Did someone propose single payer health care, Gregg? Cause I’d be damned if I’d heard anything about it. I’m sure it’s buried somewhere in that health care bill that you’ve studied so thoroughly…
Yes, Steve, there is a bi-annual proposal every term by some Democrats and Barney Frank has said a government run option was the first step to getting there. Maybe you should listen a bit more closely. The road to perdition is paved by legislative deal creep.
You’re right, Dave – I had this crazy idea that this kind of stuff was a way of shifting the debate in order to get people the content of a bill that doesn’t exist. Silly me.
And anyways, every other country that has gone to a system that includes both government-run and private insurance companies have gone straight to that “perdition” you talk about where the government controls everything. Right?
Utter, utter propaganda, not even subtle, and for this site, it does not even have to be sophisticated. If the people who frequent this website don’t get out more, it’s all they’ll ever see. Gregg – this is disgraceful, and you ought to be ashamed. I’ll give you a way to balance it out: Take the same ominous music behind these people talking, and go find an American that went bankrupt because of the private for-profit insurance system in this country, and YouTube it. Find Americans who can’t get care, who have to wait, who are hounded by bill collectors.
When polled recently, Canadians were asked which they preferred: Their own system, or an American-style health care insurance system. 86% said they wanted their own system, and not ours. 7 or 8% said they wanted our system. These would likely be the wealthier ones who don’t like trucking with common folk.
I have occasionally thought well of you, Gregg, but have never thought less of you than I do right now. Find yourself a backbone, go find American horror stories, get both sides, find Canadians who like their system,put it all up here.
There you go again, Mark, sighting public opinion of humans that you so often have concluded are so easily led around by the nose. I thought you might suggest that the Canadian government is really good at health care propaganda.
I read the Missoulian piece and regarded it too as nonsense. Go to Missoulapolis and read my comments – you’ll find that Carol and I agreed that it was crappy journalism
Craig – read the exchange on Lancet in the post below, which has since left the page. It’s a little more complex than you realize.
Dave – you and I both know that this story has the tenor of an emotional hit piece and is anecdotal. It is propagandistic in that it is psychological manipulation used for political ends.
And Dave, you and I both know that the individuals in the videos are sincere. Since we both know the meaning of “anecdotal”, we know that doesn’t matter.
Gregg- glad to know it was the perfesser behind this and not you. You should have stated so at the beginning. My opinion of him cannot go much lower.
86% is significant, and has remained stable over the years. Tommy Douglas is regarded as the most important Canadian in history.
If the popularity of the system was at 51%, or if it could be altered by a massive propaganda campaign, then it might not be significant.
While many polls distort and manipulate, the enduring popularity of the Canadian health system in Canada is an obstacle for those of you who say they hate it.
Now you abandoned the discussion when I pointed out how Burnham has been throughly and professionally discredited and rebuked by John Hopkins. Complexity and nuance doesn’t overcome your reliance on non-scientific propaganda as the basis for your claims. Unless you are able to apologize for your error or rehabilitate your reliance on such nonsense, how is it anyone can take you seriously here for your next round of “Lancet” type argument?
And 70% of Americans are satisfied with their health care, too – and has been remarkable consistent for years. So does or does not public opinion reflect good policy?
Craig – we covered it all. Not going there again. Dave presented your case with skill, and caused me to moderate my views regarding Lancet. But there’s much more to it, and I just don’t want to go there. Some other time.
Dave – there are confusing numbers out there regarding American public opinion – the one you cite I think regards satisfaction with health insurance policies. But there is also significant support for a “public option” and, prior to the debate (and propaganda campaigns), “single payer”. Single payer still enjoys significant support. The “public option”is now so muddled that opinion polls are meaningless.
Regardless, if you could cite polls saying that 86% of our people were satisfied with our system, and that these numbers had not changed significantly over time, then you’d have something.
What do you propose to do about them stupid Canadians?
