The Press Throws Grapefruits In The Face Of Facts
While I watched Obama’s presser last night the repeated thought that came to mind was “that’s not true.” I was right.
In my mind the speech moved him from “spinner” to “liar.” Then again, he is a politician so in giving him the benefit of doubt upfront was a display of my foolishness.
I wonder what you want us to do. Health insurers refuse to cover old people because they tend to get sick. Government steps in and you get pissed? What’s your proposal?
Sweeney Toddbama says old people should go die, sick babies babies too.
My “proposal” is to get the president to start telling the truth so we can have an honest debate.
Lame sidestep of the question.
Lame avoidance of my point.
There are only two choice when you cut through the BS. You will either:
A: Take responsibility for own self
B: Demand/expect government seize money from others to pay my medical bills
I’ll take A and act as follows:
- ask God why me
- get right with God
- understand that I am responsible for my own life and bills
- sell all possessions to pay for medical care
- hold a fund raiser
If I recovery – I’ll thank God and get back to work putting my life together
If not – I’ll thank God for my life and his blessings, face reality, make plans and
cherish those that matter until my last breath.
What would you do?
Four Reactions to Charitable Requests, Plus One More to Charitable Demands.
H/T: SK
“What’s your proposal?”
How about fix Medicare first, and if the govt does a good job with that we’ll consider the rest.
LT:
Not trust you to tell me how to get healthcare, for starters.
Dave, I’ve read this 3 times now, linked from various websites, and I’m not seeing a whole lot of lies here. I’m seeing opinion (What the cops did to Gates was pretty stupid in my opinion as well.) I’m seeing spin. (The CBO, being non-partisan as was pointed out, still has no more authority than those in the WH budget office. The authors just blithely claim they do. Shouldn’t the same standard of “in dispute” hold here, as the authors claim it does regarding the Gates statement? Apparently not to those looking to find ‘lies’.)
Now, what is clear is when ‘journalists’, and I use the term very loosely, turn a snippet into a point completely out of context. When Obama talked of not blaming Republicans for health care reform he meant it. He hasn’t. The quoted so-called lie was about Washington’s obsession with politics. Read and see what you think:
That’s an opinion about the nature of Washington politics, and it’s effect on people. That opinion is shared almost universally at this website and many of the better liberal establishments as well. Kindly show me, Dave, exactly how opinion has a truth value that can be debunked.
It would be easy to say that the ‘journalists’ who penned this article did their jobs poorly. But in fact, they did it quite well. They fed the red meat to those such as yourself with a desperate need to believe that Obama is lying to you. Not what I’d call journalism, but certainly, as this very posts shows, quite effective at propaganda.
And, just because fun is where you find it:
Wall Street responds harshly to Obama lies!
There seems to be one critical fact left out in the entire health care debate.
Any government involvment, let alone expanded involvement is antithetical to liberty.
Those who want the govt to resolve their personal insurance problems are doing nothing more than using the power of government to take money from one group of people and use it to provide subsidized health insurance to another group.
I you are so unhappy with the system and you think your a majority why don’t you simply start your own not for profit inusrance company that does all the things you want it to do. Enrollement and funding would be voluntary, and since there is so many of you it shouldn’t be any problem. Perhahps, set up a Trust Fund with all of you listed as beneficiaries and of course trustees.
Start paying cash for medical services on a large scale and watch the costs drop.
Didn’t we establish the other day that one’s rights stop when they impose upon another’s. So by what right do you take from me to pay for your health care?
I do have to give Mr. Obama credit where due. Two years ago when the campaigning started there were supposedly 15 million without health care (meaning insurance of course). By the time the election rolled around and soon thereafter the number 50 million was being thrown around. Now it is back to 45 million. The President has somehow managed to increase coverage of 5 million people without any changes to the existing system. He should be congratulated.
But now he should be scolded for this “This is about the woman in Colorado who paid $700 a month to her insurance company only to find out that they wouldn’t pay a dime for her cancer treatment — who had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life.”
Kind of like sticking is two cents into the police situation, what we get here is political claptrap being used to justify the use of force to take other peoples money. No real facts as to what the policy said, what was covered and not covered, or anything else. Just enough information to make us believe the insurance company “screwed” this poor lady.
I suppose the rationalization of this will fall along the lines of “it’s not fair to expect people to have to read all that garbage in their policies”.
