![[Masthead]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ |
|
 Email link
 Read comments (35)
 Blog archive
 Share link
Guess who said the following...Posted Friday, January 8, 2010, at 9:10 PM
Who said the following regarding health care reform?
"There's a feeling that the only way to get a bipartisan agreement is to defeat a Democratic proposal in the first hand and then the Democrats will come to Republican leadership. And then at that point, they'll know the only way they're going to get health care reform is bipartisan. But my position has been that if that strategy doesn't work and the Democrats go ahead and establish a public option, for instance, or a play or pay as a way of putting an 8 percent tax on payrolls for people who don't offer health insurance -- and dozens of other bad things -- including leading us to Canadian-style single payer plan, then, if the Democrats are successful in doing that, we'll be stuck with that plan forever. So I've been taking to Max Baucus and other Democrats trying to ward off such a role of the dice, and ward off any chance that we'd end up with a government-run, federalized health insurance program like Canada has." Answer: Senator Chuck Grassley If I read that correctly, he's afraid we'd like a single-payer/public option so much that we'd keep it forever. And that would A: make the republicans look like a bunch of jerks FOR EVER for trying to block something that Americans want and need, and B: put us at risk of suffering the same fate as Canada. Shunning the Democrats in this manner, Chuck concludes, will force them to come to their knees and accede to Republican demands. Let's compare the Canadian health care system to ours. To do that, we've got to dispel some myths. First off, the anecdotal tales of Canadians coming to the United States for healthcare are, by-and-large, instances of wealthy Canadians coming south for elective procedures that they don't want to wait in line for. In fact, a peer reviewed study concludes that the number of Canadians routinely coming across the border seeking health care appears to be relatively small, indeed infinitesimal when compared with the amount of care provided by their own system. Maybe that's why you never hear Canadians wishing they had our system. There are examples of people going south of the border for necessary procedures that they can't get or afford at home, but those are U.S. citizens going to Mexico. Medical tourism is booming business in Mexico thanks to decades of resistance to reform in Washington. According to a 2008 study by Deloitte LLP, 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care in 2007. That number is expected to reach six million this year. Link This isn't to say that Canadian health care is perfect. In fact, hospitals in northern border cities, including Detroit, are forging lucrative arrangements with Canadian health agencies to provide care not widely available across the border. Which sounds like they are having trouble providing care to their citizens. However, it's actually a cost saving measure by the Canadians to prevent having to build new facilities. The treatment at these U.S. hospitals is still paid for by the provincial health ministry and the American hospitals are happy to have the business. Which brings us to the issue of cost to the citizen. The health care system in Canada is funded by a mix of public (70%) and private (30%) funding, with most services delivered by private (both for-profit and not-for-profit) providers. Through all entities in its public-private system, the U.S. spends more per capita than any other nation in the world, but is the only wealthy industrialized country in the world that lacks some form of universal health care. No Hope. No Change. No We Can't! I think what bothers me the most is the "can't do" attitude coming from the opponents of reform like Senator Grassley. They present a constant stream of worst case scenarios from all health care systems all around the world followed by hand wringing and exclamations of "We can't do any better than that!" I respectfully disagree with that. I believe in America. I believe in the American spirit of innovation and that we can do anything that any other country does, only better. For some reason, that's not an acceptable view in some circles. Additionally, there are the dueling arguments against a national health plan: 1. Private companies won't be able to compete with a public option!!! 2. Government can't do anything right and it'll be a disaster!!! Well which is it? I would think that a public option would encourage competition. You'd still have the option for a private insurer and they'd have incentive to provide a superior product. But even that is too much to ask when you have the nerve to try to heal the sick. So how did the single payer/public option, which was a major factor in Obama's electoral success, get negotiated out? Follow the money The bipartisan "gang of six" senators who helped craft the health care reform bill, (Grassley is one of them) three Republican and three Democratic senators, each received an average of $74,600 from health industry lobbyists as of June 2009. Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee who is seen as key to influencing other conservatives, received the most this year - $223,600. Committee chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was second with $141,000. Link That's right, while good old Chuck is scaring the crap out of his fellow old-timers by repeating politifact's lie of the year (Death Panels), he's laughing all the way to the bank. That's a small expense for a for-profit health insurer to buy off a Senator when you consider the fleecing that the sick of our nation are going to continue receiving. This video does a good job of explaining a public/single-payer option:
Additional Resources: An excellent graphic from National Geographic: http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e00982269188... Comparison of USA vs Canadian health care http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_... Source of Chuck's quote http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/01/gras... Study: Rural health care costs rising at an 'unsustainable trajectory' http://iowaindependent.com/22073/study-r... Healthcare spending: New England vs. Canada http://www.health-insurance-2008.org/ima... Grassley tells constituent: If you want good health insurance, 'go work for the government.' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZwAhuqz... Approval for Grassley dipped to 57 percent in the survey taken last week, having stood at 75 percent in the Register's January poll and 66 percent in April. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Owner and founder of a liberal/progressive online news aggregator, former candidate for State Representative, media reform activist, internet communications consultant.
