sound happy and enthusiastic over it? If no one has ever heard Dennis talk they may not understand. But I have heard Dennis talk for as long as I can remember (going back to the days when he was Cleveland's youngest mayor ever and he fought corruption in the city and for City Power.

He's always been an idealist and up until the past week ALWAYS been energetic and very self assured in his views. That interview and others the past week, he has been a shell of himself. Broken, trembling voice.

I dare you to listen to older Dennis tapes and compare them and tell me that you can't hear the voice of a broken man in Dennis now.

He is on again with Triv today (Monday) at 4pm. Feel free to listen. I'm sure Triv will play the parts I am talking about.

You're a voice analyst now? All this emotion and rage is based on a percieved change in his 'voice' you may or may not hear? Jesus.....

rahl 03-21-2010 08:52 PM

Pan, he is an old man so clearly he isn't going to sound like he did in his earlier years. I'm sorry that the facts in which you yourself provided contradict your own posts, but there it is in plain english for everyone to listen to.

filtherton 03-21-2010 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay (Post 2770420)
You're a voice analyst now? All this emotion and rage is based on a percieved change in his 'voice' you may or may not hear? Jesus.....

The host clearly said Kucinich sounded defeated, and his sidekick clearly agreed. Case closed. :expressionless:

pan6467 03-21-2010 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2770416)
I just listened to the interview. I think you're delusional if this is the impression you got from it. If anyone was trying to browbeat him, it was the host, repeatedly interrupting him, telling him he had to put a dress on. I suspect that you didn't think Kucinich sounded defeated until you heard the host tell Kucinich he sounded defeated. The host kept saying Kucinich sounded defeated, and he tried his damnedest to get Kucinich to admit defeat but it didn't work. If anything, Kucinich probably felt exhausted because he was being interviewed by a someone intent on acting like a loudmouthed douchebag.

Kucinich specifically said in the interview that he wasn't threatened by constituents or the party. Kucinich said repeatedly in the interview that he voted for a flawed bill because he thought it might make more significant reform possible.

Think I just answered that. I've heard him as long as I can remember. I have followed him because in the 80's and early 90's when I thought about going into politics there were 2 men in Ohio I looked at that I saw conviction from and liked, Sherrod Brown and Dennis Kucinich. I even respected and liked the part of Dennis that stated he'd seen UFOs and was hanging with Shirley McClaine. I felt he was honest and ALWAYS stuck by what he believed.

So don't tell me I DON'T KNOW Dennis.... I DO and Triv (as much as I love Triv) had NOTHING to do with my opinion over Dennis.

Baraka_Guru 03-21-2010 08:59 PM

Ever think that maybe he's just tired? He's been through a lot lately....

rahl 03-21-2010 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770406)
I can say this: Dennis himself in interviews has said he was browbeaten and truly had no choice but to vote the way party leaders told him..

So far everything in this statement is provably false. No amount of "thinking" you know him is going to change that.

dc_dux 03-21-2010 09:02 PM

The fact is he never said he was brow beaten...he never said he had no choice...he was not "bought" as others (FOX heads) allege.

He made a hard personal decision that a bill that is not perfect still has enough good at the foundation and is far better than no bill at all.

filtherton 03-21-2010 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770424)
So don't tell me I DON'T KNOW Dennis.... I DO and Triv (as much as I love Triv) had NOTHING to do with my opinion over Dennis.

I'm just saying that I don't necessarily trust your judgment here, no offense. Also, do you think it may have something to do with all the legislating going on? I know that I probably "sound defeated" after a long day at work. And as others have mentioned, he never said he was browbeaten or forced to do anything by the party. His voice wasn't cracking and he even laughed when the host said he sounded defeated. So either you misremembered or you exaggerated.

pan6467 03-21-2010 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2770421)
Pan, he is an old man so clearly he isn't going to sound like he did in his earlier years. I'm sorry that the facts in which you yourself provided contradict your own posts, but there it is in plain english for everyone to listen to.

I can link interviews and speeches he has given in recent weeks where his voice was as sharp as ever.

I love the Dennis bashing. "He's old".... lol 63 is not that old in congress.

Maybe this had something to do with it: from Wiki:

Quote:

Although his voting record is not always in line with that of the Democratic Party, on March 17, 2010, after being courted by President Barack Obama, his wife and others, reluctantly agreed to vote with his colleagues for the Healthcare Bill without a public option component. His wife had coincidentally been offered a position to work alongside Michelle Obama on her Childhood Obesity platform.[25][26]
Dennis Kucinich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dc_dux 03-21-2010 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770429)
I can link interviews and speeches he has given in recent weeks where his voice was as sharp as ever.

I love the Dennis bashing. "He's old".... lol 63 is not that old in congress.

Maybe this had something to do with it: from Wiki:



Dennis Kucinich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damn, dude.

You put words in his mouth that are not in any interview.

The rest is your interpretation... based on your own admitted emotional and passionate opposition to the bill, perhaps?

I doubt that as well as you "know him" that he confided in you personally about his own emotional state.

rahl 03-21-2010 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770429)
I can link interviews and speeches he has given in recent weeks where his voice was as sharp as ever.

I love the Dennis bashing. "He's old".... lol 63 is not that old in congress.

]

I'm too tired to keep arguing with you pan.
please feel free to post any links with time indexes of him specifically saying that he was browbeaten and strongarmed into voting, then maybe you will have a leg to stand on.

But as of now, the info you yourself posted put the lie to your claim.

Charlatan 03-21-2010 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770412)

Isn't that what we stood against W for? Didn't we feel W did the same thing? And now, the leaders of this party are far worse and have done far more damage than W EVER DID. (And I have never been a W fan, so please don't go there.)

Pan.. for guy that is full of hyperbole, this particular statement takes the cake.

The Obama administration has done more damage to American than Bush and his administration ever did? Really?

The mind boggles.

Sorry. But as an observer from the outside, I just can't agree.

dippin 03-21-2010 10:45 PM

So here we are, six pages seething with rage, and yet not one post about the specifics of the plan people disagree with. THEY DESTROYED AMERICA, SOCIALISM, ETC. ETC. and yet no specifics. For a bill that is apparently so terrible, it shouldn't be that hard, should it?

It is particularly surreal to see people at the same time buy into the "socialism" bullshit and be disappointed that Kucinich voted for this bill, when in reality he wanted (like I want) universal healthcare.

My bet is that in 2 years all these folks will be enjoying the tax breaks while still raging against Obama.

SecretMethod70 03-21-2010 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2770388)
I don't know what it is like in Canada, but it apparently isn't all that great here, congratulations on your fantastic country seriously, I am jealous of your free health care system and how proud you all are of it, I'm just not trusting our government to get it right, and the way they have pushed this bill doesn't help with that trust. Maybe I should try it, Canada that is.

Pretty sure you can't complain that just a little more socialism in American politics is going to "destroy the American Way" and simultaneously be jealous of the much more socialist Canada. I think you'd be surprised at just how many of your fellow Americans would also welcome even more socialism in our policy. Regardless of what Sarah Palin may think, they are real Americans too, and their votes count just as much as yours when they vote for their representatives... who then vote for things like health care reform.

It's really alright to be sad that the government is not going in the direction you'd like. It's alright to think this is bad for the country (though it'd be nice if facts, not emotion were given as explanations when asked why). But, seriously, it's time to accept that there are a LOT of people out there who think otherwise, and part of living in a Democratic Republic - or any society for that matter - is accepting that, you know what, sometimes those "other people" are going to get what they want and you're not going to get what you want. All the while, the country will go on and life will go on. It's all part of behaving like a grown-up.

Charlatan 03-21-2010 11:17 PM

Smeth... I just read the article to which you linked. I can't believe that such a prominent GOP leader would actually say, "we think this is the beginning of the end for America."