One point on the issue of profit, well maybe two points. Did anyone consider the number of independent insurance agents who sell insurance in this disscussion? Or is the income of a couple thousand Montanas OK to sacrifice for your own medical coverage? Point two, profits are nothing more than the excess between cost of production and revenue for providing the widget.
Reduce the cost of health care below a level of true net value and you will absolutely create a shortage of health care. You can’t fight the laws of the universe for very long without paying a dear price. Mr. Budge, perhaps it is time you provided a general economics lesson once again as a reminder to all who thing that somehow Govt tweeking or reforming this mess is going to solve any real problems.
Economics and profit are measures of efficiency and allocation of resources. If you want to use your profits from one segment of your income to subsidize others that is fine by me. Just don’t be asking me to do the same. That is my choice.
Well it would be if I lived in a Free country where Liberty meant anything anymore.
In order to Live Free you must Be Free.
JAC
Wulfgar, I already know you want to use OPM to pay for your health care. What’s next… Haircuts?
You know nothing, LT. I already pay for my health insurance, thank you. But keep trying. I’m certain at least one of your ridiculous Ad Hominems will hit home someday.
“You know nothing”
Please don’t lump me in with you.
All I can tell you Dave is that politicians lie and you sound surprisingly idealistic. Butmy God – do you ever watch Fox news? Have you seen some of the ads they are running to kill health care reform? And you pick out this one lie?
I am wondering where Mark’s usual rant about insurance companies being “for profit” is the source of all evil in the world. But isn’t Blue Cross a non-profit? Maybe profit isn’t the root problem after all.
But we sure do get sloppy with terms. Obama calls for Health care, when he means health insurance. In reforming health insurance, what if he destroys the level of health care that the majority of Americans rely on?
We will all be equal under the plan because it will all suck.
Government-subsidized health insurance is just welfare for middle-class underachievers, Obama’s core constituency.
Gregg- step out of the room. … Thank you.
Jerry Chung (Max Bucks) – you’re an idiot!
Gregg, you can come back in now.
Steve – it’s like pissing in the wind. I’ve been very specific about why the private for-profit health insurance model does not work (except in the workplace where employees are pre-cherry-picked), and all you can do is hyperbolize. It’s pointless.
Pointless. Right wingers … worse than Democrats.
Are you saying that Blue Cross is the model that you want to emulate?
Mark . . . hours of entertainment but of no intelligence value.
Mark T,
Please explain to the 85% of the population who have insurance coverage how they will benefit from Obama’s plan. I sincerely would like to understand your side of the issue. What I hear in the trenches from nearly all patients who currently have medical coverage is that they do not want to lose what they have in terms of coverage, access, and quality. Please give me five ‘take home points’ for me to explain to my patients who have Medicare, for example, how they will be better off under the Obama plan. This should be an easy task if this is such a great idea.
Hawkeye:
Hm, I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to argue any point against your claims. Let’s assume what you’re implying is correct. 85% of Americans will see no benefit to this plan (this isn’t what I believe, but I’m running with it because I feel like it).
Sometimes, doing nothing can be harmful. The current population of the United States as of me writing this is 306,989,256. Based on your 85% figure, that means that 46,048,388 of those people are without health care. Read that number again. More than 46 million people. Not all of that number will require health care. I won’t argue that they will, but some of them will. Your position advocates leaving those people in a situation where they will not receive health care, even when they need it. Unfortunately, I’d wager a vast majority of the number that does need medical care won’t meet a doctor as magnanimous as yourself, and there will be permanent consequences for them because of that fact. It sickens me that an individual such as yourself advocates a system that seems designed to protect the rich, and line the pockets of the few, at the monetary expense of many, and the cost of all things to some. While I understand that you, personally, are not harming these people with your own hands, you are harming them by advocating a system that condones inattention. Primum Non Nocere.
Mihalis:
“46,048,388 of those people are without health care”.
Therein lies the false argument in this whole discussion. If the numbers are correct then they do not have “insurance”.
Everyone gets “Medical Care”.
Your “Health Care” is largely a reflection of your life style. Constant visits to the Doctor are not required to maintain good health. That is why the young (at least the smart ones) don’t buy regular Health Insurance.
Every time we repeat the phrase “Health Care” we are repeating the propoganda developed by the Politicals.
“While I understand that you, personally, are not harming these people with your own hands, you are harming them by advocating a system that condones inattention. ” There is no logical way anyone can be accused of “harming” someone by advocating a system that provides freedom for everyone.