Hot topics Change I can believe in: Environmental Edition(8 ~ 7:03 PM, Mar 16)
A Socialist Party Platform
A Return to Fiscal Responsibility
Random Charts, Graphics, Facts and Observations
Dumbing Down America... One Hannity at a Time
|
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
![[Feed icon]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
That is very true. But You can get always get a full medical coverage at the lowest price from http://bit.ly/68ShhE if you do your home work you can find the best plan.
Follow the money...
How did the cloture vote in the Senate pass? Follow the money.
That's the problem with having control of all these programs in Washington. DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS are beholden to special interests rather than their constituents. This isn't just a Chuck Grassley problem.
Lowest price, compared to what? By best plan you mean the best cost for service plan available?
All Web Leads is an Internet company that provides information to for all insurance companies, (not just health)and as that it's a valuable tool. That doesn't mean though that if you use All Web Leads resources that you can find insurance that is affordable, or insurance that isn't bloated with 30% profit margins.(Including paying all web leads for sending you on over)
The issue isn't that insurance isn't available, and it's not with the quality of health care. The issue that health care reform attempts to tackle, is how we pay for our health care! And that, this very nice Internet tool cannot help us with.
working_class_dog, you are absolutely right. And unfortunately, the Supreme Court appears poised to allow even more special interest influence in our government. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/us/pol...
What's a "special interest" and why are they bad?
TJ, can you name some "bad" special interests?
Yes, I can. Thanks for asking!
LOL!
"If I read that correctly, he's afraid we'd like a single-payer/public option so much that we'd keep it forever.
Actually what Senator Chuck Grassley said was....
"... if the Democrats are successful in doing that, we'll be stuck with that plan forever."
You need to stop reading with those "spin" glasses.
I agree with Mr. Grassley....the closest one can get to eternal life is a government program that gives away other people's money.
Single payer is a stupid idea. A much better idea would be a health care system that is run at the lowest decision level available....that would be the person or family of the patient. A system in which the government attempts to ensure quality and consistent care. A system that ensures competition vice government take over.
KILL this Bill and start over.
You'd get the exact same result by starting over. It's not like new people will be making the decisions the second time around.
"You'd get the exact same result by starting over. It's not like new people will be making the decisions the second time around."
But I'm betting that the 112th Congress will be way different than this stupidity of the 111th Congress we have now.
That doesn't guarantee improvement.
Ah, but it does. Nothing, or more precisely, doing nothing, would be a great improvement on this current bill. Kill it and start over.
Just how hard would it be to produce a health care bill that actually improved the health care of the nation vice just increase the cost, taxes and who gets all the graft and corruption money?
Ah, no. It doesn't. The 112th Congress could be filled with zombie pirates, for all you know.
Your argument regarding the health care reform is a conclusion absent any premise. Can you actually demonstrate with valid evidence that doing nothing will be an improvement over enacting the current health care reform?
You continually claim that there's nothing positive in the bill, yet when you are shown actual documented evidence of the benefits of the House and Senate bills, you claim that the actual bill is a "state secret" and that noobody knows what it will be. Therefore the documented evidence is, in your opinion, invalid. By that logic, you can't make the claim that it's a bad bill, either.
You make a statement as fact without any supporting evidence and refuse to acknowledge contrary evidence when it is presented to you. Essentially you are simply running around claiming that she sky is falling without any proof.
In fact, in your previous faulty arguments, you've failed to present any verified peer-reviewed data and instead relied on op-ed columns written by people who have a vested interest in undermining support for the reform legislation.
So if your own argument regarding the final bill being a "state secret" invalidates your own stated conclusion and you refuse to acknowledge documented evidence from non-partisan experts that the House and Senate bills will expand affordable coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans, lower premiums, end the insurance industry's denial of pre-existing conditions, and ensure women will no longer be charged more for the same coverage as men... why should anyone take what you say seriously?
"Can you actually demonstrate with valid evidence that doing nothing will be an improvement over enacting the current health care reform?"