America really is a mess. I can't imagine a politician, in such a high position, in any other Western nation, spewing forth such hyperbole. Wow.

SecretMethod70 03-22-2010 12:01 AM


Charlatan 03-22-2010 01:19 AM

David Frum... a Canadian that most of us would be happy to forget is a Canadian. That said, what he had to say was some of the most pragmatic utterances I've heard from *any* Republicans in this debate. Interesting to hear it now that the voting is over. I wonder if this form of spin will get any traction given the new paradigm or will Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and company continue to push their tired agenda on America?

How long can the sort of hysteria that I am seeing (and even reading in this thread) be maintained? How long before it (needlessly) boils over?

Hopefully calmer heads prevail.

Frosstbyte 03-22-2010 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2770405)
I have always been disappointed with Obama, from the first moment he decided it would be o.k. to acknowledge a withdrawal date, like a sucker punch to our kids over there. Just lost all respect for the man.

This is something of a threadjack, but every "kid" "over there" that I know (and, having graduated college in the last 10 years, I know a lot of them), wants desperately to come back or desperately not to ever go there again, having already been once before.

I can't imagine what "kids" you know who think being able to come home from a hostile country is a sucker punch, but hey.

This isn't what I wanted, but, as an independent contractor, I'll sure as heck take it over the alternative.

rahl 03-22-2010 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2770457)
David Frum... a Canadian that most of us would be happy to forget is a Canadian. That said, what he had to say was some of the most pragmatic utterances I've heard from *any* Republicans in this debate. Interesting to hear it now that the voting is over. I wonder if this form of spin will get any traction given the new paradigm or will Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and company continue to push their tired agenda on America?

How long can the sort of hysteria that I am seeing (and even reading in this thread) be maintained? How long before it (needlessly) boils over?

Hopefully calmer heads prevail.

I'm sure their push will only get stronger. They will put on the fake outrage and do their best to influence elections in november.

Baraka_Guru 03-22-2010 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2770448)
Smeth... I just read the article to which you linked. I can't believe that such a prominent GOP leader would actually say, "we think this is the beginning of the end for America."

America really is a mess. I can't imagine a politician, in such a high position, in any other Western nation, spewing forth such hyperbole. Wow.

I could never get this sentiment. If the passing of a health care bill such as this can destroy America, what does that say about America? Is it really that weak? That fragile?

roachboy 03-22-2010 04:28 AM

the astonishing thing about this logic, such as it is, remains for me that the right is now saying effectively that "the american way" is defined by a health care arrangement that is a permanent expression of class warfare in the context of which over 30 million people do not have access to insurance and so do not have access to basic health care.

of course, you can't say that because the correlates of the argument are really ugly--you know, that these 30 million are extraneous people, or that they're not "real americans" or whatever---so instead the right's meme-machine shifts to matters of abstract "individual" rights as if "individuals" exist outside of society. so then social goals, like raising american capitalism from the barbaric conditions it allows to exist insofar as health care is concerned for the uninsured---become read as some kind of Imposition on the individual. which sets up the conservative Individual as wholly infantile, unable to distinguish itself from the world. the conservative individual is the world until Bad Reminders Come that maybe conservative individuals are not the world. these Bad Reminders typically come from the Persecuting State which is always bad unless it is being used to fund conservative-friendly constituencies like the military. then it is good. conservative Individuals, it seems, like diverting resources to systems that kill people but not so much to resources that make living easier or better for all. whatever.

it'd be amazing were it not so prevalent. read this thread. geez.

depressing stuff.

flstf 03-22-2010 07:08 AM

From the hysterical accusations from the Republicans one would think that this healthcare bill was some kind of radical change like single payer or something. Instead it is a middle of the road proposal similar to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan or the Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994. You can only cry "the sky is falling" so many times before you loose all credibility.

I don't think this bill will hurt the Democrats nearly as much as the Republicans think once people realize that life goes on and no one is pulling the plug on grandma.

rahl 03-22-2010 07:46 AM

The dangerous thing is that most of the benefits won't go into affect for a few years, so the republicans have plenty of time to ramp up the propoganda machine saying "see we told you it wouldn't work, what has this done for you so far?" Even though they know full well it's not going to do a whole lot until 2014.

silent_jay 03-22-2010 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2770448)
Smeth... I just read the article to which you linked. I can't believe that such a prominent GOP leader would actually say, "we think this is the beginning of the end for America."

America really is a mess. I can't imagine a politician, in such a high position, in any other Western nation, spewing forth such hyperbole. Wow.

I'm surprised the guy who said 'Behave like grown-ups' if healthcare bill is passed' in Smeths article is the same guy I saw on CN last night while flipping through the channels say 'The next 24 hours are "armageddon" because the health care bill proposed by Democrats will "ruin our country".
Boehner: It's 'Armageddon,' Health Care Bill Will Ruin Country | The FOX Nation

Quite amusing to be watching from the outside though, especially in this thread, I mean we've had it all, factual errors, people saying politicians said things when they didn't, some laughs, yep pretty amusing.

dippin 03-22-2010 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467 (Post 2770392)

Wonder when the markets crash tomorrow, what's going to be your spin??????

Markets are up. What is your spin?

Baraka_Guru 03-22-2010 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2770574)
Markets are up. What is your spin?

Yeah, not only are health-care stocks surging, but even U.S. bonds are ticking upward, suggesting that the bond markets aren't overly concerned about the implications of health care.

SecretMethod70 03-22-2010 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2770528)
The dangerous thing is that most of the benefits won't go into affect for a few years, so the republicans have plenty of time to ramp up the propoganda machine saying "see we told you it wouldn't work, what has this done for you so far?" Even though they know full well it's not going to do a whole lot until 2014.

The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You?ll Get When Health Care Reform Passes | House Democrats
Quote:

The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You’ll Get When Health Care Reform Passes

As soon as health care passes, the American people will see immediate benefits. The legislation will:
  • Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
  • Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
  • Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
  • Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;
  • Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;
  • Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
  • Require plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26;
  • Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
  • Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
  • Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.
By enacting these provisions right away, and others over time, we will be able to lower costs for everyone and give all Americans and small businesses more control over their health care choices.

SecretMethod70 03-22-2010 05:20 PM

HuffPo has compiled a list of the top 18 immediate effects of the health care bill as well as some that will take effect in the first year of implementation:

Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects

Quote:

  • An End To Pre-Existing Conditions: Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014.
  • Small Business Tax Credits: Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.
  • Seniors Get 'Donut Hole' Rebate: Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.
  • More Young Adults Covered On Parents' Plans: The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance rises to the age 27.
  • No Lifetime Caps: Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.
  • Adults With Pre-Existing Conditions Covered: A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014.
  • New Insurance Plans Must Include Preventative Care: New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018
  • The End Of 'Recissions': Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick.
  • Transparency In Insurance Companies: Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.
  • Customer Appeals Process: Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.
  • Indoor Tanning Services Tax: This tax will impose a ten percent tax on indoor tanning services. This tax, which replaced the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, would be effective for services on or after July 1, 2010.
  • Enhanced Fraud Abuse Checks: New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste.
  • Medicare Expansion To Rural Areas: Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients.
  • Deductions For Blue Cross Blue Shield: Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.
  • Nutrient Content Disclosure: Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon.
  • Better Coverage For Early Retirees: The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that coverage.
  • Better Consumer Information On The Web: The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses.
  • Encouraging Investment in New Therapies: A two‐year temporary credit (up to a maximum of $1 billion) is in the bill to encourage investment in new therapies for the prevention and treatement of diseases.


SecretMethod70 03-23-2010 09:57 AM

Opinions turn favorable on health care plan - USATODAY.com

Quote:

Opinions turn favorable on health care plan

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.
By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

To be sure, the nation remains divided about the massive legislation that narrowly passed the House late Sunday and was signed by Obama in an emotional East Room ceremony Tuesday morning. The Senate began debate Tuesday afternoon on a package of "fixes" demanded by the House.