This is a rationalization of the concept that one person is justified in committing violence on another to gain what they want (cheap insurance or medical care). It is based on the assumption that “a system” should be providing anything, of course “a system” really means government.
And please explain how using the force of government to take from me to give to someone else “provides freedom for everyone”?
If we really want to resolve these problems we need to search for a new paradigm and not keep trying to tweak the one we already have.
Hope your day is going well. Looks like thunderstorms across the Big Sky today. Keep those backup files clicking today.
JAC
Steve – the Blue Cross is not “Non-Profit”. Blue Cross is “Not for Profit”. That’s an important distinction. Blue Cross is as much about preserving its bottom line, about avoiding sick people, taking care of its executives and perks as any private insurance company. Their overhead, due mostly to the need to cherry pick, is around 15%,and the burdens they impose on doctors and hospitals no different than any other company. Because they control most of the market, they behave as a monopoly. They are just another insurance company.
Hawkeye: First, don’t lump me with Obama and the Democrats. That’s not useful. There’s very little difference between our good cop/bad cop parties, and Obama is as much vulnerable to the power of the insurance lobby as anyone. Baucus is a tool of insurance. So you ask me what is good about what they are doing?
Not much. They are under pressure to provide us with a strong public option, they are meeting behind closed doors to figure out ways to diddle us about that, to give us something that is looks like a public option, but is not. They have also delayed passing a bill. They did this so they can flood the airwaves with advertising propaganda, and change public opinion. They are very good at this, and will probably succeed. The American people, lacking quality formal education, are easily diddled and not very sophisticated in the face of advertising persuasion. Advertising is sophisticated psychological manipulation. If you don’t want it to work on you,you must avoid it entirely.
A strong public option would allow us to opt out of private insurance if we so desired. It would not mandate that we opt out. It would only allow us that freedom to choose. The insurance companies want us as a captive market. They don’t like competition. Who does?
I’ll give you five good things by listing five bad things that insurance companies do that we need to outlaw:
1. Cherry picking. Private insurers try to avoid people who might actually get sick, denying them care. Government programs do not do this.
2. Rescission: Private companies, when someone gets seriously ill, look for ways to legally avoid paying the bills. Government programs don’t do this.
3. Overhead: Private insurance companies, because they have to pay people to cherry pick, because they are burdened with overpaid executives and their many perks, because they must generate a return for investors, cost a lot of money and create many costs for doctors and hospitals. They cause us to spend 30% of our health care dollars on non-health-related costs. Government insurance administrative costs typically run about 3%, and in Canada about a third of what we spend here, or 10%.
4. Universal care: Private insurance is a wedge between people and health care, where insurance companies ration care to those who have coverage, limit it to those who are under-insured, and deny it to everyone else. Government care simply takes care of everyone. While many say the problem of government care is rationing, the bulk of rationing that goes on right now is done by insurance companies, and passes without notice.
5. Bribery of public officials: Because insurance companies are exempt from antitrust laws, they are allowed to accumulate huge amounts of money and market share. They use this money to lavish their executives in perks, like private jets and gold-leafed china, and also to pay lobbyists to influence public officials. They are professionals, and do not simply “lobby”, but rather apply pressure at the most likely points where that pressure will affect office holders, such as running negative ads, financing opponents, and most likely assembling negative information on their behavior and background for the sake of blackmail. Though we live in a far-from-perfect world, government-run programs are more sensitive to public need, and less to corporate greed. Sorry for the cheesy rhyme.
The 85% factor: Polls, which I have not verified, apparently show that 85% of us are covered and satisfied with that coverage. Polls also show that people want single payer. It’s a seeming contradiction.
A few points worth mentioning:
1) Five million people have lost their coverage in the recession, and I presume are no longer “satisfied” with that coverage. They have no other option except “COBRA”, which is wildly expensive. Since these people are unemployed, they will not likely be taking advantage of that wonderful benefit. They are now uninsured, with no public option.
2) At any given time, very few of us are sick. For those who get sick, they are often disillusioned about the value of their insurance coverage. 60% of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical costs of insured people – those who thought they had enough coverage, but did not. Prior to getting sick, they were probably satisfied with their coverage.
3). Health insurance companies try to avoid sick people, which means that as we get older, we are less likely to be covered. Companies dump older workers, who are more expensive to insure, and these older workers find that insurers won’t cover them when they leave the workplace. So while it is true that younger and middle-aged people often have adequate coverage, these same people haven’t gotten seriously ill, and are also not aware that insurance actuaries are busy behind the scenes working on ways to avoid them when they get older and become vulnerable.