Yes. I believe I stated once before that it is a verifiable fact that the closest one can get to eternal life in this earth is a government program that gives away other people's money. Not one government program you can name has ever been canceled that is there to give away money.
The "proof" that doing nothing is better than passing this bill is that it is a government program. That means it will be over priced, over regulated and will never end. Oh, yes, the American taxpayer gets to pay for it, again, forever.
As for your claim that you continue to provide proof of this bill's benefits, I continue to say....you can't prove what you don't know to be in the Bill.
Then on the other hand it looks like there will be increased taxes under this bill. Are you saying for a fact that there are no increase in taxes?
It looks like this bill will fund abortions. Are you saying you have proof that government money will not be used for abortions?
It appears that illegals will be given access to health care under this bill. Are you saying that you have proof that this is not the case?
I've read some of the first attempts at crafting a health care bill and there were provisions giving access to the government to citizen's bank accounts to ensure the government gets their health payments. Are you saying that this is not the case?
It has been reported by the Democrat Senator from Louisiana that her state is getting a $300 million "gift", read bribe, for her vote. Are you saying that is not in the bill?
Or the "gift", read bribe, to the taxpayers of Nebraska for that Democrat Senator's vote. Are you saying that is not in there too?
Are you noticing a pattern here? Most of my questions about this bill are about money and control, i.e., power. Not once have I asked a question relating to any improvement in the actual quality and/or quantity of medical care.
There are pay outs (reportly.... that is because no one has the final bill and they won't till after it is signed....great system) to the unions, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the trail lawyers, the AMA and others.
Boy, if this were the Republicans there would be a mass media up roar to investigate all this corruption in government. Because its Democrats....crickets.
"...why should anyone take what you say seriously?"
They shouldn't. I'm not asking them to do so, but apparently you are asking to be taken seriously....and that's just laughable.
"Not once have I asked a question relating to any improvement in the actual quality and/or quantity of medical care."
"where in this 2500 page bill there is anything that improves the quantity and/or quality of this nation's actual health care"
- Posted by a777pilot on Sat, Dec 26, 2009, at 9:36 AM
"no one has ever been able to show me or the American voter where this current stupidity of a bill increases the quantity and/or quality of American health care"
-Posted by a777pilot on Tue, Dec 29, 2009, at 10:21 AM
"Where in these 2500+ pages is there anything that will increase the quantity and/or quality of health care in the United States?"
-Posted by a777pilot on Tue, Dec 29, 2009, at 5:58 PM
"Well, this bill will do great harm and does nothing to improve the quality nor quantity of this nation's health care."
-Posted by a777pilot on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 10:41 AM
"Just tell me where in these 2500+ pages of stupidity there is anything that actually increases the quality and/or quantity of health care in the United States."
-Posted by a777pilot on Sun, Jan 3, 2010, at 2:43 PM
"This current bill does nothing to improve the quality and quantity of health care.....NOTHING!"
- Posted by a777pilot on Tue, Jan 5, 2010, at 9:07 AM
"I wanted to know if there was anything, any where, in those 2500+ pages of this stupidity that actually increased the quantity and/or quality of health care for Americans."
- Posted by a777pilot on Tue, Jan 5, 2010, at 5:29 PM
"Is there any example in the 2500+ pages of this health care stupidity that actually will increase the quality and/or quantity of health care for Americans?"
-Posted by a777pilot on Wed, Jan 6, 2010, at 10:57 AM
It's like arguing with a child.
Nice try but the contexts of my words are...
"Are you noticing a pattern here? Most of my questions about this bill are about money and control, i.e., power. Not once have I asked a question relating to any improvement in the actual quality and/or quantity of medical care."
You know well that my statement that "Not once ..." was referring to the series of questions I had just posted and was not referring to any past posts on this subject. Maybe I should be typing slower so that you can take more time and read more carefully.
As for your compliment of "It's like arguing with a child." I thank you. It is my experience that children have a way of seeing the truth and getting right to it. I love the honesty of children.
Besides that, the readers will notice that you did not and apparently, can not answer any of my posted questions.
My readers will probably understand that addressing anything you post is a pointless endeavor.
If I may interject into this discussion regarding health care reform, which I have read from the previous threads ..random charts...., it is obvious to note a logical fallacy of begging the question.
This fallacy is most notable when the question of quality is raised as it relates to the current system and the efforts of reform. If any assertion about the consequences of quality with or without reform is to be evaluated, there must first be an understanding of what quality is, how it is measured and the current status of quality in health care settings is upheld.
While there have been numerous implied assertions of quality, nowhere in this or the previous discussion, was it once ever expressly defined. Therefore, any assertion either way would breach the line of begging the question.
