(07-20-2009 02:18 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(07-20-2009 01:37 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(07-20-2009 10:59 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  And Moyers saying in so many words that American opposed to government health care are parroting political strategy is non-sense; each one of us is perfectly able to look at the pros and cons of the proposed Healthcare reform and make our own judgements.

There's two different issues here: Defining the problem and getting the public/politicans to accept that its a real issue, and which approach we should take to fix it. As to the latter, I completely agree with you. But the problem here is that there is so much spin in place to call this a nonissue, or not even allow us to consider a govt "run" plan.

Good example - and there are what a dozen bill proposals out there right now? - is the spin that the doctors would work for the govt. I havent seen one plan that proposes that. It's not socialized medicine for that reason alone.

And I'm not only willing, but eager to turn a critical eye on the final govt proposal. It needs to make sense. No ETA on that plan though.

I agree that some changes in the system need to be made. Right now what scares me the most is the hell-bent, I want a plan in 6 weeks and voted on and done mindset.

There is no way that the government will come up with the "best" plan in that time frame. It will end up as just another hurried mess.....another govt. mandate with no means to fund the damn thing.

I am ina greement with you here. It's the absurdity of our political system. The Obama admin thinks they have one shot to do this before mid term elections, and that scares me. No way we get due dil out of this. It's pretty much the same as the bailout package. Anytime lawmakers from any party start screaming about urgency re: a spending bill, it's time to hit the brakes and find out what's really up, and if anyone actually knows what's going on, or if they are just pandering to lobbyists who worked on the best deal for themselves with thousands of manhours...

(07-20-2009 02:25 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Bill Moyers, lying democrat hack

Wow, how come everyone who disagrees with your myopic worldview is a "lying, democrat hack"?

Hint: the reason is - you're the problem with politics.

(07-20-2009 02:25 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Like I said before, the Government needs lifespans to shorten as the Baby-boomers retire to avoid a Fiscal Meltdown of epic proportions down the road(SS, Medicare). Health Rationing is one indirect way to take care of that problem.

Jesus Christ you are batshit insane. You have teflon wallpaper on your walls dont you.

Whats even more disturbing is that this is par for the course with you.

(07-20-2009 10:09 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(07-18-2009 12:19 PM)Paul M Wrote:  When he vouches for Moore, he has a credibility problem.

Vouching for the validity of statements that he has intimate professional knowledge of is the very opposite of a credibility problem.

What you're saying is that you hate Michael Moore so you wont listen to a CIGNA Exec. Great logic there.

Quote:And there was no "carefully calculated partisan smear plan that many Republican politicians took part in" against him.

That's a bold faced lie. You obviously didnt read the interview at all. The industry was terrified of Sicko and took steps along with politicians to smear Moore/the film.

What part of vouching for a liar and his lies do you not understand bring into question your own credibility? This is pretty simply to grasp. Michael Morre is a hack and a liar. How is calling a liar out a "carefully calculated partisan smear plan"? Answer: it's not. I saw a critical examination of his "work" and every lie was exposed and listed.

No bold face lies coming from my end of the conversation.

Would any industry that Moore targets prefer he not make "mockumentories? Sure. They know how many non-thinking losers who attack others in every thread, but preemptively whines about anyone else doing the same, are out there.

(07-20-2009 04:20 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(07-20-2009 02:25 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Bill Moyers, lying democrat hack

Wow, how come everyone who disagrees with your myopic worldview is a "lying, democrat hack"?

Hint: the reason is - you're the problem with politics.

He backed it up. What do you want?

(07-20-2009 04:25 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(07-20-2009 02:25 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Like I said before, the Government needs lifespans to shorten as the Baby-boomers retire to avoid a Fiscal Meltdown of epic proportions down the road(SS, Medicare). Health Rationing is one indirect way to take care of that problem.

Jesus Christ you are batshit insane. You have teflon wallpaper on your walls dont you.

Whats even more disturbing is that this is par for the course with you.

So when Obama say this, are you not listening or are you pretending he's singing you a love song? Why is he not batshit insane? I apologize if I'm making an assumption. Maybe you do think Obama is batshit insane. I'll let you speak for yourself. Actually, I just want to hear you spin Obama's words into something else.

If you're not worried or nervous then you're not paying attention.

Quote:http://www.creators.com/opinion/michelle...nsName=mim

Inside the Monstrous Obamacare Bureaucracy

If you think government is too big and too costly, wait until Obamacare kicks in. The Congressional Budget Office put the price tag of the House Democrats' health care takeover plans at $1.5 trillion over 10 years. But the CBO's fine print included a telltale caveat:

"We have not yet estimated the administrative costs to the federal government of implementing the specified policies, nor have we accounted for all of the proposal's likely effects on spending for other federal programs."

