Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics

[Pangloss]

Really? The mid-term elections are 14 months away. Would you like to wait on that discussion until we see if Republicans regain control?

[iNow]

Really?

 

Yes, really.

[bascule]

Wow,

 

I just watched an anti-public healthcare ad on Fox News.

 

Their allegations:

 

"The government MAY cease research into live-saving drugs!" (huh?)

 

"Millions of Americans MAY lose their healthcare and be FORCED to use the public option" (Is this a result of the proposed legislation, or just that millions of Americans lose their healthcare due to other reasons? Never explained!)

 

"Your chances of beating cancer will be worse because the quality of care will be lower!" (supporting evidence? why do you come to this conclusion?)

 

It's just a barrage of FUD and baseless hypotheticals without any supporting evidence. Guess I shouldn't expect anything better of Fauxnews.

 

--

 

Two minutes later, on the actual program (Hannity):

 

"President Obama is trying to RAM THIS THROUGH, just like Clinton!" (slightly paraphrased. WHAAAAAT? Ram this through?)

 

"But the only way to RAM THIS THROUGH CONGRESS [...] out of control spending [...] [FUD FUD FUD]"

 

My brain hurts.

 

--

 

A minute later:

 

"GOVERNOR Palin to take on President Obama on Healthcare" -- Gretta Van Sustren (wait, Palin is still a governor?)

 

--

 

5 minutes later, OH JEEZUS:

 

Hannity is saying the government can't do anything. MEDICARE! SOCIAL SECURITY! THE POST OFFICE! They all suck! Amazing how the government can't do anything when Democrats are in charge, but when Republicans are in charge if you criticize the government you're an AMERICA HATING TERRORIST.

 

Yes, rather interesting dichotomy there.

Edited September 9, 2009 by bascule

[Syntho-sis]

I can't believe this bloody thing is still going.

 

I have one question...

 

Are there any doctors on here who work for the VA?

 

I mean really, lets compare your treatment at the VA to that of a private hospital.

 

None of you can present evidence that would directly demonstrate that the proposed plan wouldn't just become another flawed bureaucracy.

 

You have no evidence, because, this 'new' healthcare system has never been demonstrated before.. Except on a minor scale by the way the VA functions.

 

I don't consider political talk or economic predictions hardcore evidence either.

 

Fire away all ye who disagree..

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Wow,

 

I just watched an anti-public healthcare ad on Fox News.

 

Their allegations:

 

"The government MAY cease research into live-saving drugs!" (huh?)

 

"Millions of Americans MAY lose their healthcare and be FORCED to use the public option" (Is this a result of the proposed legislation, or just that millions of Americans lose their healthcare due to other reasons? Never explained!)

 

"Your chances of beating cancer will be worse because the quality of care will be lower!" (supporting evidence? why do you come to this conclusion?)

 

It's just a barrage of FUD and baseless hypotheticals without any supporting evidence. Guess I shouldn't expect anything better of Fauxnews.

 

--

 

Two minutes later, on the actual program (Hannity):

 

"President Obama is trying to RAM THIS THROUGH, just like Clinton!" (slightly paraphrased. WHAAAAAT? Ram this through?)

 

"But the only way to RAM THIS THROUGH CONGRESS [...] out of control spending [...] [FUD FUD FUD]"

 

My brain hurts.

 

--

 

A minute later:

 

"GOVERNOR Palin to take on President Obama on Healthcare" -- Gretta Van Sustren (wait, Palin is still a governor?)

 

--

 

5 minutes later, OH JEEZUS:

 

Hannity is saying the government can't do anything. MEDICARE! SOCIAL SECURITY! THE POST OFFICE! They all suck! Amazing how the government can't do anything when Democrats are in charge, but when Republicans are in charge if you criticize the government you're an AMERICA HATING TERRORIST.

 

Yes, rather interesting dichotomy there.

 

 

This dichotomy exists because it is based on your opinionated sense of logic..

 

You simply listed the allegations, you did not refute them sir.

 

If this were law school, you'd be guaranteed an F for your not only your bias but also your lack of rigor in the presentation of your argument.

[Dudde]

I took his refuting of the points as implied, with a slight twist of sarcasm to lift the scent.

 

"The government MAY cease research into live-saving drugs!" (huh?)