The result is a grounded halt to beneficial discourse on a critical issue in America: the current state of the health care system. To help this discussion take off again, I offer an objective definition of quality which is applicable across the multidisciplinary health care spectrum.
In regards to Health Care:
"Quality of care is the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge."1
Applying some of the questions, erroneously made as conclusions previously, against this definition, one can begin to answer more definitely either way.
For example. Does the current health care system in the United States require change to improve quality? Well the facts show that as many as !!!98,000 people are KILLED!!! per annum due to health errors.2
So, change is needed, but one may ask, reducing errors can be accomplished within the current system? Granted, people in health care strive to do no harm, but what if you are not insured? Are you so lucky you don't risk a medical error? Hardly, ample evidence concludes: increasing the number of insured will increase the quality (as defined above) of health for everyone.3
So, now one may ask, will the current health care reform bill improve the quality of health care in the US? Yes, if it can increase access (the number of insured). No, if it doesn't increase increase access.
P.S.
The Instutues of Medicine has done enormous amounts of research on Health Care in the US. Please refer to the following reports: America's Health in Transition: Protecting and Improving Quality, Crossing-the-Quality-Chasm and Americas-Uninsured-Crisis-Consequences-for-Health-and-Health-Care for more specific information.
1 Council of the Institute of Medicine. America's Health in Transition: Protecting and Improving Quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994.
http://www.acmq.org/policies/policies1an...
2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...
3 http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%...;
http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%...
alright, this is ridiculous.
i will admit right off the bat that politics is not my strong suit, and frankly it does not interest me greatly, but i do enjoy glancing at this blog.
here's my reason for posting. a777pilot, you need a new hobby other than arguing the same argument over and over again on mr. templeton's blog. not agreeing with him is one thing, but it is my interpretation that you argue simply for the sake of arguing.
i will not say whether i agree with your argument or mr. templeton's, because i want you to take this seriously.
if you really have so many problems with mr. templeton's view points, let it be after a few points. remember, no one makes you read this.
Thanks, rivermarket and blues27. Beautifully stated and very appreciated.
Access to medical care will not improve the quality or the quantity of the health care. What good is access if the doctor kills ya?
One gets increased quantity by increasing the total number of doctors and medical professionals available to the American people. This current stupidity of a health care bill does NOT address quantity.
One does NOT increase quality of care by increasing only the access to care. I would give some analogies from my profession, commercial aviation but I think you can figure it out on your own.
As to arguing for the sake of arguing....I do it all the time. You ought to see what conservatives have to say about me on other sites.
I love to argue. Why? I can learn nothing by agreeing with others and I learn bunches about myself and my opinions by having others challenge mmy opinions and make me think. So far with few exception what I have learned here from those like TJ have been beneficial to me.
But I would never tell TJ that. So keep that a secret from him.
Yes, I don't have to read these blogs but having grown up (arguable) in LeMars I find what is happening there interesting to me.
So continue on and keep posting.
Pilot, you aren't fooling anyone. Your obvious intent is to degrade the conversation so we'd be unable to have a real discussion about real legislation that affects real people.
Your reliance on straw man arguments and logical fallacies have only served to demonstrate the lack of a cogent argument against the pending health care reform legislation. You have successfully made the opposition to reform look foolish while contrasting the actual facts and data to appear more solid than ever.
You have probably done more to create support for health care reform on this blog than anything I could have written. And I thank you for that.
So you want to see what Bobo Care will be like?
Great!
Think of Detroit as the American health care system and watch this 13 minute video on the once great city of Detroit. You'll see what Liberalism will bring to the once great American health care system.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/21/ne...
"Pilot, you aren't fooling anyone."
Good.
My intent is to bring this stupidity of national health care/government single payer take over of this nation's health care system, to an end.
I have no hidden agenda. You?
"Think of Detroit as the American health care system"
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
"You'll see what Liberalism will bring"
Argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
If that' all you've got....
Bobo Care.....By this time next week!
By this time next week we ought to know if this nation will be stuck with Bobo Care.
There is a special election next Tuesday to fill the vacate seat left by the death of Teddy Kennedy. As of today the Republican, Scott Brown, is just two percentage points behind the seat holder, Democrat, Martha Coakley.
Now is the time for all of you that complain about Washington, D.C. and say we need change there to pony up. Get out the plastic and give to the campaign of Mr. Brown. He is within winning distance in this race but needs to win by at least two point to counter act the mass cheating that will take place in any Democrat controlled election.