Many people must sense this basic insecurity, which might explain why 82% of us want either fundamental change, or complete overhaul of our system.
Our system is corrupt, and badly in need of repair. Because insurance companies have so much political power, it will not be fixed. I find in my travels that most of you who defend our current system simply do not understand it.
Costa Rica is looking very good.
5.
[...] occurred to me as I was trying to answer some very legitimate questions over at Electric City Weblog. I have mentioned before that one of the reasons private insurance seems to work in the workplace [...]
Just A Citizen:
I’m afraid that it’s a fallacy that everyone gets “Medical Care”. The Emergency Room can’t always handle your medical needs, and more often than not, no insurance means no care.
I’d disagree strongly with this one. I won’t argue with the fact that consistent doctor visits are not required to maintain good health, for most people. There are people who do require constant visits to the doctor to even stay alive.
Hm, personally I just think of it as a generalized term. I don’t think it’s a way for “the man” to keep us down.
You’re fooling yourself if you think that this current system is good, let alone “provides freedom for everyone”.
It seems to me the exact opposite. The current system, and your support of it, is just a rationalization of the concept that one person is justified in committing violence (or failing to stop another from committing violence) on another just to gain what they want (to accumulate more wealth). It’s flat out saying that you don’t care what happens to another person, as long as you get to keep yours.
I don’t think it does. I also don’t think it’s any worse at providing “freedom for everyone” than the existing system. I’d argue it’s better.
I think that’s the goal of this new system that you’re all complaining about.
So far so good. Looking forward to the weekend. It gets me one day closer to next weekend. Next weekend starts my two weeks of time off. I hope yours is going well too.
Mihalis:
You are going to have a hard time finding where I defend or otherwise support the existing medical, insurance policies and programs in this country.
They are a product of government control and management. Everyone complains about what we have, produced by govt protection and mandates, then want to expand the govt’s protection and mandates.
What was that definition of insanity?
“The current system, and your support of it, is just a rationalization of the concept that one person is justified in committing violence (or failing to stop another from committing violence) on another just to gain what they want (to accumulate more wealth). ”
You can not commit violence on another by leaving them alone. It seems you are trying to redefine force/violence to include all actions or not actions by anyone, everywhere, and anytime.
I gain nothing by not committing violence against you. You are trying to argue that retaining what is mine has the same moral standing taking from another. That seems to create a moral dilemna in which no one can win, unless they let the govt take everything so we can avoid being immoral.
“It’s flat out saying that you don’t care what happens to another person, as long as you get to keep yours.”
Please don’t confuse my defense of liberty with lack or presence of compassion. They are separate entities. By lumping them you are telling me that I must committ violence (theft) against one in order to be considered compasionate towards another.
It is not govt’s role to impose its view of compassion on anyone.
Remember that when you give govt the power to take what you want from me, you have given me the right to use govt to take what I want from you. Then it becomes a constant battle to see who gets to be in control.
“I don’t think it does. I also don’t think it’s any worse at providing “freedom for everyone” than the existing system. I’d argue it’s better.”
Seems you have contradicted yourself. So which is it? Govt’s use of force does or does not provide “freedom for everyone”. How can the govt system be better than the govt system?
The goal of the new system is to eliminate freedom and expand the power and control of the federal govt. Its supposed goals of improving the health care system are a farce. It can not improve “the system”. It can only improve small targeted segments at the expense of degrading the other components.
By the way, why are we talking about a Federal solution to a problem that is primarily State controlled? I haven’t quite figured that one out yet. Any ideas on that?
Hate to add to your anxiousness but by next weekend I will be one week into my vacation with family. Running crazy today to get ready but tomorrow we are headed to the high line.
Just A Citizen:
On the contrary, I’d argue the failing of the existing system is private, for profit insurance companies. When the goal is to take in more than you put out, there’s always motivation to deny coverage and withhold payments. Until that’s resolved, insurance will always be a scam.
Insanity.
“The current system, and your support of it, is just a rationalization of the concept that one person is justified in committing violence (or failing to stop another from committing violence) on another just to gain what they want (to accumulate more wealth). ”
Really? Ask one of the lawyers around here what it means if you know a crime is going to be committed, but don’t notify the police. It’s the same thing. Especially a violent crime.