The findings are encouraging for the White House and congressional Democrats, who get higher ratings than congressional Republicans for their work on the issue. The poll shows receptive terrain as the White House and advocacy groups launch efforts to sell the plan, including a trip by Obama to Iowa on Thursday.

No one gets overwhelmingly positive ratings on the issue, but Obama fares the best: 46% say his work has been excellent or good; 31% call it poor. Congressional Democrats get an even split: 32% call their efforts good or excellent; 33% poor.

The standing of congressional Republicans is more negative. While 26% rate their work on health care as good or excellent, a larger group, 34%, say it has been poor.

For more results and a look at the demographic breakdown of the poll findings, see Wednesday's USA TODAY.

filtherton 03-23-2010 04:59 PM

I know you can't actually hear the defeat in his voice when you read the article, but here's a bit more on Kucinich. Click the link for the full article.

Dennis Kucinich on Health Care Bill - What Obama Didn't Say by Dennis Kucinich - Esquire

Quote:

The meeting that took place on Air Force One was the fourth in a series of meetings that I had attended with the president in the last few months. There was a meeting on March 4 where the president called nine members to the Roosevelt Room at the White House, and eight of the members had voted for the bill when it passed the House last fall. I was the only one who voted against the bill. I thanked the president for inviting me even though I was a "no" vote. And in the more than hour-long meeting, the president covered a lot of territory about what he thought was important to consider. I sat quietly and listened carefully and took some notes. And at the end of the meeting, you know, we thanked each other, and I left.

I think that once people stop irrationally assuming the worst about this bill, we'll all be a great deal better off. Nobody thinks it's perfect, and nobody is completely satisfied. Unfortunately, there seems to be an entire political party that exists purely to feed irrational fear of the bill.

This isn't the end of the United States. It isn't the end of the economy. It isn't the cause of a crippling deficit that will crush the will of our grandchildren. My prediction is that most of the doomsaying that is currently occurring will fail to be borne out in reality and that most of the folks currently predicting doom won't even realize that they were wrong (much less publicly acknowledge the fact that they were wrong).

Derwood 03-25-2010 01:31 PM

The GOP's Dirty Health-Care Secret - The Daily Beast

The GOP has a really short memory, eh?

aceventura3 03-29-2010 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2771021)
I think that once people stop irrationally assuming the worst about this bill, we'll all be a great deal better off. Nobody thinks it's perfect, and nobody is completely satisfied. Unfortunately, there seems to be an entire political party that exists purely to feed irrational fear of the bill.

In this thread post #50 I wrote:

Quote:

If pre-existing conditions are an issue an insurance company can simply stop accepting new applicants forcing those people to go into the exchanges. This adverse selection will force costs up in the exchanges or coverage will have to be sacrificed. Kucinich was right at first, this bill is a win for insurance companies. We either need to go all in with a single payer public option or go "free market", this hybrid is for the birds.
I have been constantly writing about the consequences (how market participants will respond) and there is constant pretense that there will be no unintended consequences. Market responses are not irrational, to the contrary it is very rational and predictable:

Quote:

Just days after President Barack Obama signed the health care law, insurance companies are arguing that, at least for now, they don't have to provide one of the benefits the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain sick children.

At issue is how the industry has to treat children with pre-existing medical conditions.

Obama, speaking at a health care rally in Northern Virginia on March 19, said, "Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."

The law's authors say they meant to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, orthopedic problems, leukemia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. The goal, they say, was to provide them access to insurance and to a full range of benefits once they are in a health plan.

To insurance companies, the language of the law is not so clear.

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the "availability of coverage" for all until 2014.

William Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: "The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost."
Read more: When will children be covered? - CharlotteObserver.com

I suggest we keep our eyes open and ask questions, demand answers and try to get politicians off of their talking points. This should be truly embarrassing to Obama, I wonder if he read the legislation?

roachboy 03-29-2010 11:22 AM

good that you've got your shit straight and are asking the important questions, ace--how will the insurance companies react?
it's a bit mysterious that you don't seem to pay any attention to any of the....um....medical situations in the states that call out for the reforms, no matter how watered down they may be by the obama administrations mistaken approach that had them taking seriously what conservatives said. stuff like this:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/as...10192010en.pdf

maternal mortality rates have gone from 6.6/100k in 1987 to 13.3/100k in 2008. the problem, as this report makes clear, is really the radically unequal quality of care afforded different populations in the united states under the system that's being changed.

so these are people dying in childbirth. there's lots of other examples. but clearly the question is how the insurance companies will react.

aceventura3 03-29-2010 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2771736)
The GOP's Dirty Health-Care Secret - The Daily Beast

The GOP has a really short memory, eh?

Wow, so the left has to go to Nixon to make a point? Wasn't Nixon the guy who imposed wage and price freezes? Certainly not a free market concept.

But, there are two types of mandates regarding health care, there is the type like with medicare were everyone is required to participate through taxation and there is the type like in Obama's bill and like in Massachusetts. No matter who proposes the latter, odds are that the Constitutionality will be challenged.

If a low income person is living pay check to pay check on average I understand they will pay about 10% of their income on health insurance - fro people living pay check to pay check this is a big deal. Some will face paying their heat bill or pay for health insurance and would rather pay the heat bill - but they are going to get hit with a fine so they may not have a choice. Welcome to the new America.

rahl 03-29-2010 11:29 AM

Insurance companies will no longer be able to turn away those with pre-ex's. They can't deny them, so there won't be a flood of people going into the exchange.

aceventura3 03-29-2010 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2772971)
good that you've got your shit straight and are asking the important questions, ace--how will the insurance companies react?

The point is that there needed to be a real open debate on the subject, there was not. Obama's approach to this complicated issue, was his way or no way.
Quote:

it's a bit mysterious that you don't seem to pay any attention to any of the....um....medical situations in the states that call out for the reforms,
This comment assumes there was not a better way to address reform, I think there is.

Quote:

no matter how watered down they may be by the obama administrations mistaken approach that had them taking seriously what conservatives said. stuff like this:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/as...10192010en.pdf

maternal mortality rates have gone from 6.6/100k in 1987 to 13.3/100k in 2008. the problem, as this report makes clear, is really the radically unequal quality of care afforded different populations in the united states under the system that's being changed.

so these are people dying in childbirth. there's lots of other examples. but clearly the question is how the insurance companies will react.
It is frustrating reading reports like this when from the start they make it clear there is a political agenda. In the first paragraph they make this statement which is false:

Quote:

Approximately half of these deaths could be prevented
if maternal health care were available, accessible and
of good quality for all women in the USA.
There are almost no women in this country who can not get access to good prenatal care. How is the report to have any credibility?

roachboy 03-29-2010 11:40 AM

because of the documentation behind it ace.
i don't think researchers are calling you up to see if their results are ok with you.
so it's really not important whether you like the information or not.

class stratification of access to medical care is a basic reality.
i hardly expect you to see that because i don't expect you acknowledge the existence of economic classes.

there is a debate in here somewhere that will come---not here---about whether medical care should be understood as a business---whether any of it should be for profit---whether that is ethical at all.

but for the moment of course, what's important are conservative bromides about rational markets and dismissing information about actual problems of access to medical care.

way to go.

aceventura3 03-29-2010 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2772973)
Insurance companies will no longer be able to turn away those with pre-ex's. They can't deny them, so there won't be a flood of people going into the exchange.

Do you wanna make a wager? If this is not an issue, I will make a charitable donation to your charity of choice, if it is you make a donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, on the honor system.

