You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. This bill is nowhere near universal health care and it never will be. I realize we are all very sensitive about this subject but the fact is your fear tactics and paranoid unreality have worked: we will not have a single payer system in this country nor will we have universal health care any time in the next ten years. Maybe never.
Because the corporations of this country have successfully used propaganda to convince of something happening that they, in fact, are already doing...long lines, no choice of provider, meddlesome bureaucrats, poor care, back breaking prices, and....well...death. Just because it's not happening to you doesn't mean it's not happening. Without serious reform, though, it likely will.
Funny, though. Vanderleun will have a bill for someone's stupidity in his mailbox when his insurance rates and fees for service go up because of the same dumb ass. Do you folks honestly think health care costs are going to magically go down? Or that tort reform is going to solve all of this? I think you should save your unicorn fart comments for the person you see in the mirror every morning.
All of the doomsday scenarios many of you envision ARE ALREADY HAPPENING. When it happens to you, will you continue to make up your own reality? I hope not.
How come, given all of the evidence of nationalized medicine not working properly anywhere in the world, Leftists (i.e.Markedelphia) so religiously support it?
I haven't seen the inside of a doctor's office or hospital in a few years.
Long lines?
Hospitals near me have a 30-minutes-or-less ER wait guarantee, and they advertise on radio or billboards for it. Where are these long lines you tell me of?
I'll give you meddlesome bureaucrats, as long as everyone in the discussion remembers that meddlesome bureaucrats are usually the result of State and Federal Law interfering with the decisions of doctors and patients.
Same for no choice of provider.
Sadly, as far as prices go, I think the fact that insurance has become mis-used (partly, or perhaps mostly, due to governmental laws and policies) and now supports an outrageous price scheme. Seriously, insurance should be for rare calamities, not for regular checkups. And insurance companies that have the ability to short the doctor on his billing (like Medicare does as a matter of policy) cause the doctor to bill higher, just so that he can make costs.
Every law and policy that inserts governmental decision-making between a patient and the physician (including the decision of who is paying for insurance, patient or patient's employer) is something that contributes to rising costs, shortages, and trouble.
"Because the corporations of this country have successfully used propaganda to convince of something happening that they....."
Can't help myself. What a load of unmitigated crap. The corporations would love, LOVE to have government run health care. Providing healthcare to employees is an unprofitable and burdensome requirement that they would love to pass on to the government.
Why I have a new nuanced view on drug legalization. I don't care who uses what drug (except my kids, who know I will respond with blinding violence) - as long as I never get the bill for their rehab or unemployment benefits.
That's Marky for you. He NEVER backs up his pronouncements and then has the balls to say that those who disagree with him aren't entitled to their own facts. As if when he says something it must be true.....because he said it! The Obamacare bill is only NOT full-blown socialized medicine because of the opposition of the majority of folks in the country. Marky boy is trying to paint some sort of picture that that attempt was not and will never be made. Heh. Never mind BHO's own admission that the public option was the best way to proceed incrementally towards single payer. The straw man he sets up as "corporate propaganda" is all he can come up with to demonize the opposition. Making up our own reality seems to be his latest buzz phrase. And he seems to be foaming at the mouth more lately too. Who gets to clean off his monitor and keyboard? Yuck.
"You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts."
There you go again, hypocrisy boy.
"... the fact is your fear tactics and paranoid unreality have worked ..."
There you go again, hypocrisy boy.
"... long lines, no choice of provider, meddlesome bureaucrats, poor care ... "
Hypocrisy boy, I've probably had more contact with health care, as a patient, in the last few years than you've had in your whole lifetime. In fact, I just had a routine followup visit with my urologist only yesterday. I have not experienced any lines, I have my choice of providers and always have, I do not deal with bureaucrats, and I get outstanding care.
Do you actually like the prospect of 111 new feddle bureaucracies having their fingers in your health care?
"... back breaking prices ..."
Yup. Sky high. Y'see (who am I kidding; you won't see what you don't like) I pay for my care and I pay for my insurance. Thus, I also pay for those who don't pay, those who, by feddle law, cannot be turned away when they need health care. That's the biggest single reason why my health care is expensive.
So, (wait for it) there you go again, hypocrisy boy.
"... and....well...death ..."
It's the fate of us all, remember?
Now, what was that you wrote about "... fear tactics ..."?
So, (wait for it again) there you go again, hypocrisy boy.
"Do you folks honestly think health care costs are going to magically go down?"
Nope. I expect they'll go WAY up when health care is "free".
"When it happens to you, will you continue to make up your own reality?"
Sigh ...
There you go again, hypocrisy boy.
C'mon, you pathetic little boy. Do something different, why don'tcha?
That is an excellent quote of the day Kevin. As for this comment thread...shows that when you throw a big rock into a pack of dogs, the one you hit doesn't like it and usually yelps the loudest.
I've never waited in a long line, I have multiple network providers I can go to under my plan, I've never dealt with a meddlesome bureaucrat and I've never had poor care. Just because you have to now drive 10 miles out of your way does not mean you have "no choice of providers". It's not corporate propoganda, it's my experience in the health care system.
I know I've never said that tort reform is the only solution and I've never said that costs are going to magically go down for no reason. You are trying to take your opponents arguments to an end that most people would find laughable. If your arguments are so rock solid, there should be no need to misrepresent the positions of others.
I think it...*fascinating*... that Marxy's only defense of socialized medicine is that it's not going to be full tilt socialized medicine because the ire of the American people blocked his team from the full implementation of their statist scheme. Of course, rather than credit the good sense of the American public, he has to salvage what he can from it, and blame his bogeyman, the fearMongering MedicalIndustrial complex. What was the phrase? Ah, yes, I believe it was something like "oop ahk boink squeak"
Thing is, there's always been a few shades of differentiation between Euro style social medicine in the proposals on the table that proponents of this shit stew could always claim that it wasn't that.
Still, if you google up folks with more to say about what's still on the table other than "the public option is out" (assuming we believe that what they say means what we think it means), there current proposals are still, at their core, what they always were:
A vast grab for stolen money and stolen power.
This power grab is composed of a shit stew of noxious effluvia, economic ignorance, and latent unintended consequences the Constitutional authority of which is suspect, even under our current...shall we say "relaxed and expansive"? ...jurisprudence concerning the deployment of government power.
You see, it doesn't matter that "The final bill won't include everything that everybody wants." (B. Obama) It doesn't even matter if the proposal is coherent, or likely to actually produce any particular outcome. What does matter at this point is that some bill, any bill passes that expands the power of government, so that the Dems can claim a win.
In this, I wish the statist nothing but misery and failure.
I have a question for y'all. Given that everyone with half a brain knows that implementing common-sense reforms, like tort reform, would reduce costs, what would you do about the following scenario. A scummy ex-relative of mine had surgery on a badly injured knee, and by all accounts this surgery should have been successful, but this ex-relative then kept getting unnecessary surgeries on it (by lying to the doctor about the pain and functionality) to keep getting pain meds. I've heard of doctors performing unnecessary procedures for the extra business, but I'd never heard of patients wanting unnecessary procedures for the meds. Apparently it's done all the time, and must therefore constitute a significant burden on the health care system. How would you discourage this in the most laissez-faire way?
The laissez-faire approach would likely be to allow people to buy pain pills without needing a prescription, hence removing the need for the surgeries.
Kevin, I've had some time to think about this post and I have to say, I'm shocked. And disgusted, quite frankly.
In the past, you have made compelling, reasoned, and intelligent arguments regarding gun rights. All have been filled with facts, logic, and reason. You have also made similar arguments on other topics. Certainly, I have not agreed with them all but at least you used some scholars to support your points. And there's nothing wrong with blowing off steam (Brian DePalma). I do it all the time on my blog. Not reasonable but understandable, of course.
But linking to this blog and telling us to "Burn it into your frontal lobes with a soldering pencil" betrays how your emotional mind has let your rational mind lead you to a conclusion. You are so afraid of a "power grab" that you can't see one has already happened and Zomblog is but one small part of maintaining this power. It actually goes beyond that and, in doing so, more or less demonstrates that you cannot remain objective about this topic. In fact, as you complain often and loud of liberals, your feelings have clouded your judgment and its capacity for rational thought.
Explain to me the difference between Zomblog and anti Semitic propaganda disseminated by the Germans in the 1930s. Or the skin heads of today. What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets. Really, Kevin? REALLY?
I'm sure I'll be the only to say it but you have crossed the line with this one. And that makes me pretty fucking sad, dude.
Markadelphia, your poor opinion of me bothers me not in the least. After reading what you've written here for the better part of the last three years, my opinion of you couldn't get much lower.
I quoted Zomblog. So? I'll quote Mein Kampf if I think Hitler wrote something people need to hear and understand. What I quoted, people need to hear and understand. He's right. Bloomberg's transfat police is evidence of that.
"Health Care Reform" is about power Markadelphia - power I don't want the government to seize. Power it was not given by the Constitution, and which is therefore reserved to the states or to the people.
You're shocked and disgusted? Too bad. Go elsewhere if you wish to feel better.
Once again Marky boy, you refuse to answer any direct point made to refute your pronouncements. We're waiting......but you're just sad that somebody has pointed out that the same mindset that supports socialism also can easily live with, if not promote the mess that is SF. And sad that someone points out in pictures that the Code Pink/ ANSWER/ WCW protesters are complete lunatics. Just hateful. Haters because they don't swallow your drivel and the party line hook, line and sinker.
Come on Marky, you just lost the arguement again. Godwin's theory lives!
Marxy, here is how you can prove the health care bill is NOT a power grab:
Show which part of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to take total control of health care. (Or even do Medicare.) In other words, if it's in the Constitution, then they already legitimately have the power. If not, then it is a power grab.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
What, that's only for you?
Different rules.
This bill is nowhere near universal health care
Only because of massive outrage and dawning comprehension of what was attempted.
the fact is your fear tactics and paranoid unreality have worked:
Except we didn't need to create a alternative reality to do so. All we had to do was point to existing systems, demonstrate historical parallels, and show what the (various) bills said.
we will not have a single payer system in this country
We already do, dumbass. What was that about "facts"? (What system is the only one you can use and is mandated after a certain age?)
nor will we have universal health care any time in the next ten years. Maybe never.