You are trying to argue that watching someone starve to death while enjoying your banquet isn’t immoral.
I don’t consider it a “defense of liberty”.
I suppose it’s not the goverment’s role to impose it’s view of justice on anyone either?
If I didn’t know you were such a good natured person, I’d consider that a threat. You’re acting like this is something new. Like you don’t already pay taxes to the government. There’s no new authority here.
No, I didn’t contradict myself. I don’t look at health care as providing “freedom” for anybody. Not the new system. Not the old system. Both systems the majority pays for the minority. The difference is, in the new system, the majority doesn’t pay for someone’s yacht, while the minority dies on the floor of the emergency room.
I disagree with that in every way I can think of right now, but I don’t think that arguing with you about it is going to amount to anything.
I’d wager it’s to balance out care in all states, across the country. You won’t end up with people from Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, etc, flying to California for health care. Care would be universal country wide.
I’m jealous. I used to live up on the high line. Booming metropolis of Joplin, MT.
…. “Please give me five ‘take home points’ for me to explain to my patients who have Medicare, for example, how they will be better off under the Obama plan.”
I do appreciate the effort and did try to learn from Mark T and Mihalis posts. Taking the liberty to summarize… I should tell my patients who have health insurance that they will be better off with Universal coverage because they will gain the moral authority as deemed by the Left in this debate. I don’t think this will fly. Can you just admit that cost, access, and quality of care for those who have insurance now (85%) will be worse under the universal plan?
I believe we have a moral obligation not to bankrupt the country and that trumps your moral obligation for universal health care. There will be far more poor people with terrible health if Obama creates a financial catastrophe. You do not take into account that the loss of access for the patients who currently have coverage will adversely affect their own health. With your self appointed moral authority on health care, how can you deny extending it to third world countries? Why not universal food care and universal shelter care?
Hawkeye -, you have studiously avoided addressing the points raised.
I’m through with you.
Hawkeye:
I’ve seen nothing to indicate that this is the case, so I really don’t see any reason to admit that it is.
Hm, I did a search through the archives of this site, searching for the terms Hawkeye (meaning you), Bush (as in President), and spend (as in spend). Not surprisingly, there were no hits. It appears your “belief” is fairly new.
There wasn’t far more poor people with terrible health when Bush created a financial catastrophe. Or maybe there was? Maybe you can provide some kind of number to back up your claims? Something other than, “Trust me, I’m a doctor”.
I’ve seen nothing to indicate that patients who are currently covered would lose coverage. I’d reissue my challenge. Can you provide some kind of proof other than “Trust me, I’m a doctor?”
I actually think that providing health care to third world countries is not a bad idea. In fact, it’s a significantly better idea than blowing them up for no good reason. Can you imagine if we’d have not gone to war in Iraq, and instead spent all that money on health care, not only for the American people, but for people around the world? How many people could we feed? Care for? Provide shelter for? The numbers are unbelievable. Funny, you think spending money to help people is a bad idea, but spending money to kill people isn’t. Want to know how many hits I got on “hawkeye” “iraq” “spend”?
How will cost, access, and quality of health care improve for patients who already have health insurance? My point is that you assume a moral authority that you don’t really have and it is not a convincing argument for 85% of the population. If you are proposing a change, the responsibility is on your end to WIN this point. Back to the original request.. Please give me five take home points to explain to the majority of my patients why they are better off with the Obama plan. Why change anything if you can’t explain to the common man/woman why their lives will be improved. If we can agree that your answer is that the primary reason is a some moral imperative as defined by the Left, then we should debate that.
“Ask one of the lawyers around here what it means if you know a crime is going to be committed, but don’t notify the police. It’s the same thing. Especially a violent crime.”
I’m not an expert in criminal law, but I am not sure anyone has a legal duty to call the police if they belive a crime is going to be committed. Then again, I didn’t call the police when I thought a crime would be committed when Bush was the president, so I guess I lack any credibility on the issue.
Hawkeye:
You know, there is a third choice between “improve” and “get worse”.
Really? Did you ask 85% of the population? Do you have a study of someone that did? Where is this study that 85% of the population doesn’t want this? I think you’re making an assumption you can’t back up.
Back to my original answer. I’m not going to do that. I have no obligation to you or to the “majority of your patients”. The fact that you’re even asking for those “take home points” says to me that you’re missing the point. On second thought, I tell you what. I’ll do my best to answer that request if you answer this one first: Please give me fifteen take home points to explain to anybody I care to explain it to why it’s good to eat food. I know I don’t need to tell you each take home point can only be used once.