Go to .... http://www.brownforussenate.com/ ... and give what you can. This is important for the future of this country. I gave. I am asking all of you to do so too.
Before you do donate to any candidate, be sure to check the following web sites to make sure they reflect your values:
Project Vote Smart:
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id...
Followthemoney.org:
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/S...
"Before you do donate to any candidate, be sure to check the following web sites to make sure they reflect your values:"
Excellent idea/advice but I would caution all of you to use any of these and other sites with care. There are no, repeat, NO, sites that does not have an agenda. All info given is from a political point of view.
Having said that, the advice of TJ is very good advice.....check out the candidates and follow the money.
I have done my due diligence and have made a monetary contribution to Mr. Scott Brown's campaign. I encourage all of you to do the same.
^Thanks for those objective sources.
Like the ostrich, emu, cassowary, rhea, kiwi, and penguins; the proffered (unsubstantiated) conclusion that quantity will improve quality in health care for a given population, doesn't fly.
To even begin to answer that question, the underlying economics of health care markets needs to be elucidated. I wish I had the time, so I will just encourage those interested(and have time outside of work)to explore the model of monopolistic competition as appropriate for describing the behavior of the health care sector in the United States.
some links:
http://www.iwh-halle.de/d/publik/disc/17...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10115...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10264...
"There are no, repeat, NO, sites that does not have an agenda."
Actually no. It's the difference between objective and subjective.
"Actually no. It's the difference between objective and subjective."
Only in your OPINION.
There are no, repeat, NO, unbiased sites. None. Not one. How can I say that? Easy. These sites are operated by human beings.
Here is how it works....Give me a series of three numbers picked, by a human, at random.
Try. It can not be done. A human being, on their own, can not give random numbers. Neither can they, human beings, give unbiased political information. I'm not not saying that is bad, just the way it is.
Dear readers, the above post by Pilot is an excellent example of the disconnect from reality that is required for wingnuttery to settle in the human psyche. You'll note that our test subject has declared the existence of the difference between objectivism and subjectivism to be a matter of opinion. Of course, this is not the case. The difference between Objectivism and subjectivism is what defines the presence of bias. One would have to possess their own personal version of reality to believe otherwise.
One could have an opinion on the objective/subjective nature of something, but in the case of the pilot; he claims there is neither (or both) at all times.
Ironically, the subject's inability to determine the difference between subjective and objective material (read: informative vs. persuasive media)is, in and of itself, a display of a special form of bias:
In psychology, cognitive bias is bias based on factors related to the brain as an information processor. One type of cognitive bias is confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new information in such a way that confirms one's prior beliefs, even to the extreme of denial, ignoring information that conflicts with one's prior beliefs.
Pilot's constant reliance on logical and rhetorical fallacies as well as his dismissal and refusal to even consider objective data on the topic of discussion is a perfect example of this bias and defective reasoning.
There is objective data on the subject at hand but you have, as of this date, not presented any of it.
There could be objective data, e.g., how many doctors there are practicing in the United States.....maybe, that is, after one defines the term "practicing".......
I do NOT deny the existence of objective data, but I do deny that in a political debate it can ever exist.
I've asked you many time to state a fact in this debate. All you ever reply is that you have. Where? All the biased info in one of your original posts? That's not even close to objective. I just want you to accept the "fact" that all political, so called factual data, is....NOT. It's just opinion.
There are no un-biased reports or data in the arena of politics. GAO reports? That's just laughable. May I suggest you go find out how that office works? If you say it is a non-partisan office of government then I would have to say that would be an oxymoron.
Nothing in government is without error or bias. Even in the military. Here's an example: I have a Marine Corps friend that was reported KIA(Killed In Action) in a classified operation in "Vietnam". The day of his funeral his parents got a call from the Marines saying....we found him. He retired, many years later, as a Colonel. Never believe anything that comes out of the government and you will be, what? Safe? I don't know. I just do not trust the government.....at any level when politicians are looking for votes.
This so called health care bill is and has always been about money and control, i.e., power. Who has it and who wants it. There is nothing in those 2500+ pages of bribes and corruption that in anyway increases the total quantity or the quality of the health care in this nation.
Just who gets the money.
"Nothing in government is without error or bias. Here's an example: I have a Marine Corps friend..."
Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a single instance or a small sampling that fails to sufficiently represent the entire topic.
Another example would be: Government is always efficient. The package I mailed at the post office arrived two days early!"
Gotta say one thing,
Y'all er gettin purty good with the big wurds!
Keep it up. But don't let the impressive use of multi-syllable words confuse the subject. Bigger words may not always mean a better argument.