Care, or "INSURANCE"?
We already have universal care. It's not surprising that as many times as it's been pointed out to you, verbatim boy, you can't synthesize that.
Because the corporations of this country have successfully used propaganda
Ah, always the corporations. Well, they didn't with me. Or I suspect DJ or Kevin or Russell or Sarah or Eagle 1 or... Your entire argument hinges on that being true. When it's not, your argument collapses.
Fear? I suggest you look at Obama's "DO IT OR ELSE" approach for an example of fear-mongering.
to convince of something happening that they, in fact, are already doing...long lines, no choice of provider, meddlesome bureaucrats, poor care, back breaking prices, and....well...death.
Copy/paste.. check! Nevermind thinking about it! Point Proven. Nevermind none of those are justified. Or that they undermind Mark's argument! PASTE PASTE PASTE. The three P's!
Just because it's not happening to you doesn't mean it's not happening. Without serious reform, though, it likely will.
It likely will. So you claim we're appealing to fear, and then, you go and ... appeal to fear. "It likely will happen."
You can't even distinguish between care and payment.
Why is the care so costly? Surely not? No! He's not going to! Avert your eyes, UJ's gonna bring out the point of: GOVERNMENT REGULATION
Oh, Mark's down, he's writhing in pain! Somebody put him in line for costly care! That's gonna leave a mark that's not covered for cosmetic care!
Funny, though. Vanderleun will have a bill for someone's stupidity in his mailbox when his insurance rates and fees for service go up because of the same dumb ass.
Not necessarily. I'd explain that to you, but you'd have to understand how insurance works, and it's obvious you've got no clue.
Do you folks honestly think health care costs are going to magically go down?
MAGICALLY? Hell no. The market will drive them down if you'll get the hell out of the way. Look at LASIK or breast enlargements or other procedures not govered by insurance usually - they keep getting better by leaps and bounds and the price keeps dropping. But it's not magic.
You're the only that thinks that Obama can magically change things.
Or that tort reform is going to solve all of this?
No, but it would help one hell of a lot. (That's another strawman you've got on fire. Speaking of Carbon Credits, want to go back and revisit all the insults you threw about the "Settled science" and "Climate Change Deniers?")
betrays how your emotional mind has let your rational mind lead you to a conclusion.
Hey, Sack Boy, when are you gonna nut up and have the scrotum to admit that you're wrong?
But linking to this blog
So [snicker] demonstrate [guffaw] how this is the case [giggling].
Explain to me the difference between Zomblog and anti Semitic propaganda disseminated by the Germans in the 1930s.
Answer your own question and demonstrate where Zombietime is incorrect. We'll wait a bit for you to demonstrate where the facts are wrong.
What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets. Really, Kevin? REALLY?
No, it's not. That's your logical fallacy, Mr. I Don't Use Logical Fallacies.
Russell: He paid for the insurance, and insurance is supposed to cover catastrophic things like accidental knee injuries, so I'm not sure on what basis he would be required to pay out of pocket unless it could be proved that he doesn't need the surgery. Another option would be to require longer periods between repeat procedures, like a year.
Sarah:
There's not a real good answer to that problem.
Although the ex-relative was at least .. industrious? enough to actually *have* more surgeries.
Most people I know just come up with "back pain" or various other maladies that aren't easily proven/disproven, and get dispensed the pain pills almost willy-nilly...
Kevin, being an actual man, you may not recognize this, but Mark is pulling a very feminine move on you. As a woman, I recognize the tactic: he is not providing a reasoned rebuttal of your position (quelle surprise), but attempting to pressure you into re-evaluating your beliefs by withdrawing his admiration and acceptance, and declaring that you have made him sad. It can have great power, but only with: 1) other women; or 2) a man whose sex life depends on the aforementioned acceptance/admiration/lack of sadness. Every woman has tried this move with her man at least once. When it fails, the next move is to concede or escalate. Not sure which way I'd bet with Mark.
Sarah; "He paid for the insurance" And that's the problem, he isn't paying for the surgery, he's paying into the insurance. If you want the surgery, you should pay for the surgery.
Although the ex-relative was at least .. industrious? enough to actually *have* more surgeries.
I guess "industrious" could apply: he injured his knee in a spectacular mountain bike wipe-out on a rough trail. Which suggests that people who engage in risky behavior should pay higher health insurance rates.
Marxy squeals about quoting Zomblog, in full accordance with the politics of "shut up".
--==|==--
A study in (deliberate?) obtuseness:
Quote Marxy:
---
What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets. Really, Kevin? REALLY?
---
Wau. What breathtaking obtuseness.
No, the photos demonstrate the current existence of sexual behavior (notably in the *absence* of government healthcare) that it would be reasonable to argue is irresponsible.
Echoing Marxy's rather repulsive terminology, "the fags" are already "out sucking cocks in the streets".
And I, for one, don't care, as long as I don't have to pay for it.
In a redistributionist government health care system, the treatment of the consequent spread of disease emanating from this behavior would then be a cause to extract funds from my pocket.
In fact, the whole point of the article, which Marxy obtusely misses, is that in a context of redistributionist government healthcare, *any* behavior with medical implications, positive or negative, thus becomes a topic for consideration of public regulation.
I suppose we're just supposed to trust to Congressional deliberations to determine which medical risks will be tolerated, and which won't, and whether the force of law will be deployed to enforce public calisthenics in the morning.
Science is politicized now, with AGW. Just you wait until RGHC gets into the picture!
It'll be a land rush, as every special interest group angles to "prove" that their product reduces public costs, and therefore should be mandated, or prove how things they don't like increase public costs, and therefore should be prohibited.
"Progressives" have already blazed the trail on that one, with all the Joyce and Brady funding for so called studies of actuarial "science" designed to demonstrate how the hazards of gun ownership increase insurance and public expenses.
"I'm sure I'll be the only to say it but you have crossed the line with this one. And that makes me pretty fucking sad, dude."
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. You deliberately miss the point, laying on one straw man after another.
Suck it up, sack boy. Learn to handle reality. It'll open a whole new world for you.
"What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets. Really, Kevin? REALLY?"
No, you pathetic little boy, emphatically, NO.
Fags already are out sucking cock in the streets.
Your life is the result of the choices you make. This is true of everyone. The point made in the cited article is that the author doesn't want the gubmint to force him to have a vested interest in people making what ought to be personal choices affecting only them.
In the past, you have made compelling, reasoned, and intelligent arguments... filled with facts, logic, and reason... But linking to this blog and telling us to "Burn it into your frontal lobes with a soldering pencil" betrays how your emotional mind has let your rational mind lead you to a conclusion.
If that's the case, you should have no trouble pointing out specific places where his facts and/or logic are in error, right?
What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets.
Bullshit. It says nothing of the kind. You saw a picture of gay sex, it pushed your buttons, and apparently you jumped to a tall conclusion from a standing start right there without ever reading the piece.
The piece identifies several behavior patterns that commonly increase the need for medical care by the individual exhibiting them:
• Obesity
• Cigarette smoking
• Alcohol abuse
• Reckless behavior
• Criminal activity
• Unprotected promiscuous sex
• Use of illicit drugs
• Cultural traditions
• Bad diets
In fact, I don't see where it mentions gay sex at all. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the picture depicting gay sex was not there because it was gay sex, but unprotected sex with a total stranger, which was one of the points the writer was making?
Apparently not.
And you accuse others of having "your emotional mind let your rational mind lead you to a conclusion"? Really?
You may be right. However, by "concede" I wasn't implying anything honorable, but rather the usual scurrying away only to return later and pretend like it never happened.
In fact, the whole point of the article, which Marxy obtusely misses, is that in a context of redistributionist government healthcare, *any* behavior with medical implications, positive or negative, thus becomes a topic for consideration of public regulation.
To expand upon geek's comment, other than the direct point he misses, is another point that most people follow, but Mark is constitutionally inable to grasp.
That is, PR matters.
Some quick googling and some maths..
In 2008, there were 187k cases of prostate cancer detected. Versus 185k of breast cancer.
So, about the same amount of each. But breast cancer research has almost 10x the funding as prostate cancer research.
Similar report: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/
And I can't find off the top of my head directly comparable numbers, but those again are dwarfed by the money poured into AIDS research... looks like about 3 *billion* (as opposed to about 300 million for breast cancer).
Someone else can try and explain that to Mark for now.
Sarah, yes, but you asked for a laissez-faire approach :)
To me, the buyer and the seller should have as few levels between them for their transaction. Insurance today is a mess, and isn't used the way it really should be used.
Insurance used to be based on stats and actuarial tables to identify probabilities and costs.
Nowadays, the damn kids won't get off my lawn and people use health insurance for all sorts of nonsense that isn't part of the statisticians' analysis.
Due to my limited knowledge, I cannot see a way to place the burden squarely on your ex-relative's pocketbook under the current "insurance as a safety blanket" model.
I also note the presence of this line in the piece:
...congregationalists who try to cure a disease by means of an exorcism...
Mark, given that your take-away from the piece was
if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets
based on one picture and no mention at all of gay sex in the text, wouldn't it be equally accurate for me to say this piece claims "if universal health care happens the fundamentalist flat-earther faith healers will take over America?"
Oh wait, I forgot. In your eyes, they already have.
"However, by "concede" I wasn't implying anything honorable, but rather the usual scurrying away only to return later and pretend like it never happened."
Maybe "cut and run" would have been a better description. To my knowledge, Marxy has only ever conceded a point twice in three years.
Russell: OK, I guess I confused the situation with "laissez-faire." What I meant was, what is a non-Markadelphia solution given the current parameters?
-+-
Insurance is for necessary surgeries not for unnecessary ones because you want to get high. What your ex-relative is doing is insurance fraud.