Gregg Smith:
Really now? So, if I knew through some means or another, that some Beatles fan out there had read that you thought that the Rolling Stones were the greatest entertainers of all time, and they were so enraged that they meant to do you personal harm, I have no obligation to warn you or the police?
Funny.
The Left proposes a major change in how health care is delivered and you as a supporter can’t come up with five reasons why those who currently have health insurance will be better off. Are you serious? Maybe the answer is that they WON’T be better off and you know that. Actually you did come up with one reason… they may be able to feel more righteous as you believe they will have the moral authority. Not very convincing so far. Don’t worry, Obama has not made his point on this issue very well either. Just hysterics over the number of uninsured, not rationale thought on what the change will mean to the majority who currently have health insurance.
Hawkeye:
I’d be less concerned with that than a Doctor that can’t come up with any good reasons to eat food. I’ve given you the conditions of my answer. Come on! This should be easy for someone as educated and well respected as yourself.
You’ve stated that before, but when I asked you to prove it, you failed. Several times. Maybe the answer is they will, and you know that.
“I’d be less concerned with that than a Doctor that can’t come up with any good reasons to eat food.”
Very persuasive, nothing like going full on tard to prove how smart you are. It’s hard to watch.
wolfpack:
Then you should be pushing Hawkeye to answer the stupidly easy question. You know, something like “Just answer the stupidly easy question so he’ll have to answer yours!”.
Mihalis,
Do you believe that the 85% of those who currently have health insurance will have better access, higher quality, and lower cost under a Universal health care plan?
I don’t think this is a stupidly easy question. I ask it because I think the answer is ‘no’. I think the Left needs to be able to sell their point a little better if you expect these 85% to follow.
Maybe I am not reading between the lines enough. Are you equating health care with food. Do you believe that everyone deserves ‘universal food’ just by their very existence. Are food, health care, shelter, universal ‘rights’? Next will be cell phones, satellite radio, patios, and flat screens TV’s. It is easy to be generous with someone else’s money.
Some reasons to eat food (because Mihalis does not know): growth, energy, nourishment, taste, digestion, enjoyment, and to get Mihalis to answer the above question.
“You know, there is a third choice between ‘improve’ and ‘get worse’” Yeah, it’s called “stay the same.” All of this is so that “cost, access and quality of health care” can “stay the same?” That doesn’t make much sense, does it?
“Really now? So, if I knew through some means or another, that some Beatles fan out there had read that you thought that the Rolling Stones were the greatest entertainers of all time, and they were so enraged that they meant to do you personal harm, I have no obligation to warn you or the police?” I’m pretty sure that’s true. If I am not in cahoots with the bad guys, I don’t think I have a legal duty to call the police. If there is a criminal law expert, maybe he or she can help us out.
As far as the reasons to eat food, Mihalis, come on. You’re better than that. This is a discussion, not a child’s game. It certainly appears to me that Hawkeye is raising a legitimate point. Why is Obama’s plan better than the status quo? Of course you don’t have to answer the question, you’re under no compulsion to do anything. But don’t be silly. If we are discussing a political issue, and you advocate a position, how do you argue that it is illegitimate to ask you why you are advocating it?
“The fact that you’re even asking for those “take home points” says to me that you’re missing the point.” What is the point, then? I am operating under what I thought was a reasonable assumption: Obama’s plan is intended to improve health care in the USA. Hawkeye asked you for five quick points how it will do that. You said he’s missing the point? That implies the point of his plan is something other than improving health care in the USA.
Maybe the point is to create a huge new government bureaucracy which, regardless of its effect on patient care, takes the control and money away from evil corporations and George W. Bush?
Hawkeye:
Hawkeye, when I made the “stupidly easy question” comment, I was referring to my own, for which wolfpack accused me of going “full on tard”.
Think? As a medical professional, you shouldn’t be relying on some random (and anonymous for that matter) guy on the Internet to answer those type of questions for you. You should know significantly more than five take home points are going to tell you.
No, I’m not.
I actually do. Are you, a medical professional, saying that some people just deserve to starve? Maybe you’re claiming that it’s fine that some people live on the streets, and die of easily treatable ailments? Seems an odd position for someone in the health care industry to take.
There’s a huge difference between things that are required to live, and luxury items.