 

Has never been mentioned in the bill. If we stopped paying bajillions of dollars for Pharma companies to spend on fancy cars, that may happen anyway

 

"Millions of Americans MAY lose their healthcare and be FORCED to use the public option"

~~~

Never explained!)

 

Obama has already said no they won't, you can keep the ones you like. I think I remember reading that they wanted to set a groundline for the basic services that MUST be offered, but I don't remember if that was just for the public op or for all. It was in the first 50 pages of the bill, I'll have to reread it.

 

 

"Your chances of beating cancer will be worse because the quality of care will be lower!" (supporting evidence? why do you come to this conclusion?)

 

Yeah...I'm with Bascule, wth?

 

aside from the bias as well, I don't remember 25% of this hype over when Repubs were jamming things through the house that were bordering on ridiculous, and from personal experience, anytime I questioned the government I was sicked by republican conservatives who apparently didn't like my line of thought. So that whole

but when Republicans are in charge if you criticize the government you're

I'm gonna have to stand with

[Martin]

Anybody else hear the speech?

Strong, I thought.

[iNow]

Anybody else hear the speech?

Strong, I thought.

 

Yes, I sure did, Martin. For the first time I can remember, he was visibly emotional... almost angry. I think that was the first time ever in an address to congress that a president used the word "lies."

 

I like how he stated he was willing to listen to any good ideas, but would not put up with falsehoods.

I like how he spent time correcting the lies which have been such a prominent part of the recent discourse.

I like how he said he would call people out if they continued to lie.

I like how he explained the issue in clear and short sentences, and I liked how he shown light on the hypocrisy we've been seeing.

I also liked how he mentioned that this will cost less than we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, AND less than the Bush tax cuts on the rich cost us. That's huge for giving context.

 

I agree that it was strong. Now, we'll just have to wait and see if our congress-critters can also be strong, step up, and get this thing done.

[Syntho-sis]

Yes and unfortunately the honorable Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina in his ignorant attempt at.....who knows...may have entirely dismantled the opposing agenda and made anyone who disagrees with the president's sentiments look like fools.

 

I found this interesting, seems The Great One left out an important aspect of any plan on healthcare reform in his do-or-die speech last night.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aAtF5MQA.3QE

 

The American Medical Association applauded the president’s inclusion of medical-liability reform as a potential way to lower expenses.

 

It “is something we’ve mentioned for years is a way to reduce unnecessary costs, as well as streamline health-care waste we have in our system,” said James Rohack, president of the Chicago-based AMA, in a telephone interview.

 

“Paying for the cost of this without adding a dime to the deficit means you’re going to have to eliminate unnecessary costs,” he said.

 

Medical Liability expenses have for too long weighed anyone in medicine down...It's extremely annoying that anyone can sue for any reason when it comes to their healthcare. < That's one aspect of this plan I do agree with- but I still don't think the President has fully forged this plan from bipartisan ideas though, I'd say a majority of his 'suggestions' are coming from his side of the table.

 

Peace

[iNow]

I found this interesting, seems The Great One left out an important aspect of any plan on healthcare reform in his do-or-die speech last night.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aAtF5MQA.3QE

 

 

 

Medical Liability expenses have for too long weighed anyone in medicine down...

"The Great One?" Oh... Give me a break, Syntho-sis... Really?

 

Either way, you must not have watched the speech very closely based on your comment. Obama discussed liability costs and defensive medicine directly in his speech, contrary to your claim above that it was "left out." I share the text below for your reference.

 

 

Finally, many in this chamber - particularly on the Republican side of the aisle - have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

[Syntho-sis]

"The Great One?" Oh... Give me a break, Syntho-sis... Really?

 

Either way, you must not have watched the speech very closely based on your comment. Obama discussed liability costs and defensive medicine directly in his speech, contrary to your claim above that it was "left out." I share the text below for your reference.

 

 

Finally, many in this chamber - particularly on the Republican side of the aisle - have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

 

 

Okay iNow let's play it your way. Since you are so much smarter than I am let's just wait and see what actually happens if this bill passes.

 

You don't believe me now of course, but let's do as scientists do and make observations of the available evidence. Let's quit making predictions, and claiming anybody who doesn't think the same is an idiot.

 

A year from now if this bill will have been passed you will see the effects of it in the healthcare community and the economy, whether good or bad.

 

And perhaps you will eat your own words..

 

Wait and see...

[iNow]