No doubt about it. The problem is that it may be difficult to impossible for an insurance company to determine what's unnecessary. How do you tell the difference between a fraudster who's lying about symptoms because he wants drugs and a patient who is genuinely immobile and in pain? Complicating matters, you may have a doctor who's complicit because he's glad to have the extra business. I'm wondering how to discourage this, e.g. easier access to drugs, longer waits between surgeries, higher rates/deductibles for people like this, etc.
-+-
So much for "sack boy" ...
What are you going to call him now, DJ, "ovary boy"? :-)
How do you tell the difference between a fraudster who's lying about symptoms because he wants drugs and a patient who is genuinely immobile and in pain?
There ya go.
The bureaucrats that Mark hates when they're corporate employees (and loves when they're pulling a government paycheck, or their company is contracted to the government for those services) have to make some rules.
And like most rules, they'll miss some situations or not handle some of them perfectly.
The problem is that it may be difficult to impossible for an insurance company to determine what's unnecessary.
Yep. Unless they're "heartless" and just say "No". Then of course it's "Take my friend Javier" time.
"what is a non-Markadelphia solution given the current parameters?"
Let him pay for his health care and pay for his pills. (Or have somebody locally explain how to game the system much cheaper).
Sarah: "What I meant was, what is a non-Markadelphia solution given the current parameters?"
Geez, don't you get tired of dragging the goal posts around? I kid, I kid! :)
As far as I can see, there isn't.
If his doctor realizes what is going on and says "No" he'll just bounce on to another doctor who'll say "Yes". Or sue the first doctor. Rinse and repeat until he gets what he wants.
The problem lies with him, at the core. No system is going to make stupid people stop being stupid.
The solution I like is to make stupid people pay for themselves, and leave the rest of us out of it.
Russell, I'm all for making stupid, lying, cheating, crappy, etc. people pay for themselves. Having said that, I'm mildly curious as to what Mark thinks the solution should be. How would government-mandated health care minimize fraud?
"The Senate's chief socialist, Bernie Sanders, offered a single-payer health care amendment. It would open Medicare to all regardless of age, income, etc., and would be paid through higher income taxes."
And because I just know Marxy is going to claim that Michelle Malkin is "biased" and therefore misrepresenting the bill, I did a little more digging.
Guess what's on the front page of Sanders' own web site:
"The Senate is debating for the first time in American history a proposal to create a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health care system. The Sanders Amendment would provide health care and dental coverage for every American, save money, and improve health care results."In my view, the single-payer approach is the only way we will ever have a cost-effective, comprehensive health care system in this country," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose amendment will come before the Senate."
"How would government-mandated health care minimize fraud?"
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!
Er, I mean, by the power Obama! all unicorns will fart rainbows, and all health care bureaucracies will be pure as the driven snow and armed with the swift and unerring sword of justice, just like every other socialist scheme tried on Earth.
Heh, Russell. I know the question is inherently ludicrous (along the lines of, how would you best implement wolves to minimize the slaughter of sheep); but, strictly for entertainment purposes, I'd still like to know what Mark thinks.
"Markadelphia, your poor opinion of me bothers me not in the least..."
Actually, I have quite a high opinion of you. And Mastiff and GOF.
"I quoted Zomblog. So? I'll quote Mein Kampf if I think Hitler wrote something people need to hear and understand..."
Understand in context, perhaps. But use it to support a point? A point which is completely founded on an irrational fear of government? No.
"'Health Care Reform' is about power Markadelphia - power I don't want the government to seize. Power it was not given by the Constitution, and which is therefore reserved to the states or to the people."
When my father was dying of kidney and liver failure in the hospital, bureaucrats from the hospital, the HMO and the insurance company were constantly interfering with his treatment. He was not "free" to go anywhere else. Issues of payment came up constantly and many times treatment was denied. When there was treatment, it sometimes took days to get. Guess what year this was?
1988. At the time time his story was simply common. Now, it is widespread. You scream and cry about the government having control over you. Someone already has control over you, Kevin. It's corporate America...our oligarchy...our plutonomy. The fact is that there is no real choice in health care. Millions of people are basically trapped by their employer's will. All of the things you say will happen with government run health care are already happening, Kevin. They simply aren't happening in your bubble. Leave it and you will discover that I am right.
What's hilarious as well is that we are even having this debate. Whatever health reform passes (and it won't be much due to our "liberal" Congress), it won't affect you in the least. Read the CBO, reports, Kevin. You (and others here) say you deal in logic and facts. Well, the reports are full of them. Will you acknowledge those facts?
"You're shocked and disgusted? Too bad. Go elsewhere if you wish to feel better."
Unless you kick me out, I'm here to stay. Someone has to be a barometer. Speaking of which, take a look at these images.
Compare them to the Zomblog post. See any similarities? Actually the first one reminds me of the base's view of education. The Zomblog post is designed to provoke an emotional response: fear. And anger. There's nothing factual about it. The images on there are geared to piss people off and foment irrationality.
Oh, and thanks for the sentiments. It appears the weather will be clear, cold, and calm the whole time. The last two years, ice, snow, and storm drove me out early. Last year, I came back to a huge ice storm across Oklahoma that killed power for hundreds of thousands. My sister-in-law was without power for nine days.
There is no comparison because you never even mention the ARGUMENT which the post makes. That's called a category error. The fact that you can't even touch the primary point tells me that you either didn't read the post, you didn't understand the argument, or you're deliberately attacking a strawman.
But use it to support a point? A point which is completely founded on an irrational fear of government? No.
"Irrational"? You've yet to prove this point.
Nor have you addressed the multiple people making multiple points that you've totally mis-categorized Kevin's quote and reference to Zombie.
At the time time his story was simply common. Now, it is widespread.
Widespread would .. mean.. common.
Cheezus, but you're an idiot.
The fact is that there is no real choice in health care.
There's plenty of choice in health care. You're confusing/conflating/unable to understand the fucking concept that there's a difference between who's paying for services, and the services thus rendered.
And, Mr. Slavery Verbatim Sack Boy, you might want to consider what your "enlighted" view means to "medical professionals".
Millions of people are basically trapped by their employer's will.
WHY? WHY? BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT, you NUMBSKULL.
You're *bitching* about the very problem you're trying to make worse.
All of the things you say will happen with government run health care are already happening, Kevin. They simply aren't happening in your bubble. Leave it and you will discover that I am right.
You can't even figure out what "common" means, and you're going to lecture Kevin on "bubbles?"
Mark: No system is perfect, and every system has competing interests.
We understand this.
You do not.
You claim PERFECTION is possible (Magically), and then try and project onto us a perfect claim. No. We're not claiming perfection. We're just claiming better than your system which won't be perfect.
Why is Medicare so horrible, Mark? IF what you say is true, you've already got a single payer system that could demonstrate/prototype what you're talking about.
Whatever health reform passes ... it won't affect you in the least.
Lies. Straight up lies. How in the hell do you think that's the case? (Wait, you can't explain it, you're cutting and pasting.)
It outlaws - OUTLAWS - my current plan. The one I like very much. The one that serves me very well.
Out. Laws.
Will you acknowledge those facts?
Afternoon, Ralph. Whatcha got for lunch?
Someone has to be a barometer.
Or a broken chronometer.
The Zomblog post is designed to provoke an emotional response: fear. And anger. There's nothing factual about it.
Nothing. Factual. About. It.
Liar.
You want to hand out assignments? Back that up, no "Middle Class" Sack Boy.
Demonstrate that the entire post is incorrect. The fact that Zombie is a very talented person who picked images that would get attention and get people to read the rest is a feature, not a bug.
You've stated that Zombie wrote nothing factual. Back it up, or be proven wrong (yet again.) But you don't have the sack.
Your father was certainly free to seek other treatment - if he could pay for it. If not, then he was limited by the terms of his policy, I imagine. Single payer will not make this better - would not have made it better for your father. People are not trapped by their employers' will at all. You can go online today and buy yourself a health insurance policy if you don't like what your job offers you, or you could self insure. When government gets in the game, those choices are out the window. Then we will be trapped by GOVERNMENT will, which also has the power to fine, imprison and kill us. I am constantly amazed that people continue to find this to be a good thing.
Marxy's CBO report is a red herring. But still, let's examine that report. This kind of stuff is WHY it's illegal for the fedgov to take such powers for itself.
>>When government gets in the game, those choices are out the window.
Public education being a case in point.
Once the public funds anything that is made widely available, sooner or later it settles into the economic niche of "marginal to adequate value at a (perceived) price point of 'free'".
Things occupying this niche, no matter how they are funded (be it from the taxpayer's pocket, George Soros' pocket, or gold miraculously spewing out of the Pope's funny hat) inevitably drives things that occupy the economic sweet niche of "moderate to high value at moderate cost" clean out of the marketplace, leaving only "premium value at premium price".
The results cannot be understated: as a consumer, not only are are you deprived of choices in the moderate cost/value category, but at the same time, the commodity enters a negative sum value/real cost death spiral.
Quote:
---------
The president laid out a dire scenario of what will happen if his health care reform effort fails.
Gibson Obama "If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you," he said. "Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. "
The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, "the federal government will go bankrupt."
"This actually provides us the best chance of starting to bend the cost curve on the government expenditures in Medicare and Medicaid," Obama said.
Obama told Gibson that anybody who says they are concerned about the rising deficit or worried about tax increases in the future has to support this health care bill.
"Because if we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget," the president said.
---------
Yeah, Barack. That makes sense. The answer to government created problems is to give government more money and power.
NOT.
Sooner or later, the whole house of extraConstitutional expenditure cards is just going to burn, and the correct answer will be to let it.
Yeah, it will be ugly, and people and their fortunes will be harmed. The hot ashes are very likely to land on us. When it does, lay the consequences at the feet of FDR and his ideological descendants where it belongs.
No one, in 80 years, has ever offered a serious exit strategy from the ponzi plan, the only offerings ever placed on the table kicked it down the road to the next hapless batch of suckers, which at this time is us.
Is this really the answer you want? Is more government control the answer that you think is best?
I am sorry to hear about your father. I have likewise lost many loved ones over the years (it's part of getting old I think) but stop and think about it for a minute. Would it have been any differant if the people who were denying the needed treatments prefaced it with "I am from the government, I'm here to help"? Don't kid yourself, it's the same damn thing.