Pardon me if I consider someone else’s life more valuable than your flat screen.
Hm, it’s been a while since I’ve taken a math class, but last I checked, 6 is not equal to 15. I believe my exact words were “Please give me fifteen take home points to explain to anybody I care to explain it to why it’s good to eat food.” If a medical professional can’t come up with fifteen reasons to eat food, it must be a bad idea.
Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York State, has an interesting opinion essay, GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors, in Thursday’s The Wall Street Journal.
Gregg Smith:
It makes a lot of sense to the tens of millions of people who’s lives will be better for it.
That surprises me. I was reading through “Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases” earlier (just some light reading), and they define an accessory before the fact as “one who stands by, aids, abets, or assists, or who, not being present, has advised and encouraged the perpetration of the crime”. Now, we’ve established that I’m not a lawyer, and this is a very old book, with an even older definition, so maybe I’m reading this wrong. What it seems to be saying (to me at least), is that if an individual knows a crime is going to be committed, and that individual stands by and does nothing, they’re considered an accessory before the fact. I’m assuming that, depending on the crime, that could be very, very bad for that person. Perhaps you, being a lawyer, can look at that and tell me what it really means if it doesn’t mean what I think it does.
It’s not a discussion. It’s Hawkeye making a claim and expecting me (or Mark) to do all the legwork to prove that he’s wrong. A discussion has two sides, and Hawkeye has yet to contribute in a meaningful way. I have two points behind my request. I’ll get to them when I get to them.
Even if 85% of people don’t see a change, 15% of people do. Those people receive health care when they didn’t have it before, and that, to me, is better.
Good question. Perhaps you could ask Hawkeye. I asked him to defend his position several times, and he has yet to do so. As I stated before, until he’s willing to contribute, this is not a discussion, political or otherwise. Just for the record, contributing is not the same thing as making a statement and demanding that others disprove it.
Mihalis, you seem like a good guy, and I appreciate your input.
You might want to check your halo, though. There are other lenses to view this from other than anyone who has a differing viewpoint is greedy (“Pardon me if I consider someone else’s life more valuable than your flat screen.”) or craven and immoral (“deserve to starve”…”fine that some people live on the streets”). You’re really overplaying the whole moral authority position. In short, you’re far from perfect, and Obama’s plan is not perfect. Don’t argue as though you are, or it is. Sometimes, good intentions aren’t enough. You’re hacking on a guy who gives away more care than you could pay for.
You see, there are a lot of people who are going to be affected by Obama care. Not all of those effects will be good; some would argue there will be more bad than good. There is a non-zero possibility that the health care reform will leave more people worse off than better off. No one knows how it will end up.
It’s nice to discuss these things, but (and I try not to swear), get off your f’ing high horse. You have done nothing on this blog but post comments; that does not earn you the right to imply some of the things you are implying about people.
P.S., I don’t even know what book you were looking at. Not all “law books” are created equal.
Try this: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/2/45-2-302.htm
Gregg Smith:
I somehow doubt that.
The question was asked by Hawkeye, “Do you believe that everyone deserves ‘universal food’ just by their very existence. Are food, health care, shelter, universal ‘rights’?” This implies to me that Hawkeye thinks that not everybody deserves food. Not everybody deserves shelter. People without food die of starvation. People without shelter live out of doors. He’s welcome to correct me at any time.
Gregg Smith:
The book is called “Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases”.
Gregg Smith:
Reading from your link, a person is not so accountable if (iii) he/she otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense. Again, we know I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if a person is not accountable if they make a proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense, they are accountable if they do not. If I’m wrong, please tell me.
This has been a discussion and we both have contributed. I am not advocating change, you are. The responsibility lies with the Left to explain the change. I have read all your posts again and I just see evasion on your part, not legwork. I don’t expect that either one of us can actually prove our opinion without a shadow of a doubt one way or the other. What I would like you to do is to explain to your mother or grandmother how she will be better off with a Universal health care plan. You did allege a higher moral authority as one benefit. What are others? Will mom get easier access to better doctors at lower cost? How is her access now? Does she complain of problems with cost? Will Universal care lower her cost? How? Does she like her doctors now or not? Will innovations in medicine improve or get worse? Will Universal health care decrease the shortage of physicians or make it worse?