An insurance company can simply stop taking new applicants if the "pre-existing" condition issue is expected to be a problem. So, in 2013 they write as much "profitable" business as possible and basically close their doors in 2014. The rush begins, all the people without insurance with pre-existing conditions go into exchanges. 2015, insurance companies start accepting new clients, or perhaps they don't - because the costs for their pool will be significantly lower and so will the premiums. Perhaps, they start a separate company with separate books - oh, you must get it - insurance companies will have people actually read the law, find the holes, and use them as they see fit. The insurance companies know the battle is not over. Insurance companies know the business better than the folks in Washington.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2772977)
because of the documentation behind it ace.
i don't think researchers are calling you up to see if their results are ok with you.
so it's really not important whether you like the information or not.

class stratification of access to medical care is a basic reality.
i hardly expect you to see that because i don't expect you acknowledge the existence of economic classes.

there is a debate in here somewhere that will come---not here---about whether medical care should be understood as a business---whether any of it should be for profit---whether that is ethical at all.

but for the moment of course, what's important are conservative bromides about rational markets and dismissing information about actual problems of access to medical care.

way to go.

I understand the issues, my point was pretty clear. I started reading the report and right from the start they make a b.s. statement. They could have worded the statement in a manner to make the point and be truthful without the actual implication they made. As the reader, I made an assumption, which is my right, I believe they have a political agenda and truth is secondary.

dc_dux 03-29-2010 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2772975)
....There are almost no women in this country who can not get access to good prenatal care. How is the report to have any credibility?

ace...the average cost of prenatal care and delivery in the US is nearly $8,000.

Is that affordable and accessible if you are a working family making $30-50K and have no insurance?

rahl 03-29-2010 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2772980)
Do you wanna make a wager? If this is not an issue, I will make a charitable donation to your charity of choice, if it is you make a donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, on the honor system.

An insurance company can simply stop taking new applicants if the "pre-existing" condition issue is expected to be a problem. So, in 2013 they write as much "profitable" business as possible and basically close their doors in 2014. The rush begins, all the people without insurance with pre-existing conditions go into exchanges. 2015, insurance companies start accepting new clients, or perhaps they don't - because the costs for their pool will be significantly lower and so will the premiums. Perhaps, they start a separate company with separate books - oh, you must get it - insurance companies will have people actually read the law, find the holes, and use them as they see fit. The insurance companies know the battle is not over. Insurance companies know the business better than the folks in Washington.

The vast majority of people with insurance have it through their employer. Beginning immediatly all children under 19 can not be excluded. Beginning in 2014 no one can be excluded. Your scenario could hypothetically happen to people buying individual policies, but it won't affect employer sponsored plans, which is what most americans have.

I don't doubt that insurance companies will follow only the letter of the law and no more. They will in all likelyhood try to exploit any and all loopholes, but the language is very specific in terms of group health insurance.

roachboy 03-29-2010 12:13 PM

by chance i just saw this post from the mit press blog. i'll paste up the relevant paragraphs:

Quote:

Apart from the political debate, we wanted to know what was next for the nation's health care system. So we turned to Tom Lee, who's CEO of Partners Health Care in Boston and coauthor with James Mongan of Chaos & Organization in Health Care, which analyzes the prospects of reform from the standpoint of the delivery of care. He sent us the following thoughts on the changes just enacted, the challenges that lie ahead, and why reform matters.

Now that the health care reform legislation has passed, the real work begins. There are three types of “reform” related to health care, and the U.S. has just made huge progress on the first – financing reform (i.e., coming up with the money to pay for health care).

The second type of reform is payment reform – i.e., how providers are paid. Will they continue to be paid fee-for-service, by the test, by the procedure? Or will the funds made available through the new legislation be used in some different way, such as bundled payments for episodes of care or capitated payments to providers for care for an entire population?

If the payment system does not change, we can expect slow progress on the third and most important type of reform – delivery system reform. Delivery system reform means real change in the way care is delivered. It means providers getting more organized, and implementing systems that make care more efficient and higher quality.

Ultimately, delivery system reform is the real goal – it is the end, for which payment reform is just the means. It is our best hope for truly improving the efficiency and quality of care.

A reasonable question is – why weren’t all these issues addressed together? The reason is that it is too complicated. Meaningful efforts to change the payment system and the delivery system would create too many losers who would do their best to sabotage the change.

I strongly believe that the way we took on health care reform in Massachusetts makes sense – first get everyone covered, then take on costs and other tough issues. Once you have everyone covered, then the gun is held to our heads to get down to the ugly work of changing how we do things in health care. If you don’t have that commitment to full coverage in place, then it is all too easy to squirm out of short term financial challenges by un-insuring or under-insuring people.

I hope we really do have a much broader national commitment to covering most Americans now. And I know that the challenges in making that commitment work will be brutal. But for the faint of heart, let me give one glimpse of the reward within our reach.

In my practice at the teaching clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, my population is very mixed socioeconomically, racially, and medically – but they are all alike in one way. Every single patient now has insurance. My last uninsured patient got coverage last fall through the Massachusetts Connector. He is a 62 year old self-employed electrician with diabetes. He really needs insurance, and it is a lot easier for me to take care of him now.

That’s why slogging away at the second and third types of health care reform is work worth doing.
MITPressLog: After reform...what's next?

do you think mongan provides a useful orientation for thinking about the process that's underway with this legislation?

flstf 03-29-2010 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2772991)
do you think mongan provides a useful orientation for thinking about the process that's underway with this legislation?

Yes, however I think the first type of reform "financing" will be modified by the addition of a public option before much progress is made on the others.

aceventura3 03-30-2010 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2772986)
ace...the average cost of prenatal care and delivery in the US is nearly $8,000.

Is that affordable and accessible if you are a working family making $30-50K and have no insurance?

There is a difference between the average cost and what a low income woman would pay, if anything. There are many reasons why prenatal care is at unacceptable levels in this country for some women but to suggest the issue is one of availability is untrue. That is my only comment on this issue at this time.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2772990)
The vast majority of people with insurance have it through their employer. Beginning immediatly all children under 19 can not be excluded. Beginning in 2014 no one can be excluded. Your scenario could hypothetically happen to people buying individual policies, but it won't affect employer sponsored plans, which is what most americans have.

We already have business owners who have gone on record saying that if they pay a penalty for not offering coverage their costs would be lower. At some point some of those people may very well drop the benefit to their employees. This is important - the costs of those plans will go up because of the preexisting conditions issue, not go down, increasing the probability the benefit will be dropped by some employers. Those employees will most likely go into the exchanges. As the cycle continues, employers who want to maintain the benefit may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage and either face declining market share, profitability, or going out of business. they may be forced into dropping the benefit, putting more in the exchanges. And, even if insurance companies simply take new insured's with preexisting conditions, costs will go up and passed on to all insured's. Insurance companies have a mandated medical pay-out ratio, but on the other-hand this is a guaranteed profit margin once the get a handle on their non-medical costs.

This is not going to hurt insurance companies or business owners, ultimately these cost will be incurred by the American public one way or the other.

My preference with children is to have a system where we simply cover the medical costs for all children in this country period, no questions asked. If a child is being treated for a condition upon obtaining the age of majority, we should continue that treatment for the remainder of their lives, otherwise they buy a policy on their own. That and a free market approach for adults, up to qualifying for Medicare is what I would do - short of a true single payer system with individuals having the option of buying supplemental coverages.

Quote:

I don't doubt that insurance companies will follow only the letter of the law and no more. They will in all likelyhood try to exploit any and all loopholes, but the language is very specific in terms of group health insurance.
But, that is the point. Perhaps, the stop offering group coverage and focus on individual policies. Or perhaps they do the opposite. Perhaps, the write coverage in Arizona but not Michigan, etc, etc, etc., They are not going to go out of business over preexisting conditions - they will make a profit or not participate. the legislation does not have simple little loop-holes, it has major problems that contradict the broad promises made.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2772991)
do you think mongan provides a useful orientation for thinking about the process that's underway with this legislation?