Now ask yourself if you can trust any and every future administration to "do the right thing" with healthcare because once the government has control, every future president has control. Would you trust G W Bush with your healtcare, or Nixon, or Carter, or whoever is next?
Quite frankly, sooner or later Obama is going to have to stop just printing money like mad to pay for stuff and use real money. Then we will see how creative government can be at figuring out ways to save money and pay for stuff. How long will it take them to start saying that some treatments (like for kidney and liver failure) are too cost prohibitive for the few months of life that they grant and the quality of life too low to fund. Maybe our current administration wouldn't do that (but maybe it would). Can you be so sure that the next wouldn't... or the one after that? Governments tend to slide like that, and if people aren't paying close attention, it starts to become "normal".
"Would it have been any differant if the people who were denying the needed treatments prefaced it with "I am from the government, I'm here to help"?"
Nope. In fact, it would have been worse.
When it's private companies which are denying treatment improperly, you can sue or otherwise appeal to the government for the government to punish the offenders. Now what happens when (not if) the government does the same thing? Can you sue the government? Nope. Tough luck buddy. You're screwed. Period.
Seen elsewhere, presented for your comparision, and not linked deliberately, so I can anonomize the subject:
He does not clarify, he does not reason. He just throws in a lots of super-heated emotive language and makes up cute new put downs...
And I thought this about his advocacy for the War in Iraq, too. After 9/11, we were all pretty emotional (myself included, of course), and we all wanted a bit of hot-blooded emotional venting, and ... was good for these purposes, and I think that's what attracted so many people to him.
Yes, he was arguing passionately for War in Iraq ... but everything about it was, in fact, passion. Everything was how horrible a tyrant Saddam was, and what a perfect and noble goal it was to free the Kurds and so on, and while that certainly is true, I just didn't get the hyperbolic language all this was expressed in ...
Without doubt, emotion plays into these decisions. And also without doubt, ... also mentioned the rational case for war -- Jeffrey Goldberg (IIRC) discussing Saddam's WMDs, etc.
But a lot of people did that. People came to ... not for that, but for the hyperventilating and the hysterics. Sometimes you want that sort of thing. Again, I admit, after 9/11, that's exactly what I wanted, because that's exactly what I felt. But at some point I just grew to despise ... because he seemed a one-trick pony whose claim to fame was that he could lose his shit at the drop of a hat.
...
Harlan Ellison observed that there was a great deal of childish naivete in much of early science fiction -- that super-optimistic view of the future, the bubble-cities, the end of war and racism, etc., was this childish wish-fulfillment fantasy of a utopian world.
Now that's the obvious point. But the non-obvious point he followed it up with was this: The dystopian fantasies that followed in the sixties and seventies were also just as childishly naive. Because, as he put it, a utopian is just someone who's a bit immature and naive about the limits of human goodness and the fundamental selfishness lurking around in all of us; a dystopian, on the other hand, is just that childish, immature, naive utopian who's become pissed off about the failure of society to live up to his utopian dreams, and so becomes this equally childish, immature, naive dystopian.
... He was specifically addressing bad sci-fi, bad utopias and bad dystopias, and explaining how the exact same immaturity of thought of lack of insight into the human character animated both, the same damn stupid lack of balance and eventempertedness drove the lunatic first to dreams of utopia and then to angry spit-anger-at-humanity dystopia.
That is the kind of guy ... is, right there. The War in Iraq would create a utopia of bubble-cities and perfectly democratic society; and then one day he wakes up, gets a cold splash of reality in his face, and now the War in Iraq (and increasingly -- the War in Afghanistan too) is the worstest war ever and not only ignoble and without worth but waged for no other purpose than to get George W. Bush votes and add a half-point to Halliburton's stock price.
Sarah: How would you discourage this in the most laissez-faire way?
I've got an answer for that.
"You hurt your knee while extreme mountain-biking? That's not covered by your current insurance. Sorry. Next time, consider the riskiness of your behavior beforehand."
I'm sure I'll be the only to say it but you have crossed the line with this one. And that makes me pretty fucking sad, dude.
Well, dude, I'd say you crossed a line on your Corporate Abuse post, and I wasn't the only one to say so. You've never posted even a modification of your stance after having your ass handed to you. Nor have you rebutted a SINGLE thing in this discussion, other than your insipid "oh no it won't" kind of statement.
"The bottom line is that under the Reid bill the majority of America's patients might be fine. But some will be like Sheila—patients whose lives hang in the balance and require the care of a doctor who understands the science and art of medicine, and can make decisions without government interference.
"The American people are opposing this bill in greater numbers every day because the facts of the bill—not any tactic—are cause for serious concern."
What I like, and what Mark won't be able to reconcile reality with his worldview and the "questions he knew to ask [himself] to come to the "right conclusions":
Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.
Or the rather interesting point that Congress can't figure out:
What happens, for instance, when savvy consumers commanded to buy insurance realize the penalty is the de facto premium? It won't take long for younger, healthier Americans to realize it's cheaper to pay a $750 tax for coverage instead of, say, $5,000 in annual premiums when coverage can't be denied if you get sick.
This is what happens when you lack basic math skills. (Like when Mark can't figure out that 22 is more than 15? Same sort of planning that can't figure out that people will take the "cheap" way most every time.
Well, dude, I'd say you crossed a line on your Corporate Abuse post,
Oh, it's a line he laps and comes around and crosses again and again. It's more like the finish line on a racetrack.
So grow a pair dude and follow your OWN advice.
He's good at "dishing out" advice (or insults) that's demented, but he's unable to see how often it applies to him. It's pathological. Even when you explicitly describe it and point it out, he ignores it.
Thus his "have the sack" "nut up", "projection" comments. The only thing you can say, is he's consistent in a simpering hypocritical way.
And what is the end product of cholera? In layman's terms, it is terminal diarrhea.
So, let's try literary terms, shall we?
Cholera results in the spewing forth of copious amounts of muck, of stinking, raw biliousness that neither the victim nor the witness benefits from. The victim has no control over the process, not in timing, content, volume, or trajectory. No matter what aid the witness tries to render, the spewing goes on and on and on.
Yup, cholera is a good metaphor, except for three things: 1) those who try to help the victim of cholera usually have sympathy therefor; 2) said victim generally doesn't suffer it willingly or intentionally; and, 3) eventually, it ends.
I tell you what, U-J, you figure out how to convert those saved comments into another commenting system that you like, and I'll consider dropping Echo. Right now, it works. It has some improvements over HaloScan, and some things I don't care for, but at the price, it really isn't that bad.
Right now the blog costs me about $20 a year - I pay for Echo and for an upgrade to Photobucket. Everything else is free. At that price I'm really not in a position to bitch.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/12/quote-of-day-oh-hell-yes-edition.html (95 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Except this isn't anywhere close to reality.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/reid-assures-snowe-that-public-option-medicare-buy-in-are-dead.php
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. This bill is nowhere near universal health care and it never will be. I realize we are all very sensitive about this subject but the fact is your fear tactics and paranoid unreality have worked: we will not have a single payer system in this country nor will we have universal health care any time in the next ten years. Maybe never.
Because the corporations of this country have successfully used propaganda to convince of something happening that they, in fact, are already doing...long lines, no choice of provider, meddlesome bureaucrats, poor care, back breaking prices, and....well...death. Just because it's not happening to you doesn't mean it's not happening. Without serious reform, though, it likely will.
Funny, though. Vanderleun will have a bill for someone's stupidity in his mailbox when his insurance rates and fees for service go up because of the same dumb ass. Do you folks honestly think health care costs are going to magically go down? Or that tort reform is going to solve all of this? I think you should save your unicorn fart comments for the person you see in the mirror every morning.
All of the doomsday scenarios many of you envision ARE ALREADY HAPPENING. When it happens to you, will you continue to make up your own reality? I hope not.
By the way, nice link to Zomblog. Fear, hate and anger, Kevin...well done.
How come, given all of the evidence of nationalized medicine not working properly anywhere in the world, Leftists (i.e.Markedelphia) so religiously support it?
I haven't seen the inside of a doctor's office or hospital in a few years.
Long lines?
Hospitals near me have a 30-minutes-or-less ER wait guarantee, and they advertise on radio or billboards for it. Where are these long lines you tell me of?
I'll give you meddlesome bureaucrats, as long as everyone in the discussion remembers that meddlesome bureaucrats are usually the result of State and Federal Law interfering with the decisions of doctors and patients.
Same for no choice of provider.
Sadly, as far as prices go, I think the fact that insurance has become mis-used (partly, or perhaps mostly, due to governmental laws and policies) and now supports an outrageous price scheme. Seriously, insurance should be for rare calamities, not for regular checkups. And insurance companies that have the ability to short the doctor on his billing (like Medicare does as a matter of policy) cause the doctor to bill higher, just so that he can make costs.
Every law and policy that inserts governmental decision-making between a patient and the physician (including the decision of who is paying for insurance, patient or patient's employer) is something that contributes to rising costs, shortages, and trouble.
"we will not have a single payer system in this country nor will we have universal health care any time in the next ten years. Maybe never."
Sounds good to me.
"Because the corporations of this country have successfully used propaganda to convince of something happening that they....."
Can't help myself. What a load of unmitigated crap. The corporations would love, LOVE to have government run health care. Providing healthcare to employees is an unprofitable and burdensome requirement that they would love to pass on to the government.
Markadelphia: "stuck on stupid".
Mark, please explain why further regulation of health care, currently one of the most regulated industries, is going to improve health care.
Why I have a new nuanced view on drug legalization. I don't care who uses what drug (except my kids, who know I will respond with blinding violence) - as long as I never get the bill for their rehab or unemployment benefits.
That's Marky for you. He NEVER backs up his pronouncements and then has the balls to say that those who disagree with him aren't entitled to their own facts. As if when he says something it must be true.....because he said it! The Obamacare bill is only NOT full-blown socialized medicine because of the opposition of the majority of folks in the country. Marky boy is trying to paint some sort of picture that that attempt was not and will never be made. Heh. Never mind BHO's own admission that the public option was the best way to proceed incrementally towards single payer. The straw man he sets up as "corporate propaganda" is all he can come up with to demonize the opposition. Making up our own reality seems to be his latest buzz phrase. And he seems to be foaming at the mouth more lately too. Who gets to clean off his monitor and keyboard? Yuck.