You don't need an accounting degree or clairvoyant powers. The administrative costs and spillover spending effects will be astronomical. Look at existing federal programs. In 1966, the Office of Management and Budget put the total taxpayer costs for Medicare at $64 million. In 2011, Medicare costs are expected to balloon to nearly $500 billion. Medicaid cost $770 million in 1966. By 2011, that program will cost taxpayers an estimated $264 billion. The Virginia-based Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimated that the administrative expenses of both programs last decade were 66 percent higher than those of private sector health insurance companies.

And we ain't seen nothing yet. House Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee sifted through their opponents' 1,018-page health care bill and released a dizzying flow chart detailing the Byzantine bureaucracy Obamacare would create. Washington would become the home of at least 31 new federal programs, agencies and commissions to oversee the government-run health insurance regime.

Because 32 "czars" isn't enough, the Democratic plan would add another overlord to the Obama administration. The new "Health Choices Commissioner" would helm the new "Health Choices Administration" (section 141 of the bill) — separate from the already existing Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), the Veterans Health Administration and the Indian Health Service.

Because the government has done such a boffo job managing the near-bankrupt Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, the Democrats have proposed creating a "Public Health Investment Fund" and a "Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund." The latter would create a "transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers."

No matter that state insurance departments already operate such systems. Health care must be "fixed." The federal cure is redundancy.

The Obamacare bill also creates a new "Bureau of Health Information" (not to be confused with the already existing National Center for Health Statistics) within the department of Health and Human Services.
A new "Assistant Secretary for Health Information" will lead the BHI. The new assistant secretary will coordinate with the recently created "National Coordinator for Health Information Technology" — who is responsible for monitoring the $19.5 billion in the stimulus law to implement "a nationwide interoperable, privacy-protected health information technology infrastructure."

New bureaucracies always have old special interests to appease. The Bureau of Health Information will house its own "Office of Civil Rights" and "Office of Minority Health." The information czar will be required to collect health statistics in the "primary language" of ethnic minorities — and, thus, the need for a new "language demonstration program" to showcase their efforts. Obamacare will also ensure "cultural and linguistics competence training" and establish "a youth public health program to expose and recruit high-school students into public health careers." The government health care juggernaut must be fed and staffed, after all.

Providing more stimulus for taxpayer-funded jobs, the Democrats' bill would add a new "Senior Advisor for Health Care Fraud" and require the Attorney General to appoint a "Senior Counsel for Health Care Fraud Enforcement." There's already a national Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program, but who's counting?

To coordinate all the new bureaucrats, Obamacare would create a new "Health Care Program Integrity Coordinating Council" to "to coordinate strategic planning among federal agencies involved in health care integrity and oversight."

To make sure all the existing local and state environmental public health agencies don't feel lonely, the Democrats' plan creates a new "Coordinated Environmental Public Health Network" to "build upon and coordinate among existing environmental and health data collection systems and create state environmental public health networks."

A new "National Health Care Workforce Commission" will be "tasked with reviewing health care workforce and projected workforce needs." New funding will be available for a "demonstration program to improve immunization coverage" that would enable government busybodies to send reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or make home visits.

Who'll be looking out for you? The House bill creates a "public plan ombudsman" and a "special health insurance exchange inspector general" to police spending and guard against waste, fraud and abuse. Given the sad fate of aggressive watchdogs in the age of Obama, however, these positions will end up like every other new agency, commission, task force and office created to serve the federal health care beast: black holes.

Michelle Malkin is the author of the forthcoming "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2009). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

(07-20-2009 04:18 PM)Artifice Wrote:  But the problem here is that there is so much spin in place to call this a nonissue, or not even allow us to consider a govt "run" plan.
Good example - and there are what a dozen bill proposals out there right now? - is the spin that the doctors would work for the govt. I havent seen one plan that proposes that. It's not socialized medicine for that reason alone.

All the versions that I've seen will have us closer to "socialized" medicine than what France has. I don't think that's widely understood, because I don't think many people truly understand the French system--Michael Moore, for one, who professes to love it, has no clue how it operates.

Quote:The Obama admin thinks they have one shot to do this before mid term elections, and that scares me. No way we get due dil out of this. It's pretty much the same as the bailout package. Anytime lawmakers from any party start screaming about urgency re: a spending bill, it's time to hit the brakes and find out what's really up, and if anyone actually knows what's going on, or if they are just pandering to lobbyists who worked on the best deal for themselves with thousands of manhours...

Agree here.

Quote:Jesus Christ you are batshit insane. You have teflon wallpaper on your walls dont you.