Mark, I don’t care about the Canadians. They can take care of themselves. But regarding the apples and oranges question I’d bet you’ll find comparable numbers if you ask Americas how many of them want a Canadian style system.
But the question is, Mark, does public opinion make for good policy? And you – again – have avoided the question.
Mark, hijacking the thread???? I pointed out the Gallup poll demonstrated. most Americans, 50% to 47%, don’t see the govt responsible for health care. You went on to shout about “Utter, utter propaganda…” regarding Gregg’s column. How is it that you point the finger but don’t look in the mirror first before such silly condemnation aimed at others when you so blatantly use propaganda, Lancet, as the foundation for your ‘excoriate America’ arguments?
Craig: I meant that it was “propaganda” in the sense that it was psychological manipulation used for political ends. I think I said that. I think of propaganda as more of a studied and applied science than people merely telling lies. But that’s just me.
I do ask you that we have the Lancet discussion away from this thread. There will be many opportunities. Why don’t you write something and I will post it and respond. You seem to have strong opinions.
Dave: Public opinion does not make good policy. We both know that. But there are differences: Ask buyers of Ford Motor Company products if they are satisfied with their purchases – if the results come back that 91% are satisfied, that is a meaningful number. Each respondent has personal knowledge worth sharing.
Ask these same people what they think of Canadian health care, and you will get a similar number, and it will be useless, as they know nothing about the subject. Personal knowledge is important.
Ask Canadians what they think of their health care system, and 86% do not want an American-style system, and support Canadian style public solutions to the problems they are experiencing with their system. (8.6% oppose, or would like an American-style system).
This is very similar to a product satisfaction survey, as the respondents are knowledgeable. Therefore, the results are useful and informative. Canadians will model public policy based on surveys like this.
Ask Americans what they think of American health care and you will find something like 70-80% think it needs improvement, 50-70% (at various times) want single payer, 70%+ want a “public option”, 51% don’t like the proposed reforms (I don’t know the knowledge level there, but I assume it is low), and 70% are satisfied with their health insurance coverage (a very small percentage having actually tested their coverage to its limits). Make sense of all of that.
Mark, I’m just point out that it’s all pretty meaningless when it comes to policy decisions. I read a survey from 10 of the OEDC countries a while ago where the numbers who said that their systems needed “major reform” was almost identical to the numbers that Americans gave. I look at those things with some curiosity but I don’t put any stock in them in policy formulations. You do, however, all of the damn time. I find it remarkably inconsistent of your. In terms of rhetorical logic it’s a fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
Americans are deeply conflicted on the issue. They have, at times, been in favor of a single payer system until the pollsters re-frame the questions and explain the trade-offs. And you can see it in the behavior of the public. Every time we move closer to some form of monopolistic delivery in the system the country rejects it. It happened in 93 and it will happen again now (IMO.) What Americans like is the idea of a system that takes care of everyone but reject the reality (and if you give me any of your propaganda crap I’m going throw it back in your face that you said public opinion does not make good policy.)
I remember you putting up those numbers. It was pretty general, and the U.S. scored very high on the dissatisfaction scale.
I just tried to help you distinguish between public opinion and informed public opinion. There are some areas where the public does have worthy opinions, and health care ought to be one of them. But I just took a Pew survey that asked 12 very basic questions about public affairs – I got all twelve right, as you would too. 2% of the public can answer all twelve, close to 50% get four or less right.
On complicated matters of public policy, the ‘people’ are not especially wise. Their mind is made up for them by group leaders, and those leaders understand how to manipulate public opinion. Public opinion is, after all, nothing more than a collection of clichés and verbal formulas supplied the leaders. The public is malleable, and whenever we propose reform, the same entrenched interests trot out the same PR techniques to scare them into not changing anything.
That is, after all, what we just witnessed with the above videos. Ooooooooh look out! Canada! Boogaloo! Boogaloo!