Eagle 1
"You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts."
There you go again, hypocrisy boy.
"... the fact is your fear tactics and paranoid unreality have worked ..."
There you go again, hypocrisy boy.
"... long lines, no choice of provider, meddlesome bureaucrats, poor care ... "
Hypocrisy boy, I've probably had more contact with health care, as a patient, in the last few years than you've had in your whole lifetime. In fact, I just had a routine followup visit with my urologist only yesterday. I have not experienced any lines, I have my choice of providers and always have, I do not deal with bureaucrats, and I get outstanding care.
Do you actually like the prospect of 111 new feddle bureaucracies having their fingers in your health care?
"... back breaking prices ..."
Yup. Sky high. Y'see (who am I kidding; you won't see what you don't like) I pay for my care and I pay for my insurance. Thus, I also pay for those who don't pay, those who, by feddle law, cannot be turned away when they need health care. That's the biggest single reason why my health care is expensive.
So, (wait for it) there you go again, hypocrisy boy.
"... and....well...death ..."
It's the fate of us all, remember?
Now, what was that you wrote about "... fear tactics ..."?
So, (wait for it again) there you go again, hypocrisy boy.
"Do you folks honestly think health care costs are going to magically go down?"
Nope. I expect they'll go WAY up when health care is "free".
"When it happens to you, will you continue to make up your own reality?"
Sigh ...
There you go again, hypocrisy boy.
C'mon, you pathetic little boy. Do something different, why don'tcha?
"Do you folks honestly think health care costs are going to magically go down? "
Considering this is the big reason the current health care reform is being proposed, you better hope they do.
That is an excellent quote of the day Kevin. As for this comment thread...shows that when you throw a big rock into a pack of dogs, the one you hit doesn't like it and usually yelps the loudest.
I've never waited in a long line, I have multiple network providers I can go to under my plan, I've never dealt with a meddlesome bureaucrat and I've never had poor care. Just because you have to now drive 10 miles out of your way does not mean you have "no choice of providers". It's not corporate propoganda, it's my experience in the health care system.
I know I've never said that tort reform is the only solution and I've never said that costs are going to magically go down for no reason. You are trying to take your opponents arguments to an end that most people would find laughable. If your arguments are so rock solid, there should be no need to misrepresent the positions of others.
I think it...*fascinating*... that Marxy's only defense of socialized medicine is that it's not going to be full tilt socialized medicine because the ire of the American people blocked his team from the full implementation of their statist scheme. Of course, rather than credit the good sense of the American public, he has to salvage what he can from it, and blame his bogeyman, the fearMongering MedicalIndustrial complex. What was the phrase? Ah, yes, I believe it was something like "oop ahk boink squeak"
Thing is, there's always been a few shades of differentiation between Euro style social medicine in the proposals on the table that proponents of this shit stew could always claim that it wasn't that.
Still, if you google up folks with more to say about what's still on the table other than "the public option is out" (assuming we believe that what they say means what we think it means), there current proposals are still, at their core, what they always were:
A vast grab for stolen money and stolen power.
This power grab is composed of a shit stew of noxious effluvia, economic ignorance, and latent unintended consequences the Constitutional authority of which is suspect, even under our current...shall we say "relaxed and expansive"? ...jurisprudence concerning the deployment of government power.
You see, it doesn't matter that "The final bill won't include everything that everybody wants." (B. Obama) It doesn't even matter if the proposal is coherent, or likely to actually produce any particular outcome. What does matter at this point is that some bill, any bill passes that expands the power of government, so that the Dems can claim a win.
In this, I wish the statist nothing but misery and failure.
I have a question for y'all. Given that everyone with half a brain knows that implementing common-sense reforms, like tort reform, would reduce costs, what would you do about the following scenario. A scummy ex-relative of mine had surgery on a badly injured knee, and by all accounts this surgery should have been successful, but this ex-relative then kept getting unnecessary surgeries on it (by lying to the doctor about the pain and functionality) to keep getting pain meds. I've heard of doctors performing unnecessary procedures for the extra business, but I'd never heard of patients wanting unnecessary procedures for the meds. Apparently it's done all the time, and must therefore constitute a significant burden on the health care system. How would you discourage this in the most laissez-faire way?
Sarah,
The laissez-faire approach would likely be to allow people to buy pain pills without needing a prescription, hence removing the need for the surgeries.
Kevin, I've had some time to think about this post and I have to say, I'm shocked. And disgusted, quite frankly.
In the past, you have made compelling, reasoned, and intelligent arguments regarding gun rights. All have been filled with facts, logic, and reason. You have also made similar arguments on other topics. Certainly, I have not agreed with them all but at least you used some scholars to support your points. And there's nothing wrong with blowing off steam (Brian DePalma). I do it all the time on my blog. Not reasonable but understandable, of course.
But linking to this blog and telling us to "Burn it into your frontal lobes with a soldering pencil" betrays how your emotional mind has let your rational mind lead you to a conclusion. You are so afraid of a "power grab" that you can't see one has already happened and Zomblog is but one small part of maintaining this power. It actually goes beyond that and, in doing so, more or less demonstrates that you cannot remain objective about this topic. In fact, as you complain often and loud of liberals, your feelings have clouded your judgment and its capacity for rational thought.
Explain to me the difference between Zomblog and anti Semitic propaganda disseminated by the Germans in the 1930s. Or the skin heads of today. What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets. Really, Kevin? REALLY?
I'm sure I'll be the only to say it but you have crossed the line with this one. And that makes me pretty fucking sad, dude.
Sarah: Or, and this is très simples I realize, but if you want it, you pay for it.
Marxy: Missing. The. Point. Since. … well … Always.
Markadelphia, your poor opinion of me bothers me not in the least. After reading what you've written here for the better part of the last three years, my opinion of you couldn't get much lower.
I quoted Zomblog. So? I'll quote Mein Kampf if I think Hitler wrote something people need to hear and understand. What I quoted, people need to hear and understand. He's right. Bloomberg's transfat police is evidence of that.
"Health Care Reform" is about power Markadelphia - power I don't want the government to seize. Power it was not given by the Constitution, and which is therefore reserved to the states or to the people.
You're shocked and disgusted? Too bad. Go elsewhere if you wish to feel better.
Once again Marky boy, you refuse to answer any direct point made to refute your pronouncements. We're waiting......but you're just sad that somebody has pointed out that the same mindset that supports socialism also can easily live with, if not promote the mess that is SF. And sad that someone points out in pictures that the Code Pink/ ANSWER/ WCW protesters are complete lunatics. Just hateful. Haters because they don't swallow your drivel and the party line hook, line and sinker.
Come on Marky, you just lost the arguement again. Godwin's theory lives!
Eagle 1
Marxy, here is how you can prove the health care bill is NOT a power grab:
Show which part of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to take total control of health care. (Or even do Medicare.) In other words, if it's in the Constitution, then they already legitimately have the power. If not, then it is a power grab.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
What, that's only for you?
Different rules.
This bill is nowhere near universal health care
Only because of massive outrage and dawning comprehension of what was attempted.
the fact is your fear tactics and paranoid unreality have worked:
Except we didn't need to create a alternative reality to do so. All we had to do was point to existing systems, demonstrate historical parallels, and show what the (various) bills said.
we will not have a single payer system in this country
We already do, dumbass. What was that about "facts"? (What system is the only one you can use and is mandated after a certain age?)
nor will we have universal health care any time in the next ten years. Maybe never.
Care, or "INSURANCE"?
We already have universal care. It's not surprising that as many times as it's been pointed out to you, verbatim boy, you can't synthesize that.
Because the corporations of this country have successfully used propaganda
Ah, always the corporations. Well, they didn't with me. Or I suspect DJ or Kevin or Russell or Sarah or Eagle 1 or... Your entire argument hinges on that being true. When it's not, your argument collapses.
Fear? I suggest you look at Obama's "DO IT OR ELSE" approach for an example of fear-mongering.
to convince of something happening that they, in fact, are already doing...long lines, no choice of provider, meddlesome bureaucrats, poor care, back breaking prices, and....well...death.
Copy/paste.. check! Nevermind thinking about it! Point Proven. Nevermind none of those are justified. Or that they undermind Mark's argument! PASTE PASTE PASTE. The three P's!
Just because it's not happening to you doesn't mean it's not happening. Without serious reform, though, it likely will.
It likely will. So you claim we're appealing to fear, and then, you go and ... appeal to fear. "It likely will happen."
You can't even distinguish between care and payment.
Why is the care so costly? Surely not? No! He's not going to! Avert your eyes, UJ's gonna bring out the point of:
GOVERNMENT REGULATION
Oh, Mark's down, he's writhing in pain! Somebody put him in line for costly care! That's gonna leave a mark that's not covered for cosmetic care!
Funny, though. Vanderleun will have a bill for someone's stupidity in his mailbox when his insurance rates and fees for service go up because of the same dumb ass.
Not necessarily. I'd explain that to you, but you'd have to understand how insurance works, and it's obvious you've got no clue.
Do you folks honestly think health care costs are going to magically go down?
MAGICALLY? Hell no. The market will drive them down if you'll get the hell out of the way. Look at LASIK or breast enlargements or other procedures not govered by insurance usually - they keep getting better by leaps and bounds and the price keeps dropping. But it's not magic.
You're the only that thinks that Obama can magically change things.
Or that tort reform is going to solve all of this?
No, but it would help one hell of a lot. (That's another strawman you've got on fire. Speaking of Carbon Credits, want to go back and revisit all the insults you threw about the "Settled science" and "Climate Change Deniers?")
betrays how your emotional mind has let your rational mind lead you to a conclusion.
Hey, Sack Boy, when are you gonna nut up and have the scrotum to admit that you're wrong?
But linking to this blog
So [snicker] demonstrate [guffaw] how this is the case [giggling].