I think you were too dismissive of GG here. I'm not at all satisfied that this isn't a real threat. Sending old people away to die is precisely how a lot of socialized medical systems control costs. Although I'd like to believe it'd be different here, I've seen nothing at this point to indicate that it would be different. The "outcomes-based" approach being widely advocated is euphemistic code for killing old people.

Bottom line: My 6-month grade for Obama is F-minus, and health care is one area that pulls him down.

It's also hard to ignore Obama saying it.

Quote:Sending old people away to die is precisely how a lot of socialized medical systems control costs.

That's so far fetched as to be called ridiculous. You put me in the position of having to point out that life expectancies in a bunch of evil socialist countries are extremely high:

France, Switzerland and Sweden are all in the top 10. We're way down the list at #45. Source.

And GGNiner has already been run off of one board for being totally ridiculous. He wont post there because he gets ridiculed so much, from all side of the aisle. He's a lunatic that sees everyone that is not anglo saxon christian republican in a giant conspiracy to get him. He's the worst of the worst.

King Barack's own words:

Quote:Reporting from Washington — President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.

In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

Which under his plan, the Government will be making these decisions and not the Families. This is Healthcare Rationing and the net result will be people not living as long as they otherwise would have, whcih it is undeniable that will save the Government money from their Social Security Liabilities. It's basic Math, and the obvious point here for both the United States and Europe with their aging Populations(baby boomers) as they go fwd and face their Fiscal Nightmares they created with Govt. Ponzi schemes(Social Security), given these Generations did not have enough kids/workers to keep the ponzi scheme going.


The real Irony here is those who went nuts over the Unique Schiavo situation, using all sorts of rhetoric about the Government via Social Cons, interferring to save life("Stay out of our lives!") are in favor of Obama deciding who can receive Medical Care and who should just go off and die, which would be pre-determined under his plan.


For anyone keeping score, Government controlled markets are anything but Moral. atleast in this case. and NO, I don't think the current socialized setup is moral either.

btw, Obama's Logic isn't new and in recent history can be traced to Germany....and of course during this same period some Eugenics was done in the USA during the same period, led by the 'progressives'. Forced Sterilizations and what not

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

Quote:The phrase "life unworthy of life" (in German: "Lebensunwertes Leben") was a Nazi designation for the segments of populace that, according to the racial policy of the Third Reich, had no right to live and thus, were to be "exterminated." This concept formed an important component of the ideology of Nazism and eventually led to the Holocaust.[1]

The expression first occurs in the title of a 1920 book, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens, (Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life) by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche.

The Obama manifestation of this says: its just fine and dandy for The State to decide when treatments should be stopped if a few bucks can be saved.

(07-21-2009 09:17 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

Quote:Sending old people away to die is precisely how a lot of socialized medical systems control costs.

That's so far fetched as to be called ridiculous. You put me in the position of having to point out that life expectancies in a bunch of evil socialist countries are extremely high:

France, Switzerland and Sweden are all in the top 10. We're way down the list at #45. Source.

I wondered about the phenomenon you note, and did some more digging. As a result, I have three ponts in response:

1. Two of the countries you cite (France, Switzerland) do not have "socialized" medical systems. They have hybrid systems of the kind that I personally advocate. Their approaches are less "socialized" than what we will have under Obamacare. I would very much prefer a Swiss or French approach to Obamacare.

2. The comparisons you make are not apples-to-apples comparisons. The difference in life expectancy is almost entirely attributable to differences in infant mortality rates. In some cases it accounts for more difference than the actualy difference experienced. Having even a few more people in the mix who live to age 0 really reduces the average life expectancy in a hurry. Do the math and see for yourslef. Once you get past the infancy stage, life expectancy is generally better in the US. Treatment outcomes for most cancers and other diseases that older people get typically run much better in the US.

3. This is particularly important because the methodology used to calculate the infant mortality rate is different in the US from other countries. The US counts as a birth any baby that makes it out of the womb alive; foreign countries generally omit babies that are below a certain birth rate, or that survive only a few moments outside the womb, or other babies that would project with a low likelihood of survival. The formula is # infant deaths divided by # births in both cases, but by defiining birth differently, the US ends up counting a number of infant deaths that other countries do not. If the US figures are edited to conform to the overseas methodology, the US does better than most. And in turn, that jacks the US life expectancy up to a level that is better than most.

This is not to say that the US system could not be improved. As suggested above, I personally favor the French system. But it is to say that a few misunderstood statistics do not provide a basis for calling anyone "batshit crazy." And turning old people aside is exactly how socialized systems DO control costs. That is well-documented. As long as there is a viable private care (pay) option, I can live with it. There is some confusion as to what extend the current drafts of the bill permit a private care option; it looks like it's technically permitted, but the may me strong built-in biases against it. Those biases do not exist in, for example, Switzerland or France. Any solution including those biases is not an acceptable solution to me.