Aren’t you ashamed of that?
So I hearken back to Chomsky and his paper from the 1960’s on the duties of intellectuals -to do more than serve power, to actually lead us to a good place rather than connive to get us to act in someone else’s best interest. The way we do politics in the land of the free is a disgrace.
And yes, other industrial democracies seem to do it better. I think it has to do with campaign finance and parliamentary representation.
I think you have no proof that other industrialized countries do better. And no, I’m not ashamed of anything I don’t do.
As for Chomsky’s thoughts on the responsibilities of intellectuals – can’t you see the circular argument in that? It’s logical bunk – leading “us” to a good place by some definition may, in fact, be conniving to get us to act in someone else’s (like my) ” best interest. ” It begs the question.
The only responsibility I can find of any intellectual is to find the truth – and even that’s questionable in abstract matters.
And WHO statistics seem to indicate that other countries do it better. Universal coverage is also an indication. That fact that no other country has copied our system ought to tell you something, if you assume that others are rational too. And then there’s the matter of money. Our expenses are off the chart compared to other countries.
An honest man can make an objective analysis of the duties of intellectuals,and then dispute it with other honest men. I hold that you who claim special insight have an extra duty to do just what you said – search for truth even as conflicts of interest overwhelm you. After all, as I mentioned to you elsewhere, minimum wage workers have not lately commissioned any studies.
According to Gallup, most Americans, 50% to 47%, don’t see the govt responsible for healthcare: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/Say-Health-Coverage-Not-Gov-Responsibility.aspx
http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_c09cf0f2-d1ad-11de-96c2-001cc4c002e0.html
and
http://www.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_5a0ec5fe-d1ad-11de-bda6-001cc4c002e0.html
Did someone propose single payer health care, Gregg? Cause I’d be damned if I’d heard anything about it. I’m sure it’s buried somewhere in that health care bill that you’ve studied so thoroughly…
Yes, Steve, there is a bi-annual proposal every term by some Democrats and Barney Frank has said a government run option was the first step to getting there. Maybe you should listen a bit more closely. The road to perdition is paved by legislative deal creep.
You’re right, Dave – I had this crazy idea that this kind of stuff was a way of shifting the debate in order to get people the content of a bill that doesn’t exist. Silly me.
And anyways, every other country that has gone to a system that includes both government-run and private insurance companies have gone straight to that “perdition” you talk about where the government controls everything. Right?
Steve, just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.
touché
Utter, utter propaganda, not even subtle, and for this site, it does not even have to be sophisticated. If the people who frequent this website don’t get out more, it’s all they’ll ever see. Gregg – this is disgraceful, and you ought to be ashamed. I’ll give you a way to balance it out: Take the same ominous music behind these people talking, and go find an American that went bankrupt because of the private for-profit insurance system in this country, and YouTube it. Find Americans who can’t get care, who have to wait, who are hounded by bill collectors.
When polled recently, Canadians were asked which they preferred: Their own system, or an American-style health care insurance system. 86% said they wanted their own system, and not ours. 7 or 8% said they wanted our system. These would likely be the wealthier ones who don’t like trucking with common folk.
I have occasionally thought well of you, Gregg, but have never thought less of you than I do right now. Find yourself a backbone, go find American horror stories, get both sides, find Canadians who like their system,put it all up here.
Good grief what tripe!
“Utter, utter propaganda…” Mark, I could swear you were talking about Lancet again.
There you go again, Mark, sighting public opinion of humans that you so often have concluded are so easily led around by the nose. I thought you might suggest that the Canadian government is really good at health care propaganda.
“Good grief what tripe!”
Mark, did you read all the Missoulian pieces?
(By the way, I should have referenced this fact: Prof. Natelson asked me to post these videos since he couldn’t get the YouTube embed code to work.)