Explain to me the difference between Zomblog and anti Semitic propaganda disseminated by the Germans in the 1930s.
Answer your own question and demonstrate where Zombietime is incorrect. We'll wait a bit for you to demonstrate where the facts are wrong.
What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets. Really, Kevin? REALLY?
No, it's not. That's your logical fallacy, Mr. I Don't Use Logical Fallacies.
Mastiff: That's one option I was considering.
Russell: He paid for the insurance, and insurance is supposed to cover catastrophic things like accidental knee injuries, so I'm not sure on what basis he would be required to pay out of pocket unless it could be proved that he doesn't need the surgery. Another option would be to require longer periods between repeat procedures, like a year.
"Kevin, I've had some time to think about this post and I have to say, I'm shocked. And disgusted, quite frankly..."
Then turn your stupid ass, on a heel, and get the fuck out of here, retard!
theirritablearchitect:
Wow, you're really irritable!
:)
Sarah:
There's not a real good answer to that problem.
Although the ex-relative was at least .. industrious? enough to actually *have* more surgeries.
Most people I know just come up with "back pain" or various other maladies that aren't easily proven/disproven, and get dispensed the pain pills almost willy-nilly...
Kevin, being an actual man, you may not recognize this, but Mark is pulling a very feminine move on you. As a woman, I recognize the tactic: he is not providing a reasoned rebuttal of your position (quelle surprise), but attempting to pressure you into re-evaluating your beliefs by withdrawing his admiration and acceptance, and declaring that you have made him sad. It can have great power, but only with: 1) other women; or 2) a man whose sex life depends on the aforementioned acceptance/admiration/lack of sadness. Every woman has tried this move with her man at least once. When it fails, the next move is to concede or escalate. Not sure which way I'd bet with Mark.
Sarah; "He paid for the insurance" And that's the problem, he isn't paying for the surgery, he's paying into the insurance. If you want the surgery, you should pay for the surgery.
"Not sure which way I'd bet with Mark."
Escalate. No doubt about it.
Although the ex-relative was at least .. industrious? enough to actually *have* more surgeries.
I guess "industrious" could apply: he injured his knee in a spectacular mountain bike wipe-out on a rough trail. Which suggests that people who engage in risky behavior should pay higher health insurance rates.
Meta-analysis:
Marxy squeals about quoting Zomblog, in full accordance with the politics of "shut up".
--==|==--
A study in (deliberate?) obtuseness:
Quote Marxy:
---
What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets. Really, Kevin? REALLY?
---
Wau. What breathtaking obtuseness.
No, the photos demonstrate the current existence of sexual behavior (notably in the *absence* of government healthcare) that it would be reasonable to argue is irresponsible.
Echoing Marxy's rather repulsive terminology, "the fags" are already "out sucking cocks in the streets".
And I, for one, don't care, as long as I don't have to pay for it.
In a redistributionist government health care system, the treatment of the consequent spread of disease emanating from this behavior would then be a cause to extract funds from my pocket.
In fact, the whole point of the article, which Marxy obtusely misses, is that in a context of redistributionist government healthcare, *any* behavior with medical implications, positive or negative, thus becomes a topic for consideration of public regulation.
I suppose we're just supposed to trust to Congressional deliberations to determine which medical risks will be tolerated, and which won't, and whether the force of law will be deployed to enforce public calisthenics in the morning.
Science is politicized now, with AGW. Just you wait until RGHC gets into the picture!
It'll be a land rush, as every special interest group angles to "prove" that their product reduces public costs, and therefore should be mandated, or prove how things they don't like increase public costs, and therefore should be prohibited.
"Progressives" have already blazed the trail on that one, with all the Joyce and Brady funding for so called studies of actuarial "science" designed to demonstrate how the hazards of gun ownership increase insurance and public expenses.
Not only no, but Hell No.
But, Russell, isn't that what insurance is for?
"I'm sure I'll be the only to say it but you have crossed the line with this one. And that makes me pretty fucking sad, dude."
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. You deliberately miss the point, laying on one straw man after another.
Suck it up, sack boy. Learn to handle reality. It'll open a whole new world for you.
"What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets. Really, Kevin? REALLY?"
No, you pathetic little boy, emphatically, NO.
Fags already are out sucking cock in the streets.
Your life is the result of the choices you make. This is true of everyone. The point made in the cited article is that the author doesn't want the gubmint to force him to have a vested interest in people making what ought to be personal choices affecting only them.
"... Mark is pulling a very feminine move on you."
So much for "sack boy" ...
In the past, you have made compelling, reasoned, and intelligent arguments... filled with facts, logic, and reason... But linking to this blog and telling us to "Burn it into your frontal lobes with a soldering pencil" betrays how your emotional mind has let your rational mind lead you to a conclusion.
If that's the case, you should have no trouble pointing out specific places where his facts and/or logic are in error, right?
What this site essentially says, with is accompanying pictures, is that if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets.
Bullshit. It says nothing of the kind. You saw a picture of gay sex, it pushed your buttons, and apparently you jumped to a tall conclusion from a standing start right there without ever reading the piece.
The piece identifies several behavior patterns that commonly increase the need for medical care by the individual exhibiting them:
• Obesity
• Cigarette smoking
• Alcohol abuse
• Reckless behavior
• Criminal activity
• Unprotected promiscuous sex
• Use of illicit drugs
• Cultural traditions
• Bad diets
In fact, I don't see where it mentions gay sex at all. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the picture depicting gay sex was not there because it was gay sex, but unprotected sex with a total stranger, which was one of the points the writer was making?
Apparently not.
And you accuse others of having "your emotional mind let your rational mind lead you to a conclusion"? Really?
Escalate. No doubt about it.
You may be right. However, by "concede" I wasn't implying anything honorable, but rather the usual scurrying away only to return later and pretend like it never happened.
In fact, the whole point of the article, which Marxy obtusely misses, is that in a context of redistributionist government healthcare, *any* behavior with medical implications, positive or negative, thus becomes a topic for consideration of public regulation.
To expand upon geek's comment, other than the direct point he misses, is another point that most people follow, but Mark is constitutionally inable to grasp.
That is, PR matters.
Some quick googling and some maths..
In 2008, there were 187k cases of prostate cancer detected. Versus 185k of breast cancer.
So, about the same amount of each. But breast cancer research has almost 10x the funding as prostate cancer research.
Similar report: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/
And I can't find off the top of my head directly comparable numbers, but those again are dwarfed by the money poured into AIDS research... looks like about 3 *billion* (as opposed to about 300 million for breast cancer).
Someone else can try and explain that to Mark for now.
Sarah, yes, but you asked for a laissez-faire approach :)
To me, the buyer and the seller should have as few levels between them for their transaction. Insurance today is a mess, and isn't used the way it really should be used.
Insurance used to be based on stats and actuarial tables to identify probabilities and costs.
Nowadays, the damn kids won't get off my lawn and people use health insurance for all sorts of nonsense that isn't part of the statisticians' analysis.
Due to my limited knowledge, I cannot see a way to place the burden squarely on your ex-relative's pocketbook under the current "insurance as a safety blanket" model.
"But, Russell, isn't that what insurance is for?"
Insurance is for necessary surgeries not for unnecessary ones because you want to get high. What your ex-relative is doing is insurance fraud.
Sort of like a cockroach when the light is turned on?
Eagle 1
I also note the presence of this line in the piece:
...congregationalists who try to cure a disease by means of an exorcism...
Mark, given that your take-away from the piece was
if "universal" health care happens, the fags will be out sucking cock in the streets
based on one picture and no mention at all of gay sex in the text, wouldn't it be equally accurate for me to say this piece claims "if universal health care happens the fundamentalist flat-earther faith healers will take over America?"
Oh wait, I forgot. In your eyes, they already have.
"However, by "concede" I wasn't implying anything honorable, but rather the usual scurrying away only to return later and pretend like it never happened."
Maybe "cut and run" would have been a better description. To my knowledge, Marxy has only ever conceded a point twice in three years.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Ok Marky, you owe me an Irony meter. That remark blew the primaries on mine, no simple fuse replacement with this it.
Russell: OK, I guess I confused the situation with "laissez-faire." What I meant was, what is a non-Markadelphia solution given the current parameters?
-+-
Insurance is for necessary surgeries not for unnecessary ones because you want to get high. What your ex-relative is doing is insurance fraud.
No doubt about it. The problem is that it may be difficult to impossible for an insurance company to determine what's unnecessary. How do you tell the difference between a fraudster who's lying about symptoms because he wants drugs and a patient who is genuinely immobile and in pain? Complicating matters, you may have a doctor who's complicit because he's glad to have the extra business. I'm wondering how to discourage this, e.g. easier access to drugs, longer waits between surgeries, higher rates/deductibles for people like this, etc.
-+-
So much for "sack boy" ...
What are you going to call him now, DJ, "ovary boy"? :-)
How do you tell the difference between a fraudster who's lying about symptoms because he wants drugs and a patient who is genuinely immobile and in pain?
There ya go.
The bureaucrats that Mark hates when they're corporate employees (and loves when they're pulling a government paycheck, or their company is contracted to the government for those services) have to make some rules.
And like most rules, they'll miss some situations or not handle some of them perfectly.
The problem is that it may be difficult to impossible for an insurance company to determine what's unnecessary.
Yep. Unless they're "heartless" and just say "No". Then of course it's "Take my friend Javier" time.
"what is a non-Markadelphia solution given the current parameters?"
Let him pay for his health care and pay for his pills. (Or have somebody locally explain how to game the system much cheaper).
Sarah: "What I meant was, what is a non-Markadelphia solution given the current parameters?"
Geez, don't you get tired of dragging the goal posts around? I kid, I kid! :)
As far as I can see, there isn't.
If his doctor realizes what is going on and says "No" he'll just bounce on to another doctor who'll say "Yes". Or sue the first doctor. Rinse and repeat until he gets what he wants.
The problem lies with him, at the core. No system is going to make stupid people stop being stupid.
The solution I like is to make stupid people pay for themselves, and leave the rest of us out of it.