Quote:Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.
“Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”
“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said. … “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“

Quote:Remember, our population is aging. And with the very, very elderly, the costs go down, so that percentage should be falling, and it’s not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much, so at the same percentage, it’s worth a lot more. So let’s go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness, which we’re supporting. That’s where that can have a big impact. It’s not only there, but that’s where the waste is. That’s where people are using technologies that really either don’t work at all or keep people alive for for very limited [time] and [at] very high cost.

Hospice is one option, but we do need take account of the cost — you know, I hate to say it, the cost-benefit of some of the things we do. And either we can do it directly, or we can do it by bundling the payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it’s a combination of the delivery system dealing with it, or, and/or providing more information for

in a more Free Market setup, Individuals and Families make these decisions. In ObamaCare the Government makes them, pre-determined by a cost-savings chart some Beaurcrat cooked up.

(07-21-2009 02:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2009 09:17 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

Quote:Sending old people away to die is precisely how a lot of socialized medical systems control costs.

That's so far fetched as to be called ridiculous. You put me in the position of having to point out that life expectancies in a bunch of evil socialist countries are extremely high:

France, Switzerland and Sweden are all in the top 10. We're way down the list at #45. Source.

I wondered about the phenomenon you note, and did some more digging. As a result, I have three ponts in response:

1. Two of the countries you cite (France, Switzerland) do not have "socialized" medical systems. They have hybrid systems of the kind that I personally advocate. Their approaches are less "socialized" than what we will have under Obamacare. I would very much prefer a Swiss or French approach to Obamacare.

2. The comparisons you make are not apples-to-apples comparisons. The difference in life expectancy is almost entirely attributable to differences in infant mortality rates. In some cases it accounts for more difference than the actualy difference experienced. Having even a few more people in the mix who live to age 0 really reduces the average life expectancy in a hurry. Do the math and see for yourslef. Once you get past the infancy stage, life expectancy is generally better in the US. Treatment outcomes for most cancers and other diseases that older people get typically run much better in the US.

3. This is particularly important because the methodology used to calculate the infant mortality rate is different in the US from other countries. The US counts as a birth any baby that makes it out of the womb alive; foreign countries generally omit babies that are below a certain birth rate, or that survive only a few moments outside the womb, or other babies that would project with a low likelihood of survival. The formula is # infant deaths divided by # births in both cases, but by defiining birth differently, the US ends up counting a number of infant deaths that other countries do not. If the US figures are edited to conform to the overseas methodology, the US does better than most. And in turn, that jacks the US life expectancy up to a level that is better than most.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

Owl, that is excellent research as to how the numbers I used are affected by infant mortality rates, though you dont go quite so far as to say the exact numercial effect, which would be helpful. Does that effect drop them below the U.S.? I couldn't tell based on what you provided.

But you have also made a couple of very strong generalized statements without backing them up with hard numbers. Do you have hard data from an indepdent source to back up your claims?

(07-21-2009 04:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

On the contrary, asshat, it isn't. This is how I prefer to debate. It's not personal.

Mormons live about 10yrs longer than average Americans, it has nothing to do with the Medical Care they receive(same as rest of Americans) but the lifestyle choices they make. Everyone knows Americans tend to be gluttons, over-weight, etc. Medical-Care can do but so much for them whether its Socialized or Market based, their HealthCare is in their hands ultimately.

which underscores part of the dishonestly in the debate, we let the Left/Statist frame the debate about "Health Care" and not what it actually is, "Medical Care".

Infant mortality is around 6.26% in the US vs. 3-4% in France, Swizterland.

Life expectancy from birth is just the average age at death. There are mitigating factors including crime rate, war, etc. that have nothing do do with health care, so there is a limit to how useful these calculations are.


I'm a little surprised at how much the gap does close (for USA v France, it probably approaches statistically insignificant). Obviously, the bigger the difference in infant mortality, the more the difference in Life Expectancy is exaggerated.

There are also questions about whether this line of argument is legitimate because Infant Mortality is also a function of the healthcare system. It is thus imperative that the you trust the sources that say that the difference in rates is indeed due to methodology.

(07-21-2009 04:20 PM)Artifice Wrote:  Owl, that is excellent research as to how the numbers I used are affected by infant mortality rates, though you dont go quite so far as to say the exact numercial effect, which would be helpful. Does that effect drop them below the U.S.? I couldn't tell based on what you provided.

But you have also made a couple of very strong generalized statements without backing them up with hard numbers. Do you have hard data from an indepdent source to back up your claims?

Fair questions. I've seen the supporting data from several sources, but didn't pull sources before posting. Not really where I can look it up right now, but will try later.

I thought the differing ways that every country counts infant mortality rates was widely known. Anyone who really wanted to know could look it up themselves.