I read the Missoulian piece and regarded it too as nonsense. Go to Missoulapolis and read my comments – you’ll find that Carol and I agreed that it was crappy journalism
Craig – read the exchange on Lancet in the post below, which has since left the page. It’s a little more complex than you realize.
Dave – you and I both know that this story has the tenor of an emotional hit piece and is anecdotal. It is propagandistic in that it is psychological manipulation used for political ends.
And Dave, you and I both know that the individuals in the videos are sincere. Since we both know the meaning of “anecdotal”, we know that doesn’t matter.
Gregg- glad to know it was the perfesser behind this and not you. You should have stated so at the beginning. My opinion of him cannot go much lower.
Mark, I didn’t make any comment about the videos. My comment was about your seemingly irrational usage of public opinion as a basis of argument.
86% is significant, and has remained stable over the years. Tommy Douglas is regarded as the most important Canadian in history.
If the popularity of the system was at 51%, or if it could be altered by a massive propaganda campaign, then it might not be significant.
While many polls distort and manipulate, the enduring popularity of the Canadian health system in Canada is an obstacle for those of you who say they hate it.
Mark, here’s the Lancet discussion link: http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=6540
Now you abandoned the discussion when I pointed out how Burnham has been throughly and professionally discredited and rebuked by John Hopkins. Complexity and nuance doesn’t overcome your reliance on non-scientific propaganda as the basis for your claims. Unless you are able to apologize for your error or rehabilitate your reliance on such nonsense, how is it anyone can take you seriously here for your next round of “Lancet” type argument?
And 70% of Americans are satisfied with their health care, too – and has been remarkable consistent for years. So does or does not public opinion reflect good policy?
Craig – we covered it all. Not going there again. Dave presented your case with skill, and caused me to moderate my views regarding Lancet. But there’s much more to it, and I just don’t want to go there. Some other time.
Dave – there are confusing numbers out there regarding American public opinion – the one you cite I think regards satisfaction with health insurance policies. But there is also significant support for a “public option” and, prior to the debate (and propaganda campaigns), “single payer”. Single payer still enjoys significant support. The “public option”is now so muddled that opinion polls are meaningless.
Regardless, if you could cite polls saying that 86% of our people were satisfied with our system, and that these numbers had not changed significantly over time, then you’d have something.
What do you propose to do about them stupid Canadians?
Mark, just “man up!” That was an extremely flaccid response about using Burnham’s discredited work as the basis for your claim.
First, Craig, you are attempting to hijack this thread, and I find that sort of behavior abominable.
Second, go back and read the exchange, and if you have something new to bring to the table, email me and I will respond.
Mark, I don’t care about the Canadians. They can take care of themselves. But regarding the apples and oranges question I’d bet you’ll find comparable numbers if you ask Americas how many of them want a Canadian style system.
But the question is, Mark, does public opinion make for good policy? And you – again – have avoided the question.
Mark, hijacking the thread???? I pointed out the Gallup poll demonstrated. most Americans, 50% to 47%, don’t see the govt responsible for health care. You went on to shout about “Utter, utter propaganda…” regarding Gregg’s column. How is it that you point the finger but don’t look in the mirror first before such silly condemnation aimed at others when you so blatantly use propaganda, Lancet, as the foundation for your ‘excoriate America’ arguments?
Craig: I meant that it was “propaganda” in the sense that it was psychological manipulation used for political ends. I think I said that. I think of propaganda as more of a studied and applied science than people merely telling lies. But that’s just me.
I do ask you that we have the Lancet discussion away from this thread. There will be many opportunities. Why don’t you write something and I will post it and respond. You seem to have strong opinions.
Dave: Public opinion does not make good policy. We both know that. But there are differences: Ask buyers of Ford Motor Company products if they are satisfied with their purchases – if the results come back that 91% are satisfied, that is a meaningful number. Each respondent has personal knowledge worth sharing.
Ask these same people what they think of Canadian health care, and you will get a similar number, and it will be useless, as they know nothing about the subject. Personal knowledge is important.