It is a convoluted way to get to single payer. If government thinks it can control real costs and control market behaviors including delivery systems, it has to control the system from A to Z. I think there are simpler more efficient ways to incrementally get to full single payer system, including what I stated above, taking the next step with children.

dc_dux 03-30-2010 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2773318)
There is a difference between the average cost and what a low income woman would pay, if anything. There are many reasons why prenatal care is at unacceptable levels in this country for some women but to suggest the issue is one of availability is untrue. That is my only comment on this issue at this time.

ace...it may be your only comment, but you are wrong.

There are millions of women in working families above the Medicaid level and w/o insurance. Unlike women (or a spouse) with employer-based health coverage where 85% the cost, on average, is covered by insurance, the cost of pre-natal care and delivery for these women is beyond their means....in the range of $7,000-$8,000.

So I guess they shouldnt have children, huh? Or maybe they should just skimp and skip the pre-natal and save about $1,500-$2,000 of that total.

rahl 03-30-2010 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2773318)


But, that is the point. Perhaps, the stop offering group coverage and focus on individual policies. Or perhaps they do the opposite. Perhaps, the write coverage in Arizona but not Michigan, etc, etc, etc., They are not going to go out of business over preexisting conditions - they will make a profit or not participate. the legislation does not have simple little loop-holes, it has major problems that contradict the broad promises made..

The language in the bill is specific. They can no longer choose to deny a person be it group or individual. As far as not participating in certain states, that won't work either because those with pre-ex's are spread out over the entire country.

aceventura3 03-30-2010 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2773325)
ace...it may be your only comment, but you are wrong.

There are millions of women in working families above the Medicaid level and w/o insurance. Unlike women (or a spouse) with employer-based health coverage where 85% the cost, on average, is covered by insurance, the cost of pre-natal care and delivery for these women is beyond their means....in the range of $7,000-$8,000.

So I guess they shouldnt have children, huh? Or maybe they should just skimp and skip the pre-natal and save about $1,500-$2,000 of that total.

I can not believe I am doing a search on prenatal care access...

But for example New York, they have a PCAP/MOMS program:

A healthy baby starts with a healthy pregnancy.

If you look at their guidlines manual there is a presumption of qualification and the qualification for the program is up to 200% of the poverty level:

Quote:

Expanded Medicaid Eligibility is Medicaid coverage for pregnant women with incomes at 0-200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) who would otherwise be ineligible for Medicaid.
Medicaid eligibility is guaranteed until the end of the month in which the 60th day postpartum occurs.
A Medicaid-eligible woman can receive care at PCAP sites throughout New York State, or from other Medicaid enrolled providers.
Presumptive Eligibility
Presumptive Eligibility (PE) is the process whereby a preliminary financial screen for a pregnant woman is conducted at the PCAP site by a qualified provider (QP) to determine if the woman would be financially eligible for Medicaid (income at 0-200% of the FPL).
If the pregnant woman is found to be presumptively eligible for Medicaid by the QP, the PCAP is able to begin the woman’s care, and is guaranteed to be paid for services rendered until the Medicaid application is processed and a full determination of Medicaid eligibility is made by the Local Department of Social Services (LDSS), even if the final determination is a denial.
The QP at the PCAP is required to assist the woman in assembling the necessary paperwork for a full Medicaid application and convey the information to the LDSS’ Medicaid office. This process eliminates the need for the woman to make a separate trip to the LDSS to complete the Medicaid application.
Even if they don't qualify, don't have insurance, nor enough income, I am pretty sure there are other programs or even some doctors or clinic who would provide prenatal care a little or no cost, or even allow payments over time. The resources are out there and available.

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2773331)
The language in the bill is specific. They can no longer choose to deny a person be it group or individual. As far as not participating in certain states, that won't work either because those with pre-ex's are spread out over the entire country.

O.k., I throw up the white flag. You don't think it will be an issue, I do. Time will tell.

{added}

DC, here is more infor for you, if you need it:

Quote:

Financial Help During Pregnancy

For many women, the extra expenses of prenatal care and preparing for the new baby are overwhelming. You and your baby deserve to be healthy and have consistent care. Financial, medical and and other programs are available for you and your baby.
Financial Aid

Every state in the United States has programs to give financial, medical and other information, advice and other services important for a healthy pregnancy.

The links Medical Help for Pregnant Women, Mothers and Children and Financial Assistance for Pregnant Women, Mothers and Children will put you in touch with many valuable resources.

You may find clicking on the following resources and links helpful:

Child welfare agency for each state,

Department of Health can provide nutrition information and help as well as help with pregnancy and post-pregnancy concerns.

Medicaid in each state can help you with answers about free services offered to you and your child.

State Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program provides free or low-cost mammogram and Pap test.

Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program provides help with food, nutritional counseling, and access to health services for women, infants and children.

Food Banks and Food Stamp programs are available.



Free and Low-cost Health Insurance

Your children may be eligible for free or low-cost health insurance. Your state and every state in the nation has a health insurance program for infants, children and teens. For little or no cost, this insurance pays for doctor visits, prescription medicines, hospitalizations, and much more. Children that do not currently have health insurance are likely to be eligible, even if you are working. The states have different eligibility rules, but in most states, uninsured children 18 years old and younger, whose families earn up to $34,100 a year (for a family of four) are eligible.

Please visit the links Health Insurance and Women and Insure Kids Now.






Financial Help Publications and Organizations

Local hospitals or social service agencies may also be good resources that can put you in touch with free clinics or clinics that provide free care.

The following has been adapted from the National Women's Health Information Center website:

1. Child Support Enforcement Steps - This publication lists the steps for applying for and collecting child support.
2. Finding Help to Pay for Child Care - This fact sheet provides information on Federal and private assistance for child care. It also provides information on child care tax credits.
3. Frequently Asked Questions About the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program - Food, nutrition counseling, and access to health services are provided to low-income women, infants, and children under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, popularly known as WIC. This fact sheet provides information about the program and its benefits.
4. Search for a Headstart Program - Head Start Programs are those profit- and non-profit organizations, which receive funds from the Head Start Bureau. Use the search tool on this site to locate specific types of Head Start Programs, or those in specific geographical locations.
5. Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) - VFC helps families by providing free vaccines to doctors who serve eligible children and is administered at the national level by the CDC through the National Immunization Program. CDC contracts with vaccine manufacturers to buy vaccines at reduced rates. States and eligible U.S. projects enroll physicians who serve eligible patients up to and including age 18 years, providing routine immunizations with little to no out-of-pocket costs.
6. Who Gets WIC and How to Apply - Information about the Women, Infants and Children Program - This fact sheet provides information about WIC's eligibility requirements, length of participation and application procedures.
7. WIC Contacts: State Agencies, Nutrition Coordinators & Breastfeeding Coordinators - This directory provides contact information for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), organized by each state. You may view alphabetically (by state), by region, or using a listing of just the Toll-free numbers.
8. Financial Management During Crisis (Copyright © The Nemours Foundation) - This article provides information on managing your health care payments during a financial crisis. It provides information on the cost of health care, the health care system, the warning signs of financial trouble, paying for health care costs, finding help paying for health care, and other financial tips.

The Office of Family Assistance (OFA) in the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and oversees the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program which was created by the Welfare Reform Law of 1996. TANF became effective July 1, 1997, and replaced what was then commonly known as welfare: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs.
http://www.pregnancyandchildren.com/...ncial_help.htm

So, far I have only done three searches.

dc_dux 03-30-2010 02:06 PM

The average cost...from pre-natal to deliver is $7,600

Healthcare 411: Audio Feature

And you are sure that women w/o health insurance and above the Medcaid threshold will find someone to cover the majority, or a significant portion, of that cost?