Just give us some idea of what you think will occur for this large segment of the population. Linking a post from another Left wing blog that reinforces your opinion is not particularly authoritative. I am far more interested in your personal opinion and even anecdotes. You mock my experience with comments such as “Trust me I am a doctor”. Would you do the same if I was a teacher and we were discussing education? Would it be more influential if I said..? “Trust me I am from the government and here to help you with this health care problem.”
Hawkeye:
I’ll wait to get to those questions until I have Gregg’s approval to continue.
I’ll answer these now.
Yes. I don’t like when a person uses what their profession as proof instead of actually providing facts. It wouldn’t matter if you were a Doctor, a Teacher, a Lawyer, an Economist, or an ISV. I’ll challenge you on anything if I don’t think the facts to back you up. If you doubt that, ask Gregg.
No. The government shouldn’t help with a health care problem. They should help with paying for a doctor to help with a health care problem.
Do you believe that the 85% of those who currently have health insurance will have better access, higher quality, and lower cost under a Universal health care plan?
Mihalis,
Your inability or refusal to answer the question was illuminating. You don’t need to bother with the other questions. I need to move on. Your response so far indicates that it is the responsibility of those with insurance to somehow prove how they will fare in terms of access, quality, and cost with a Universal plan.
The Left will continue to flail on this issue if they can’t easily answer this question. I will let my patients know that the Left expects them to answer this on their own or they think it should be obvious. Thanks.
Hawkeye, the Left’s “flailing” is revealed in the current Rasmussen poll. See: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. That’s the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory (see trends).
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mihalis, before (iii) even applies, you need to start with (3). First, to even begin to be accountable, the individual must ’solicit, aid, abet, agree, or attempts to aid…in the planning or commission of the offense.’
In other words, you must be a participant. The statute says nothing about mere knowledge of the likely occurence of a crime.
Then, if you are a participant, you can avoid liability if, “before the commission of the offense, [you] terminate [your] effort to promote or facilitate such commission and” give timely warning or otherwise make effort to prevent the commission of the offense.
Mihalis, you are welcome here and you would be surprised, I think, at how much I appreciate your participation.
I just got a little testy last night when you implied that Hawkeye is a greedy, selfish bastard because he does not agree with your as yet undisclosed universal health plan.
There are lots of reasons to oppose Obama’s health care plan that have nothing to do with my wanting another flat screen.
So what if I do, though? I earn income from legal endeavors. Do you really think you have the moral high ground to suggest that I’m a bastard because I want to keep what I have earned and give it to my kids instead of someone else’s? Do you really think you have the moral standing to tell me or anyone else that we have “enough,” regardless of how hard we are willing to work to get more?
Reading what some of you guys write, it seems to me sometimes that the only way to be worthy of esteem on the left is to be poor, and making a good living is the only sure path to derision.
Hawkeye:
Yes I do.
That would be a refusal, and I seriously doubt that it was “illuminating”. Your refusal to answer any questions, even the most basic, tells me that your opinion was already formed. It wouldn’t have mattered what I said.
Ahh, but you haven’t answered my questions yet. Let’s just say that I’m not surprised.
Keep in touch. I’ll be very interested to hear what your patients think when you tell them that you think Obama’s health care plan is bad because some anonymous liberal on a website wouldn’t answer your questions. Should be pretty funny.
Gregg Smith:
As a layman, I’d say that not telling the police that a crime is going to be committed could count as “aiding” in it’s commission. I suppose that doesn’t count though. Did you have a chance to look at the book I mentioned?
Gregg Smith:
I’d be very surprised if you appreciate it at all. I’m starting to think you’ve probably got a list of reasons to hate my guts.
I apologize, because I got a little testy when Hawkeye implied that not everybody has a right to eat. Or maybe I misunderstood. I gave him plenty of chances to revise his statement. Maybe you’d like to do it for him? Here’s what he said:
I don’t know how else to read that. Maybe you can provide me with an interpretation of that that doesn’t mean that he thinks that some people don’t have the right to food. He didn’t.
I go reading through the comments here, I don’t see a single fact for a single one of them. Maybe you’d like to pick up where Hawkeye left off?
Then go buy one. I don’t care.
I don’t think you’re a bastard. I think you might be a bit shortsighted, but not a bastard. I know, we can smell our own. I want to make sure that I, for my kids and for yours, always have their necessities covered. If they’re in a position to buy ten new flat screens, that’s great. If they’re not, I still want them to be able to eat, and be sheltered, and receive medical care if they need it. I don’t want to leave anybody’s child out in the cold.
I’m sorry you think that.