Ask Canadians what they think of their health care system, and 86% do not want an American-style system, and support Canadian style public solutions to the problems they are experiencing with their system. (8.6% oppose, or would like an American-style system).
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/08/12-10
This is very similar to a product satisfaction survey, as the respondents are knowledgeable. Therefore, the results are useful and informative. Canadians will model public policy based on surveys like this.
Ask Americans what they think of American health care and you will find something like 70-80% think it needs improvement, 50-70% (at various times) want single payer, 70%+ want a “public option”, 51% don’t like the proposed reforms (I don’t know the knowledge level there, but I assume it is low), and 70% are satisfied with their health insurance coverage (a very small percentage having actually tested their coverage to its limits). Make sense of all of that.
Mark, I’m just point out that it’s all pretty meaningless when it comes to policy decisions. I read a survey from 10 of the OEDC countries a while ago where the numbers who said that their systems needed “major reform” was almost identical to the numbers that Americans gave. I look at those things with some curiosity but I don’t put any stock in them in policy formulations. You do, however, all of the damn time. I find it remarkably inconsistent of your. In terms of rhetorical logic it’s a fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
Americans are deeply conflicted on the issue. They have, at times, been in favor of a single payer system until the pollsters re-frame the questions and explain the trade-offs. And you can see it in the behavior of the public. Every time we move closer to some form of monopolistic delivery in the system the country rejects it. It happened in 93 and it will happen again now (IMO.) What Americans like is the idea of a system that takes care of everyone but reject the reality (and if you give me any of your propaganda crap I’m going throw it back in your face that you said public opinion does not make good policy.)
I remember you putting up those numbers. It was pretty general, and the U.S. scored very high on the dissatisfaction scale.
I just tried to help you distinguish between public opinion and informed public opinion. There are some areas where the public does have worthy opinions, and health care ought to be one of them. But I just took a Pew survey that asked 12 very basic questions about public affairs – I got all twelve right, as you would too. 2% of the public can answer all twelve, close to 50% get four or less right.
http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/quiz/
On complicated matters of public policy, the ‘people’ are not especially wise. Their mind is made up for them by group leaders, and those leaders understand how to manipulate public opinion. Public opinion is, after all, nothing more than a collection of clichés and verbal formulas supplied the leaders. The public is malleable, and whenever we propose reform, the same entrenched interests trot out the same PR techniques to scare them into not changing anything.
That is, after all, what we just witnessed with the above videos. Ooooooooh look out! Canada! Boogaloo! Boogaloo!
Aren’t you ashamed of that?
So I hearken back to Chomsky and his paper from the 1960’s on the duties of intellectuals -to do more than serve power, to actually lead us to a good place rather than connive to get us to act in someone else’s best interest. The way we do politics in the land of the free is a disgrace.
And yes, other industrial democracies seem to do it better. I think it has to do with campaign finance and parliamentary representation.
I think you have no proof that other industrialized countries do better. And no, I’m not ashamed of anything I don’t do.
As for Chomsky’s thoughts on the responsibilities of intellectuals – can’t you see the circular argument in that? It’s logical bunk – leading “us” to a good place by some definition may, in fact, be conniving to get us to act in someone else’s (like my) ” best interest. ” It begs the question.
The only responsibility I can find of any intellectual is to find the truth – and even that’s questionable in abstract matters.
Do read it, however.
And WHO statistics seem to indicate that other countries do it better. Universal coverage is also an indication. That fact that no other country has copied our system ought to tell you something, if you assume that others are rational too. And then there’s the matter of money. Our expenses are off the chart compared to other countries.
An honest man can make an objective analysis of the duties of intellectuals,and then dispute it with other honest men. I hold that you who claim special insight have an extra duty to do just what you said – search for truth even as conflicts of interest overwhelm you. After all, as I mentioned to you elsewhere, minimum wage workers have not lately commissioned any studies.