200% of the poverty level, ace? Thats $28K (ave) for a husband/wife. Above that and w/o insurance, you are sol.

aceventura3 03-30-2010 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2773336)
The average cost...from pre-natal to deliver is $7,600

Healthcare 411: Audio Feature

And you are sure that women w/o health insurance and above the Medcaid threshold will find someone to cover the majority, or a significant portion, of that cost?

200% of the poverty level, ace? Thats $28K (ave) for a husband/wife. Above that and w/o insurance, you are sol.

I throw up the white flag here too. Hell, if I knew a pregnant woman I would help her pay for care if she needed help and I would help her connect to resources.

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2773336)
200% of the poverty level, ace? Thats $28K (ave) for a husband/wife. Above that and w/o insurance, you are sol.

Sorry, but I need to add one more thing, thinking about unintended consequences.

One of the reasons the out-of-wedlock birth rate is so high is because of arbitrary cut-offs like this. If the man has a good job paying over $28,000, it would be in his and her interests not to get married and incur the costs, but to have her go through the government subsidized care saving about $8k. People are not dumb. And, I don't suggest we don't help people, but some programs are set up to make people act in dishonest ways and have negative consequences. Once the guy knows the government is going to do his job, his connection gets weakened. A better way is simply to get the costs lower and not "penalize" people for making a little too much money in a all or nothing approach.

dc_dux 03-30-2010 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2773341)
Sorry, but I need to add one more thing, thinking about unintended consequences.

One of the reasons the out-of-wedlock birth rate is so high is because of arbitrary cut-offs like this. If the man has a good job paying over $28,000, it would be in his and her interests not to get married and incur the costs, but to have her go through the the government subsidized care saving about $8k. People are not dumb. And, I don't suggest we don't help people, but some programs are set up to make people act in dishonest way and have negative consequences. Once the guy knows the government is going to do his job, his connection gets weakened.

So now you are suggesting that a couple making $35-50K will seek a lesser page job under $28k to qualify for medicaid and save $7 - 8K?

aceventura3 03-30-2010 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2773359)
So now you are suggesting that a couple making $35-50K will seek a lesser page job under $28k to qualify for medicaid and save $7 - 8K?

Come on, read what I wrote. Are you really pretending that the issue I presented is not real or are you just being argumentative? If you are serious, I do strongly suggest getting out and interacting with low income people.

dc_dux 03-30-2010 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2773399)
Come on, read what I wrote. Are you really pretending that the issue I presented is not real or are you just being argumentative? If you are serious, I do strongly suggest getting out and interacting with low income people.

You have data to prove the issue is real...that people take a cut in pay in order to get govt. assistance?

I dont doubt you can find a few anecdotal examples....but it far from the norm.

aceventura3 03-31-2010 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2773416)
You have data to prove the issue is real...that people take a cut in pay in order to get govt. assistance?

I dont doubt you can find a few anecdotal examples....but it far from the norm.

What is the unwed birth rate for those in poverty?
What was that rate before the "war on poverty"?
What do you think are the top 10 contributors to the trend of unwed births in low income areas?
How does the trend in unwed birth in low income areas compare to middle and upper class income areas? Why are the trend lines different?

I can not persuade you, I know that, but if you honestly looked at this issue, the way that I have, your conclusions would be very similar to mine.

the fundamental issue I have with the liberal approach to issues like this is the presumption that poor people are not rational. What is common or not, here is what you want to believe:

Example: Joe 22 years old, with a job paying $27,000 per year, and a girl friend, who is 18. He loves her, and he just got good news on two fronts. First he was offered a promotion to be a crew chief, it offers $1,100 dollars more per year. His girl friend tells him she is pregnant. He is on cloud nine, and says let's get married.

His girl friend already did some research and knows that she can get free prenatal care, free delivery, free post natal care, coverage for her child, food and diapers. Adding all that up over two years it comes to a value of let's say $12,000.

If they get married they are looking at his income of $28,100, or $100 over the cut-off. So, marriage will cost them $12,000.

You think they are not rational, I do.

They don't get married - his connection to his family is weakened. What may have been the beginnings of a wonderful family has been hurt by government policy. I say rather than these arbitrary cut-off and high "marginal tax" (or loss of benefit) situations, let's come up with a better solution.

I don't get it, why do you keep playing pretend with these real world issues?

filtherton 03-31-2010 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2773557)
What is the unwed birth rate for those in poverty?
What was that rate before the "war on poverty"?
What do you think are the top 10 contributors to the trend of unwed births in low income areas?
How does the trend in unwed birth in low income areas compare to middle and upper class income areas? Why are the trend lines different?

Do you actually have your analysis available, or is this just another one of those "I'm Ace and this is what seems plausible to me and so now you must argue with me about it as though it is fact" things?

Quote:

Example: Joe 22 years old, with a job paying $27,000 per year, and a girl friend, who is 18. He loves her, and he just got good news on two fronts. First he was offered a promotion to be a crew chief, it offers $1,100 dollars more per year. His girl friend tells him she is pregnant. He is on cloud nine, and says let's get married.

His girl friend already did some research and knows that she can get free prenatal care, free delivery, free post natal care, coverage for her child, food and diapers. Adding all that up over two years it comes to a value of let's say $12,000.

If they get married they are looking at his income of $28,100, or $100 over the cut-off. So, marriage will cost them $12,000.

You think they are not rational, I do.

They don't get married - his connection to his family is weakened. What may have been the beginnings of a wonderful family has been hurt by government policy. I say rather than these arbitrary cut-off and high "marginal tax" (or loss of benefit) situations, let's come up with a better solution.

I don't get it, why do you keep playing pretend with these real world issues?
I can vouch for this situation because I am in a similar one. The reason I'm not married to my lady is that we don't think marriage necessary. It isn't for financial reasons, though if we did decide to get married, financial considerations might present an obstacle. It isn't our fault we live in a society intent on overemphasizing the importance of marriage by tying finances to marriage status.

I get good financial aid benefits for school and our family benefits from having one stellar credit rating and one poor credit rating. If we got married we'd get to suffer with one shitty credit rating, and we'd end up in more debt because I'd likely get considerably less college money.

As far as connections with families being weakened, I think you're overstating the power of a marriage license here. A father's (or mother's) connection to their family exists completely independently of whether or not they are in a legally recognized marriage with the other biological parent.

*edit: in any case, just because you can fathom a scenario where it may be beneficial with respect to a specific program for a couple to not marry, you still can't plausibly assume that this scenario is significantly prevalent among the beneficiaries of said program to warrant consideration.

dc_dux 03-31-2010 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2773557)
What is the unwed birth rate for those in poverty?
What was that rate before the "war on poverty"?
What do you think are the top 10 contributors to the trend of unwed births in low income areas?
How does the trend in unwed birth in low income areas compare to middle and upper class income areas? Why are the trend lines different?

I can not persuade you, I know that, but if you honestly looked at this issue, the way that I have, your conclusions would be very similar to mine.

the fundamental issue I have with the liberal approach to issues like this is the presumption that poor people are not rational. What is common or not, here is what you want to believe:

ace...IMO, what is rational is that most people want to do better for themselves and and their families and view federal assistance programs as a temporary safety net in times of need rather than a way of life.

Anecdotes and undocumented assumptions, based on a pre-conceived ideology that those "scamming the system" represent anything more than a very small minority, are not very convincing.

And the fact remains that most of those use benefit from federal assistance do so for relatively short, transitional periods of time.

So, no, my views would not be similar to yours.

aceventura3 04-02-2010 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2773630)
Do you actually have your analysis available, or is this just another one of those "I'm Ace and this is what seems plausible to me and so now you must argue with me about it as though it is fact" things?