Russell, I'm all for making stupid, lying, cheating, crappy, etc. people pay for themselves. Having said that, I'm mildly curious as to what Mark thinks the solution should be. How would government-mandated health care minimize fraud?
And like most rules, they'll miss some situations or not handle some of them perfectly.
I can't find it to check my accuracy, but this is at least pretty close:
"Governments tend to wield the huge blunt axe of the law in situations that would be better served by the delicate scalpel of common sense."
- Terry Pratchett, Maskerade (I think)
"This bill is nowhere near universal health care and it never will be. "
Well, well, well. It appears that Bernie Sanders disagrees with you.
"The Senate's chief socialist, Bernie Sanders, offered a single-payer health care amendment. It would open Medicare to all regardless of age, income, etc., and would be paid through higher income taxes."
And because I just know Marxy is going to claim that Michelle Malkin is "biased" and therefore misrepresenting the bill, I did a little more digging.
Guess what's on the front page of Sanders' own web site:
"The Senate is debating for the first time in American history a proposal to create a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health care system. The Sanders Amendment would provide health care and dental coverage for every American, save money, and improve health care results."In my view, the single-payer approach is the only way we will ever have a cost-effective, comprehensive health care system in this country," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose amendment will come before the Senate."
"So much for "sack boy" ...
What are you going to call him now, DJ, "ovary boy"? "
Hmmm ...
I haven't given it any real thought yet.
"Ovary boy" works for me.
"Girly boy" fits, too.
I keep thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. How would a French knight taunt him by stringing them all together in an outrageous accent?
That would take some work. I'm about to leave on another hunting trip to Missouri. Maybe I'll spend some "blind time" composing something ...
Then again, maybe not. I intend to enjoy the experience.
"How would government-mandated health care minimize fraud?"
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!
Er, I mean, by the power Obama! all unicorns will fart rainbows, and all health care bureaucracies will be pure as the driven snow and armed with the swift and unerring sword of justice, just like every other socialist scheme tried on Earth.
Heh, Russell. I know the question is inherently ludicrous (along the lines of, how would you best implement wolves to minimize the slaughter of sheep); but, strictly for entertainment purposes, I'd still like to know what Mark thinks.
DJ, what are you hunting? Whatever it is, I hope it's an enjoyable trip.
"Markadelphia, your poor opinion of me bothers me not in the least..."
Actually, I have quite a high opinion of you. And Mastiff and GOF.
"I quoted Zomblog. So? I'll quote Mein Kampf if I think Hitler wrote something people need to hear and understand..."
Understand in context, perhaps. But use it to support a point? A point which is completely founded on an irrational fear of government? No.
"'Health Care Reform' is about power Markadelphia - power I don't want the government to seize. Power it was not given by the Constitution, and which is therefore reserved to the states or to the people."
When my father was dying of kidney and liver failure in the hospital, bureaucrats from the hospital, the HMO and the insurance company were constantly interfering with his treatment. He was not "free" to go anywhere else. Issues of payment came up constantly and many times treatment was denied. When there was treatment, it sometimes took days to get. Guess what year this was?
1988. At the time time his story was simply common. Now, it is widespread. You scream and cry about the government having control over you. Someone already has control over you, Kevin. It's corporate America...our oligarchy...our plutonomy. The fact is that there is no real choice in health care. Millions of people are basically trapped by their employer's will. All of the things you say will happen with government run health care are already happening, Kevin. They simply aren't happening in your bubble. Leave it and you will discover that I am right.
What's hilarious as well is that we are even having this debate. Whatever health reform passes (and it won't be much due to our "liberal" Congress), it won't affect you in the least. Read the CBO, reports, Kevin. You (and others here) say you deal in logic and facts. Well, the reports are full of them. Will you acknowledge those facts?
"You're shocked and disgusted? Too bad. Go elsewhere if you wish to feel better."
Unless you kick me out, I'm here to stay. Someone has to be a barometer. Speaking of which, take a look at these images.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm
Compare them to the Zomblog post. See any similarities? Actually the first one reminds me of the base's view of education. The Zomblog post is designed to provoke an emotional response: fear. And anger. There's nothing factual about it. The images on there are geared to piss people off and foment irrationality.
Just like they were 70 years ago.
"DJ, what are you hunting? Whatever it is, I hope it's an enjoyable trip."
Deer. It's what's for dinner.
The Missouri muzzleloading season begins Saturday. I go back there, where I lived for 26 years, and hunt with my friends.
Oh, and thanks for the sentiments. It appears the weather will be clear, cold, and calm the whole time. The last two years, ice, snow, and storm drove me out early. Last year, I came back to a huge ice storm across Oklahoma that killed power for hundreds of thousands. My sister-in-law was without power for nine days.
It should be a fine trip.
"Compare them to the Zomblog post."
There is no comparison because you never even mention the ARGUMENT which the post makes. That's called a category error. The fact that you can't even touch the primary point tells me that you either didn't read the post, you didn't understand the argument, or you're deliberately attacking a strawman.
But use it to support a point? A point which is completely founded on an irrational fear of government? No.
"Irrational"? You've yet to prove this point.
Nor have you addressed the multiple people making multiple points that you've totally mis-categorized Kevin's quote and reference to Zombie.
At the time time his story was simply common. Now, it is widespread.
Widespread would .. mean.. common.
Cheezus, but you're an idiot.
The fact is that there is no real choice in health care.
There's plenty of choice in health care. You're confusing/conflating/unable to understand the fucking concept that there's a difference between who's paying for services, and the services thus rendered.
And, Mr. Slavery Verbatim Sack Boy, you might want to consider what your "enlighted" view means to "medical professionals".
Millions of people are basically trapped by their employer's will.
WHY? WHY? BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT, you NUMBSKULL.
You're *bitching* about the very problem you're trying to make worse.
All of the things you say will happen with government run health care are already happening, Kevin. They simply aren't happening in your bubble. Leave it and you will discover that I am right.
You can't even figure out what "common" means, and you're going to lecture Kevin on "bubbles?"
Mark: No system is perfect, and every system has competing interests.
We understand this.
You do not.
You claim PERFECTION is possible (Magically), and then try and project onto us a perfect claim. No. We're not claiming perfection. We're just claiming better than your system which won't be perfect.
Why is Medicare so horrible, Mark? IF what you say is true, you've already got a single payer system that could demonstrate/prototype what you're talking about.
Whatever health reform passes ... it won't affect you in the least.
Lies. Straight up lies. How in the hell do you think that's the case? (Wait, you can't explain it, you're cutting and pasting.)
It outlaws - OUTLAWS - my current plan. The one I like very much. The one that serves me very well.
Out. Laws.
Will you acknowledge those facts?
Afternoon, Ralph. Whatcha got for lunch?
Someone has to be a barometer.
Or a broken chronometer.
The Zomblog post is designed to provoke an emotional response: fear. And anger. There's nothing factual about it.
Nothing. Factual. About. It.
Liar.
You want to hand out assignments? Back that up, no "Middle Class" Sack Boy.
Demonstrate that the entire post is incorrect. The fact that Zombie is a very talented person who picked images that would get attention and get people to read the rest is a feature, not a bug.
You've stated that Zombie wrote nothing factual. Back it up, or be proven wrong (yet again.) But you don't have the sack.
But you don't have the sack.
Or the facts.
But then, you're the one who's entitled to his own, right?
Kevin: "Markadelphia, your poor opinion of me bothers me not in the least..."
Ovary boy: "Actually, I have quite a high opinion of you. And Mastiff and GOF."
Ovary boy, you practice missing the point as if it were your only skill.
Sarah, that was a spot-on observation, and a good name. Well done.
"The fact is that there is no real choice in health care."
Well, there is your other skill, viz., denying reality.
C'mon, you thick-headed moron. Do something we haven't seen before.
"Whatever health reform passes ... it won't affect you in the least."
So, now you're prescient, are you? Look the word up, teacher boy.
"Someone has to be a barometer."
A barometer? Do you even know what the word means?
You deserve the treatment you get here, litte boy. You insist on earning it over and over and over, day after day after day.
Your father was certainly free to seek other treatment - if he could pay for it. If not, then he was limited by the terms of his policy, I imagine. Single payer will not make this better - would not have made it better for your father. People are not trapped by their employers' will at all. You can go online today and buy yourself a health insurance policy if you don't like what your job offers you, or you could self insure. When government gets in the game, those choices are out the window. Then we will be trapped by GOVERNMENT will, which also has the power to fine, imprison and kill us. I am constantly amazed that people continue to find this to be a good thing.
"Read the CBO, reports, Kevin."
Read THE CONSTITUTION FIRST, Vizinni. The "costs" don't matter at all if what they're doing is Frakkin' illegal!!
+1 Read the Constitution, please, Markadelphia.
But its FREEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
(Ducks behind chair)
Eagle 1
For real-time "Fear, hate and anger," go to Firedoglake and post something about Sarah Palin. Strawboy.
(ooh, good points above, which reminds me):
Read the CBO, reports, Kevin. You (and others here) say you deal in logic and facts. Well, the reports are full of them
Which ones? The ones that say that taking over health care will sink the budget?
The ones that count 10 years of payments against 6 years of cost?
Funny thing, Verbatim Ovary Nut Up Slavery Boy... I betcha we know more about them than you do.
Marxy's CBO report is a red herring. But still, let's examine that report. This kind of stuff is WHY it's illegal for the fedgov to take such powers for itself.
"At the time time his story was simply common. Now, it is widespread."
This is what known as doubling down on the stupid, or Standard Response #5
"Actually, I have quite a high opinion of you. And Mastiff and GOF."
It must be all those other Al Queda commentators here that he doesn't like.
And by 'high opinion' he means 'I am going to stick my fingers in my ear and chant la-la-la whilst I break out another strawman.'
DJ: Good luck and have fun!
>>When government gets in the game, those choices are out the window.
Public education being a case in point.
Once the public funds anything that is made widely available, sooner or later it settles into the economic niche of "marginal to adequate value at a (perceived) price point of 'free'".