Okay iNow let's play it your way. Since you are so much smarter than I am let's just wait and see what actually happens if this bill passes.

 

You don't believe me now of course, but let's do as scientists do and make observations of the available evidence. Let's quit making predictions, and claiming anybody who doesn't think the same is an idiot.

 

A year from now if this bill will have been passed you will see the effects of it in the healthcare community and the economy, whether good or bad.

 

And perhaps you will eat your own words..

 

Wait and see...

Listen,

 

None of that is even vaguely relevant, and frankly deserves no response at all since it has nothing whatsoever to do with what just happened. You made the claim that Obama did not discuss liability costs and defensive medicine in his speech. I quoted the part of his speech which proved you were wrong.

 

You can deflect and talk about my style and what may or may not happen a year from now all you want... None of that changes the fact that what you posted was mistaken, and I corrected you.

[Sisyphus]

Let's all try to emulate the Great One's civility, here in this thread about name calling.

[iNow]

Let's all try to emulate the Great One's civility

Emulation is precisely what I did:

 

I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

 

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out.

 

 

Syntho-sis misrepresented what was in the speech, so I called him out.

[Syntho-sis]

Emulation is precisely what I did:

 

I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

 

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out.

 

 

Syntho-sis misrepresented what was in the speech, so I called him out.

 

 

I stand on what I said, and also his speech was irrelevant to what could potentially happen to this country in the future.

 

All this political nonsense in becoming a whirl of emotions and feelings, it's not based off of ground economics or a thorough study of history.

 

If it were, I don't think we would even have a "healthcare problem" to begin with.

[iNow]

I stand on what I said, and also his speech was irrelevant to what could potentially happen to this country in the future

 

All this political nonsense in becoming a whirl of emotions and feelings, it's not based off of ground economics or a thorough study of history.

 

If it were, I don't think we would even have a "healthcare problem" to begin with.

So, let me get this straight. You claimed that Obama's speech did not address liability costs and defensive medicine, that it was "left out." I quoted the bit of the speech which demonstrated without question that what you said was false.

 

Despite that, you stand by what you said?

 

And, people wonder why the opposition is not taken seriously. This is pretty much par for the course.

[Syntho-sis]

So, let me get this straight. You claimed that Obama's speech did not address liability costs and defensive medicine, that it was "left out." I quoted the bit of the speech which demonstrated without question that what you said was false.

 

Despite that, you stand by what you said?

 

And, people wonder why the opposition is not taken seriously. This is pretty much par for the course.

 

Simply put, yes I stand by what I said.

 

And I would appreciate it if you would stop patronizing me, you misinterpreted my post.

 

Health insurers said President Barack Obama’s proposal to tax the most expensive benefit plans and create a public alternative to private coverage fails to tackle the causes of escalating medical expenses.

 

The public insurance option ignores the “central issue” of slowing the growth of health-care costs in the country, said Ronald A. Williams, chief executive officer of Aetna Inc., the third-largest U.S. health insurer. Obama “stopped short of addressing health-care reform,” said Kristin Binns, a spokeswoman for WellPoint Inc., the second-largest by sales.

 

The man may have used words such as: malpractice, insurance, and liability. But in no way did he fully address these issues. By which I mean did he propose a suitable course of action to take to fix these problems.

 

Obama hasn’t given a fair portrait of the industry, or the true reasons for rising medical costs in the U.S., said Binns, the spokeswoman for Indianapolis-based WellPoint. UnitedHealth Group Inc., of Minnetonka, Minnesota, is the largest provider.

 

“We disagree with the president’s continued mischaracterization of the health-care industry,” she said in an e-mail. “Health insurer profits account for less than 1 percent of every health-care dollar.”

 

Hopefully that clarifies my stance to some degree.

 

Which is again:

 

I do not think that President Obama's speech last night, fully addressed many American's concerns about this proposed plan. Specifically the issue of medical expenses. Somebody has to pay for this, we cannot cut corners either, when it comes to America's health. We can offer alternatives to visiting the doctor though, but with an aging population and a sedentary lifestyle America's healthcare bills will only continue to soar.

 

Which means, that other projects will have to be defunded in order to pay for the increasing costs. The taxpayers can only contribute so much, and we can't indefinitely borrow from the world and be the 'richest' country at the same time.

 

 

There I think that pretty much says everything I want to say.

[iNow]

Well, now you're moving the goalposts, but frankly, I really don't care. I'm pretty certain that no amount of logic or reason will talk you off the ledge convince you that your points are fallacious and themselves based on unsound logic.

 

 