I will be 50 years old this year, I have been poor, what some consider "rich", back down and on the way up again. In high school and college I did research papers on the subject, in the 70's and 80's it was a major topic of discussion. I intimately know poor people, "rich" people, people who were once poor and now "rich", etc. I have been in public debates and have given civic speeches and presentations on the subject. I had a corporate job where they supported my outside activities in this area. And I still devour volumes of data on the subject. Other than a pure and simple appeal for an understanding of the rational nature (either consciously applied or not) of decision making by "poor" people, I don't know where to start, given my belief that nothing I present will make a difference at this point.

So, I ask the question directly and simply, do you believe "poor" people tend to make rational decisions? If you think they do, does apply to economic decisions? It is very possible for you or others to believe that "poor" people are poor because they make irrational economic decisions, but in my experience that is less often true than the opposite. Actually, in my experience "poor" people on a whole may be more rational with money than "rich" people. In my view this question is at the core of what one's expectation of the role of government is in helping "poor" people, it also defines what one will accept and reject on what they will accept as evidence. Reading the postings on how this has progressed it is pretty clear to me that there is an element of not wanting to believe or pretending not to believe what is pretty obvious. And given that, there is nothing I can do.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2773630)
As far as connections with families being weakened, I think you're overstating the power of a marriage license here. A father's (or mother's) connection to their family exists completely independently of whether or not they are in a legally recognized marriage with the other biological parent.

Look at this from a big picture point of view - the things that connect a family include many factors, one being the financial connection of willing to work and sacrifice for one's family. Another factor is the connection being reinforced by daily contact. If we take both of these away, it has a big impact, especially on males in the ages up to about 35.

---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2773766)
ace...IMO, what is rational is that most people want to do better for themselves and and their families and view federal assistance programs as a temporary safety net in times of need rather than a way of life.

I don't disagree. Nothing I said is consistent with your point about "a way of life", however, using an example not necessarily involving "poor", you have the phenomenon of something like subsidized housing in New York. You use "way of life" however, why would a person give up highly subsidized housing? They generally won't, unless there is a compelling reason. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think I am one of those people who say, "well they get pregnant to get more welfare". I am not - the the issue is a bit more complicated than that, but not so complicated that it can not be understood, modeled and predicted..

Quote:

Anecdotes and undocumented assumptions, based on a pre-conceived ideology that those "scamming the system" represent anything more than a very small minority, are not very convincing.

And the fact remains that most of those use benefit from federal assistance do so for relatively short, transitional periods of time.
Prenatal care lasts about 9 months.

Quote:

So, no, my views would not be similar to yours.
You have not clearly presented your views.

filtherton 04-02-2010 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2774341)
So, I ask the question directly and simply, do you believe "poor" people tend to make rational decisions? If you think they do, does apply to economic decisions? It is very possible for you or others to believe that "poor" people are poor because they make irrational economic decisions, but in my experience that is less often true than the opposite. Actually, in my experience "poor" people on a whole may be more rational with money than "rich" people. In my view this question is at the core of what one's expectation of the role of government is in helping "poor" people, it also defines what one will accept and reject on what they will accept as evidence. Reading the postings on how this has progressed it is pretty clear to me that there is an element of not wanting to believe or pretending not to believe what is pretty obvious. And given that, there is nothing I can do.

I don't think one's ability to make rational decisions is determined by class and I'm not sure how you could have come to the conclusion that I did. I also don't think that you're working with an objective definition of the word rational, but that's just my opinion.

Quote:

Look at this from a big picture point of view - the things that connect a family include many factors, one being the financial connection of willing to work and sacrifice for one's family. Another factor is the connection being reinforced by daily contact. If we take both of these away, it has a big impact, especially on males in the ages up to about 35.
So you're saying that without a marriage license it is more difficult to work and sacrifice for one's family? Or maintain daily contact? Did you know that unmarried couples with children can live together and collaborate on household finances?

aceventura3 04-03-2010 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2774355)
I don't think one's ability to make rational decisions is determined by class and I'm not sure how you could have come to the conclusion that I did. I also don't think that you're working with an objective definition of the word rational, but that's just my opinion.

I gave an example of how public policy can impact a family decision, my example illustrated a rational thought process, and what followed was a pretense that the point was not relevant.

I think some fall into a trap when looking a statistical information. Basically, statistics dehumanize people. Before one can really understand broad based statistical data one has to understand what drives decisions on an individual level. The trap I describe leads us to public policy that takes the form of - 'well we are doing XX% out of 100%' and expecting everything is o.k. When you are one of the people on the margins, that is not o.k. I think there are better approaches to these problems, for example rather than totally changing health care in a half baked way, why not simply take the step of giving every child, 100% of them, full and complete medical care. No margins, no geography issues, no parental issues, no preexisting condition issues, no income issues, no timing issues, nothing, just give them coverage.



Quote:

So you're saying that without a marriage license it is more difficult to work and sacrifice for one's family? Or maintain daily contact? Did you know that unmarried couples with children can live together and collaborate on household finances?
You are working too hard to read things into what I wrote that are not there. Why?

dippin 04-03-2010 12:26 PM

Ace, I think you will find that most liberals in here are in favor of a single payer universal health care system, so you don't need to convince any of us of that.

Of course, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that because the bill doesn't cover everyone, it shouldn't cover anyone.

filtherton 04-03-2010 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2774569)
I gave an example of how public policy can impact a family decision, my example illustrated a rational thought process, and what followed was a pretense that the point was not relevant.

It's relevance will only be established when you can provide an estimate of prevalence. There's little point in considering situations that don't have a significant impact and aren't significantly prevalent.

Quote:

I think some fall into a trap when looking a statistical information. Basically, statistics dehumanize people. Before one can really understand broad based statistical data one has to understand what drives decisions on an individual level. The trap I describe leads us to public policy that takes the form of - 'well we are doing XX% out of 100%' and expecting everything is o.k.
Public health policy is necessarily a matter of statistics. If policy makers took the time to consider every possibility then nothing would ever get done.

Quote:

When you are one of the people on the margins, that is not o.k. I think there are better approaches to these problems, for example rather than totally changing health care in a half baked way, why not simply take the step of giving every child, 100% of them, full and complete medical care. No margins, no geography issues, no parental issues, no preexisting condition issues, no income issues, no timing issues, nothing, just give them coverage.
Why don't you write your congressperson and ask them?

Quote:

You are working too hard to read things into what I wrote that are not there. Why?
Hmm.

Here's what happened:

You said:
Quote:

They don't get married - his connection to his family is weakened. What may have been the beginnings of a wonderful family has been hurt by government policy. I say rather than these arbitrary cut-off and high "marginal tax" (or loss of benefit) situations, let's come up with a better solution.
To which I responded:
Quote:

As far as connections with families being weakened, I think you're overstating the power of a marriage license here. A father's (or mother's) connection to their family exists completely independently of whether or not they are in a legally recognized marriage with the other biological parent.
To which you responded:
Quote:

Look at this from a big picture point of view - the things that connect a family include many factors, one being the financial connection of willing to work and sacrifice for one's family. Another factor is the connection being reinforced by daily contact. If we take both of these away, it has a big impact, especially on males in the ages up to about 35.
Was this a complete non sequitur? Because in the context of our conversation (the effects of marriage on familial strength) it seems like you're saying that "from a big picture point of view" the lack of marriage correlates with a disinclination for work and sacrifice for the benefit of family and a lack of connection stemming from a lack of daily contact. Perhaps you're not talking about the effect of marriage on familial strength here, which would makes sense given your incredulity at my response. In the context of our conversation it seemed like you were saying something completely different.

aceventura3 04-05-2010 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2774582)
Ace, I think you will find that most liberals in here are in favor of a single payer universal health care system, so you don't need to convince any of us of that.

Of course, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that because the bill doesn't cover everyone, it shouldn't cover anyone.