Things occupying this niche, no matter how they are funded (be it from the taxpayer's pocket, George Soros' pocket, or gold miraculously spewing out of the Pope's funny hat) inevitably drives things that occupy the economic sweet niche of "moderate to high value at moderate cost" clean out of the marketplace, leaving only "premium value at premium price".
The results cannot be understated: as a consumer, not only are are you deprived of choices in the moderate cost/value category, but at the same time, the commodity enters a negative sum value/real cost death spiral.
Oh, this is rich, speaking of fear tactics:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/president-obama-federal-government-will-go-bankrupt-if-health-care-costs-are-not-reigned-in.html
Quote:
---------
The president laid out a dire scenario of what will happen if his health care reform effort fails.
Gibson Obama "If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you," he said. "Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. "
The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, "the federal government will go bankrupt."
"This actually provides us the best chance of starting to bend the cost curve on the government expenditures in Medicare and Medicaid," Obama said.
Obama told Gibson that anybody who says they are concerned about the rising deficit or worried about tax increases in the future has to support this health care bill.
"Because if we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget," the president said.
---------
Yeah, Barack. That makes sense. The answer to government created problems is to give government more money and power.
NOT.
Sooner or later, the whole house of extraConstitutional expenditure cards is just going to burn, and the correct answer will be to let it.
Yeah, it will be ugly, and people and their fortunes will be harmed. The hot ashes are very likely to land on us. When it does, lay the consequences at the feet of FDR and his ideological descendants where it belongs.
No one, in 80 years, has ever offered a serious exit strategy from the ponzi plan, the only offerings ever placed on the table kicked it down the road to the next hapless batch of suckers, which at this time is us.
Mark,
Is this really the answer you want? Is more government control the answer that you think is best?
I am sorry to hear about your father. I have likewise lost many loved ones over the years (it's part of getting old I think) but stop and think about it for a minute. Would it have been any differant if the people who were denying the needed treatments prefaced it with "I am from the government, I'm here to help"? Don't kid yourself, it's the same damn thing.
Now ask yourself if you can trust any and every future administration to "do the right thing" with healthcare because once the government has control, every future president has control. Would you trust G W Bush with your healtcare, or Nixon, or Carter, or whoever is next?
Quite frankly, sooner or later Obama is going to have to stop just printing money like mad to pay for stuff and use real money. Then we will see how creative government can be at figuring out ways to save money and pay for stuff. How long will it take them to start saying that some treatments (like for kidney and liver failure) are too cost prohibitive for the few months of life that they grant and the quality of life too low to fund. Maybe our current administration wouldn't do that (but maybe it would). Can you be so sure that the next wouldn't... or the one after that? Governments tend to slide like that, and if people aren't paying close attention, it starts to become "normal".
s
"Would it have been any differant if the people who were denying the needed treatments prefaced it with "I am from the government, I'm here to help"?"
Nope. In fact, it would have been worse.
When it's private companies which are denying treatment improperly, you can sue or otherwise appeal to the government for the government to punish the offenders. Now what happens when (not if) the government does the same thing? Can you sue the government? Nope. Tough luck buddy. You're screwed. Period.
That's because one of the proper roles of government is to ensure parties honor their contracts. It is not to replace one of those parties.
Seen elsewhere, presented for your comparision, and not linked deliberately, so I can anonomize the subject:
He does not clarify, he does not reason. He just throws in a lots of super-heated emotive language and makes up cute new put downs...
And I thought this about his advocacy for the War in Iraq, too. After 9/11, we were all pretty emotional (myself included, of course), and we all wanted a bit of hot-blooded emotional venting, and ... was good for these purposes, and I think that's what attracted so many people to him.
Yes, he was arguing passionately for War in Iraq ... but everything about it was, in fact, passion. Everything was how horrible a tyrant Saddam was, and what a perfect and noble goal it was to free the Kurds and so on, and while that certainly is true, I just didn't get the hyperbolic language all this was expressed in ...
Without doubt, emotion plays into these decisions. And also without doubt, ... also mentioned the rational case for war -- Jeffrey Goldberg (IIRC) discussing Saddam's WMDs, etc.
But a lot of people did that. People came to ... not for that, but for the hyperventilating and the hysterics. Sometimes you want that sort of thing. Again, I admit, after 9/11, that's exactly what I wanted, because that's exactly what I felt. But at some point I just grew to despise ... because he seemed a one-trick pony whose claim to fame was that he could lose his shit at the drop of a hat.
...
Harlan Ellison observed that there was a great deal of childish naivete in much of early science fiction -- that super-optimistic view of the future, the bubble-cities, the end of war and racism, etc., was this childish wish-fulfillment fantasy of a utopian world.
Now that's the obvious point. But the non-obvious point he followed it up with was this: The dystopian fantasies that followed in the sixties and seventies were also just as childishly naive. Because, as he put it, a utopian is just someone who's a bit immature and naive about the limits of human goodness and the fundamental selfishness lurking around in all of us; a dystopian, on the other hand, is just that childish, immature, naive utopian who's become pissed off about the failure of society to live up to his utopian dreams, and so becomes this equally childish, immature, naive dystopian.
... He was specifically addressing bad sci-fi, bad utopias and bad dystopias, and explaining how the exact same immaturity of thought of lack of insight into the human character animated both, the same damn stupid lack of balance and eventempertedness drove the lunatic first to dreams of utopia and then to angry spit-anger-at-humanity dystopia.
That is the kind of guy ... is, right there. The War in Iraq would create a utopia of bubble-cities and perfectly democratic society; and then one day he wakes up, gets a cold splash of reality in his face, and now the War in Iraq (and increasingly -- the War in Afghanistan too) is the worstest war ever and not only ignoble and without worth but waged for no other purpose than to get George W. Bush votes and add a half-point to Halliburton's stock price.
Sarah: How would you discourage this in the most laissez-faire way?
I've got an answer for that.
"You hurt your knee while extreme mountain-biking? That's not covered by your current insurance. Sorry. Next time, consider the riskiness of your behavior beforehand."
I'm sure I'll be the only to say it but you have crossed the line with this one. And that makes me pretty fucking sad, dude.
Well, dude, I'd say you crossed a line on your Corporate Abuse post, and I wasn't the only one to say so. You've never posted even a modification of your stance after having your ass handed to you. Nor have you rebutted a SINGLE thing in this discussion, other than your insipid "oh no it won't" kind of statement.
So grow a pair dude and follow your OWN advice.
Hey Marxadelphia: Tell me; what exactly is my 'fair' share of everything you've worked for? And where and when can I pick it up?
More primary source material:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588842779569168.html
It's Tom Coburn, so the Minnesota Thimblewit will discount it, but Coburn is a practicing MD, and has read the bill.
Nice find, Ken.
I like the ending paragraphs:
"The bottom line is that under the Reid bill the majority of America's patients might be fine. But some will be like Sheila—patients whose lives hang in the balance and require the care of a doctor who understands the science and art of medicine, and can make decisions without government interference.
"The American people are opposing this bill in greater numbers every day because the facts of the bill—not any tactic—are cause for serious concern."
Ken:
Beat me to it.
What I like, and what Mark won't be able to reconcile reality with his worldview and the "questions he knew to ask [himself] to come to the "right conclusions":
Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.
Or the rather interesting point that Congress can't figure out:
What happens, for instance, when savvy consumers commanded to buy insurance realize the penalty is the de facto premium? It won't take long for younger, healthier Americans to realize it's cheaper to pay a $750 tax for coverage instead of, say, $5,000 in annual premiums when coverage can't be denied if you get sick.
This is what happens when you lack basic math skills. (Like when Mark can't figure out that 22 is more than 15? Same sort of planning that can't figure out that people will take the "cheap" way most every time.
juris:
Well, dude, I'd say you crossed a line on your Corporate Abuse post,
Oh, it's a line he laps and comes around and crosses again and again. It's more like the finish line on a racetrack.
So grow a pair dude and follow your OWN advice.
He's good at "dishing out" advice (or insults) that's demented, but he's unable to see how often it applies to him. It's pathological. Even when you explicitly describe it and point it out, he ignores it.
Thus his "have the sack" "nut up", "projection" comments. The only thing you can say, is he's consistent in a simpering hypocritical way.
The only thing you can say is he's consistent...
Well yes... but the same can be said of cholera.
"... but the same can be said of cholera."
And what is the end product of cholera? In layman's terms, it is terminal diarrhea.
So, let's try literary terms, shall we?
Cholera results in the spewing forth of copious amounts of muck, of stinking, raw biliousness that neither the victim nor the witness benefits from. The victim has no control over the process, not in timing, content, volume, or trajectory. No matter what aid the witness tries to render, the spewing goes on and on and on.
Yup, cholera is a good metaphor, except for three things: 1) those who try to help the victim of cholera usually have sympathy therefor; 2) said victim generally doesn't suffer it willingly or intentionally; and, 3) eventually, it ends.
Testing comment following
So did it work?
Not so far. OTOH, it might only do replies to mine.
But that was a reply.
*sigh*
I did mention, comments saved... Easy to parse and translate..
I tell you what, U-J, you figure out how to convert those saved comments into another commenting system that you like, and I'll consider dropping Echo. Right now, it works. It has some improvements over HaloScan, and some things I don't care for, but at the price, it really isn't that bad.
Right now the blog costs me about $20 a year - I pay for Echo and for an upgrade to Photobucket. Everything else is free. At that price I'm really not in a position to bitch.
"Right now, it works. "
For some small value of "works".
It's marginally usable. Italics aren't working. (that should be italics) Blockquote and HTML is dead. Preview's dead.
It's about the same value of "thinking" that Mark displays.
(And I was signed up for "email following".)
And I'll be happy to help you convert. Very. Happy.
Nope. Didn't italic. Didn't email.
No, sorry, when most of the "features" fail, that's not "working".
UJ, for what it's worth, I'm seeing italics where there oughten to be italics.
That's even worse, then..
If it's displaying differently in differnet browsers....
This is bold.
This is italics.
This is underlined.
This is bold and italics.
This is bold and underlined.
This is italics and underlined.
This is bold, italics, and underlined.
Works for me using FireFox 3.5.6 in XP.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>