Oh, and btw... You forgot to cite your sources.

[swansont]

“Health insurer profits account for less than 1 percent of every health-care dollar.”

 

That's the wrong metric. First off, Wellpoint's profit margin is 4%, so to be true for Wellpoint, the statement must include a significant amount of money that's not part of the insurance coverage.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WLP

 

Second of all, and more importantly, waste and inefficiency don't show up on the books as profit, but they are an expense.

[Syntho-sis]

Well, now you're moving the goalposts, but frankly, I really don't care. I'm pretty certain that no amount of logic or reason will talk you off the ledge convince you that your points are fallacious and themselves based on unsound logic.

 

 

Oh, and btw... You forgot to cite your sources.

 

Pretty certain? haha that sounds like an assumption. Scientists don't make assumptions, right?

 

I'm not going to fall into your trap either. Every time I've said anything in this thread you've done nothing but attempt to humiliate me, in order to build up your already obese ego.

 

And my sources?

 

Well that's something you should be aware of, it was the paper of discussion from bloomberg. The exact paper I started the discussion with. My source is there, go back and look.

 

You think I just pull this stuff out of my butt? Is that what makes my points fallacious? I've presented numbers and quotes of highly respected business leaders and healthcare professionals.

 

What exactly have you presented?

 

You don't do anything, you just attempt to find holes in everybody else's argument and somehow that makes you right.

 

Wow that's so logical....

 

You know, everything you say will be completely irrelevant when 20 years down the road we have another 'healthcare crisis.'

 

I'm done with this thread..

[iNow]

I'm done with this thread..

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, knock it off, all of you.

 

Politics is not science, it's obviously not empirical and has multiple possibilities for a conclusion. You can discuss factual data, but the conclusion that arises from that factual data is (unlike science!) subjective. Stop pretending this is supposed to be some empirical objective endeavor.

 

Be civil, and stop expecting others to refrain from using logical fallacies when you use logical fallacies, or convince others that they should be open minded to your opinion when you're presenting yourselves to be absolutely positive that your own opinion is right.

 

If you're not open minded, stay out of the thread; we're not arguing facts, we're arguing opinion, and in politics that's what counts. That goes to EVERYONE on this thread.

 

If you just stop writing against each other and start listening and DISCUSSING with each other, the thread (and this forum, quite frankly) will be a much better place. You might actually learn from one another, even while you disagree.

 

What a wonderful concept that will be, eh?

 

 

~moo

[Syntho-sis]

Okay, knock it off, all of you.

 

Politics is not science, it's obviously not empirical and has multiple possibilities for a conclusion. You can discuss factual data, but the conclusion that arises from that factual data is (unlike science!) subjective. Stop pretending this is supposed to be some empirical objective endeavor.

 

Be civil, and stop expecting others to refrain from using logical fallacies when you use logical fallacies, or convince others that they should be open minded to your opinion when you're presenting yourselves to be absolutely positive that your own opinion is right.

 

If you're not open minded, stay out of the thread; we're not arguing facts, we're arguing opinion, and in politics that's what counts. That goes to EVERYONE on this thread.

 

If you just stop writing against each other and start listening and DISCUSSING with each other, the thread (and this forum, quite frankly) will be a much better place. You might actually learn from one another, even while you disagree.

 

What a wonderful concept that will be, eh?

 

 

~moo

 

 

Last comments on this thread:

 

I totally agree with everything mooey said. Politics is not science.

 

It's as simple as that. I myself have been guilty of pretending this was some sort of scientific campaign or something, and I'm sorry iNow (and everyone else for that matter) for letting this become personal and letting my emotions get the best of me.

 

I will, from now on, do my best to stay away from anything political on this forum. I will stay within the bounds of the actual science aspects of this forum. Which is why I joined in the first place. If one wants to argue politics one should join a political forum (which I have absolutely no intention of doing.)

 

I'm here to learn from all of you, I sometimes forget that.

[Mokele]

Random factoid picked up today from the Head of Gerontology at Brown:

 

19% of medical cases are for acute problems (injuries, sudden illness due to pathogen, etc.).

 

The remaining 81% are chronic conditions which have reached the point of being unbearable. Many could have been managed more effectively and for lower cost (both to the patient and to society due to missed work time etc.) if caught earlier.

 

I know there's been discussion on the difference between these in this thread, but I was stunned at just how much time, money, and effort goes into chronic care.