Not my point at all. We can cover all children and I can whole heatedly support that, however the idea of giving a few a big benefit at the expense of all, with arbitrary and abrupt cut-offs resulting in some very unacceptable unintended consequences is something I can not support. I think a better approach is to lower the costs so everyone benefits - this can be done in a manner to help those most in need without the unintended consequences. The first step is being willing to acknowledge there are severe unintended consequences to our current approach.

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2774591)
It's relevance will only be established when you can provide an estimate of prevalence. There's little point in considering situations that don't have a significant impact and aren't significantly prevalent.

O.k., let's say I presented my premise to you and I am asking you for a grant to prove my premise, what is your response here suggesting?


Quote:

Public health policy is necessarily a matter of statistics. If policy makers took the time to consider every possibility then nothing would ever get done.
I think you purposefully have taken my point out of context and I wonder why? I never said that statistics are not important, did I. What I said was that there is a trap that people can fall into regarding the review and analysis of statistics. What I suggested was a need to dig down into the statistics and understand individual decision making. For example statistics involving how or why people involve themselves in public aid will always be problematic because in some cases answers could be self incriminating. A statistician needs to understand that and well as those relying on the data.

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2774591)
Here's what happened:

You said:


To which I responded:


To which you responded:


Was this a complete non sequitur? Because in the context of our conversation (the effects of marriage on familial strength) it seems like you're saying that "from a big picture point of view" the lack of marriage correlates with a disinclination for work and sacrifice for the benefit of family and a lack of connection stemming from a lack of daily contact. Perhaps you're not talking about the effect of marriage on familial strength here, which would makes sense given your incredulity at my response. In the context of our conversation it seemed like you were saying something completely different.

First, to simplify - use the assumption all other things being equal, then let's look at the impact of variables. We also, know there are exceptions to the rules:

A young man with daily contact with his family where he works, provides, and sacrifices will have more or less of a connection?

A young man with all of the above who also make a commitment in front of his extended family, her extended family, society (through a marriage license), to his heritage (including religion), will have more or less of a connection?

It seems to me that you want me to suspend belief in what is rational. Seems to me that you won't accept the above unless you have some scientific or statistical proof. And you say it is a non-sequitur?

dc_dux 04-05-2010 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2774935)
It seems to me that you want me to suspend belief in what is rational. Seems to me that you won't accept the above unless you have some scientific or statistical proof. And you say it is a non-sequitur?

If it is so rational to suggest that people will quit a job for a lower paying job simply to qualify for govt assistance, then the data should be available to support it.

Or perhaps it represents such a small percentage of those receiving govt assistance that it is not an issue worth discussing further.

filtherton 04-05-2010 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2774935)
O.k., let's say I presented my premise to you and I am asking you for a grant to prove my premise, what is your response here suggesting?

But you're not presenting a premise for grant approval (I'd tell you to take a grant writing class or hire a grant writer). You're presenting a premise as if it is already supported, when I think it's pretty clear that it's not. It's not a worthless premise, but as far as I can tell it doesn't have any basis in scientifically supported policy decisions.


Quote:

I think you purposefully have taken my point out of context and I wonder why? I never said that statistics are not important, did I. What I said was that there is a trap that people can fall into regarding the review and analysis of statistics. What I suggested was a need to dig down into the statistics and understand individual decision making. For example statistics involving how or why people involve themselves in public aid will always be problematic because in some cases answers could be self incriminating. A statistician needs to understand that and well as those relying on the data.
I didn't take your point out of context, I put it in context, that is to say, I put it into a context more associated with reality. As much as we'd all love to "understand individual decision making" to the extent that we can account for every eventuality, it's simply not possible. So statistics are used, because they can provide a moderately reliable way of predicting effects in lieu of more detailed information.

Quote:

First, to simplify - use the assumption all other things being equal, then let's look at the impact of variables. We also, know there are exceptions to the rules:

A young man with daily contact with his family where he works, provides, and sacrifices will have more or less of a connection?

A young man with all of the above who also make a commitment in front of his extended family, her extended family, society (through a marriage license), to his heritage (including religion), will have more or less of a connection?

It seems to me that you want me to suspend belief in what is rational. Seems to me that you won't accept the above unless you have some scientific or statistical proof. And you say it is a non-sequitur?
Do you just trade out people to argue here? Are there two or three of you?

In your previous post you were shocked, SHOCKED that I'd interpreted your words in the way that I did. Then, after I went back and showed you why I interpreted your words the way I did, you realize that, yes, I interpreted them correctly. So then you just continue on like you were never lost and I didn't have to remind you of what the hell you were talking about.

Quote:

A young man with daily contact with his family where he works, provides, and sacrifices will have more or less of a connection?
I don't know, is he abusive? Does he spend all of his free time at home arguing on the internet?

Quote:

A young man with all of the above who also make a commitment in front of his extended family, her extended family, society (through a marriage license), to his heritage (including religion), will have more or less of a connection?
I don't know, is he abusive? Does he spend all of his free time at home arguing on the internet?

Even then, you're original premise was that the father was willing to do all this, but, goshdarnit, he'd lose out on some government money and so he didn't. It seems like the guy in your original premise would be a great dad.

Quote:

It seems to me that you want me to suspend belief in what is rational.
I don't think your definition of rational is rational. Your actions in this conversation have convinced me (or reminded me, I guess) of this.

Quote:

Seems to me that you won't accept the above unless you have some scientific or statistical proof. And you say it is a non-sequitur?
I want you to go back and read what I was talking about when I mentioned the words "non sequitur," because in all your rational bluster you've clearly misread it. And I won't accept the above because it's counter to my experiences. And also that, analytically speaking, it wouldn't pass muster in an intro college english class. You make so many assumptions that it would take a considerably effort to list them all.

aceventura3 04-08-2010 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2775025)
If it is so rational to suggest that people will quit a job for a lower paying job simply to qualify for govt assistance, then the data should be available to support it.

There is, but there are problems with the data.

I remember posting data on the sexual activity of young males and young females. The data show males have more sex with more partners than females. It is clear that males tend to exaggerate sexual activity and females will understate sexual activity, but the reality is that (even adjusting for same sex activity) the numbers should be even.

People generally don't give up good jobs simply because of government assistance, I never stated that, you simply created a straw-man argument here. what I do say is that the presence of government assistance influences behaviors, primarily on the margins when there are large marginal cost sifts (or "tax") based on arbitrary benefit cut offs. If a person can shift costs, for example, amounting to 50% of their income, by doing or not doing a small act, they have a big financial incentive to do so. I am not even interested in looking for a study that shows that, and if you don't believe it - don't.

Quote:

Or perhaps it represents such a small percentage of those receiving govt assistance that it is not an issue worth discussing further.
Are you suggesting the point is real but is small or are you still holding the position that the point is not real, you got me confused now? If it is a question of the "size" of the issue, perhaps there is more to discuss, because I think the "size" of the problem is a legitimate concern.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2775047)
Do you just trade out people to argue here? Are there two or three of you?

In your previous post you were shocked, SHOCKED that I'd interpreted your words in the way that I did. Then, after I went back and showed you why I interpreted your words the way I did, you realize that, yes, I interpreted them correctly. So then you just continue on like you were never lost and I didn't have to remind you of what the hell you were talking about.

My views on this subject are clear to me, have not changed, and won't change. Everything else is related to my inability to communicate clearly with you. I am willing to start fresh, if you think it would help, and I will respond directly to any question you have regarding my point of view on this subject.

dc_dux 04-08-2010 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2775777)
.... I am not even interested in looking for a study that shows that, and if you don't believe it - don't.

Hey, thats cool. Why would you look for data that might contradict your assumption....beyond a very small percentage of those receiving govt assistance.

In any case, dont try to pass your opinion off as factual.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360