tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post602405692565074428..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The Notion of Disputation ArenasDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45230992745386628572009-08-18T08:58:12.356-07:002009-08-18T08:58:12.356-07:00Blind squirrels...nuts... :)
You're right, SE...Blind squirrels...nuts... :)<br /><br />You're right, SEIU Co-sponsored the one in Yorba City, Florida that went nuts, not the one at Bernard Middle School. I mixed 'em up. The one in Carnahans district was almost entirely staffed by SEIU members who were registered Volunteers, but they were not official co-sponsors of the event.<br /><br />Part of what seems to have lit-up the TeaBaggers (in St. Luis) was people in SEIU shirts going in and out of the room, while SEIU folks watched the door.<br /><br />Well...unions are the Democratic volunteer base.<br /><br />If anyone wants to get first notification of one of the Congresspersons events, the best thing to do - regardless of party - is the check the Congresspersons web-site and send them some e-mail so that you wind up on their mailing list.<br /><br />Of course, Right-wing folks don't do that in D districts, anymore than Left-wing folks do in R districts...but either way it means missing the chance to pre-register for stuff like this.<br /><br />And, like I said, I like ya Tacticus. No attacks on you meant, I just don't get essentially decent folks defending rampaging @holes who show up not to ask questions, not to engage in debate, but just to shout "Tyranny" and rend their hair and gnash their teeth.<br /><br />Yeah, the worst of the Left is honestly just as bad, with the Code Pink crowd, ANSWER, ect. We's got our own Tea-Baggers too, no denying it.<br /><br />"the worst are filled with a passionate intensity"<br /><br />I don't see a whole lot of Republican Congresscritters out there begging Greens to come to their town halls. If they did decide to show up, signs and all, and start demanding entry to an event that was already booked to capacity....<br /><br />I don't see things turning out a lot differentlyJester1137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34137207848718673072009-08-16T13:44:01.336-07:002009-08-16T13:44:01.336-07:00Jester
As you know, I answer all questions address...Jester<br />As you know, I answer all questions addressed to me in even a half polite tone!<br /><br />So, the SEIU sponsored the St.Lous meeting? Odd, at your suggestion I went back to primary sources and find no mention. The St.Louis Post Dispatch of that morning described it as a town hall, although other sources seem to indicate it was a forum on aging and that Carnahan was annoyed to get questions on health care. We are talking about the Bernard Middle school meeting?<br /><br />The SEIU Missouri website also does not mention this in their comments on the evening. I am not saying it might not be true, but if true I think average citizens might honestly have missed it.<br /><br />One thing that riled up the protesters quite a bit was that it appeared that visible supporters of Carnahan were being admitted preferentially. They had, it seems, RSVP'd. Of course, if the invite had been somewhat selective that would tend to pack the hall for the sort of empty political kabuki theater that our pols so love. I think annoyance at that sort of shenannigans is understandable. The Post Dispatch writers account of the evening mentions the perception of the crowd that this is happening.<br /><br />Now, just as I peruse some sources that you likely do not, the reverse seems likely. What is your source that identifies the meeting as an SEIU gig? (leaving aside for the moment how appropriate it would be to listen exclusively to one organization on a contentious issue).<br /><br />Much of the rest of what you say is just plain correct. My first comment on the "violence" echos your thoughts. A couple of guys who look like they tripped over the curb. From working ER-quite a lot recently btw-I can tell you there were no serious injuries from what I saw. And whenever people "lawyer up" they are being less than frank.<br /><br />I also agree that yelling is rarely the persuasive method of choice. As an expression of frustration when people think the fix is in, and/or that they are being bald faced lied to, I guess I understand it. But as you can tell from my posts in these parts, senses of perspective and of humor are more nimble weapons to wield. I doubt I have yelled at anyone in my adult life, absent a handful of times when my kids richly deserved it.<br /><br />Regards the left and right ends of the blogosphere and their research. Please, do me the favor of looking up info on the gal who showed up at a Texas town hall meeting for Rep.Sheila Jackson. Said gal, a Roxanna Mayor, claimed to be a pediatric primary care physician in her comments in support of health care reform. In fact, she is not a physician, not from that District, and is a former Obama delegate, none of which was reported in the Houston paper despite the fact that the reporter apparently knew this stuff.<br /><br />visit www.patterico.com and look over the material on this, from 12 August.<br /><br />I look forward to your thoughts.<br /><br />Sure, its only dishonesty, not violence, but I thought it was nicely exposed in a prompt fashion.<br /><br />Tacitus2tacitus2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13221659957766579712009-08-15T17:11:49.041-07:002009-08-15T17:11:49.041-07:00Tacticus -
You've been hoodwinked.
The event...Tacticus -<br /><br />You've been hoodwinked.<br /><br />The event in St. Luis? That was an SEIU sponsored event to which Russ Carnahan was invited.<br /><br />Dig it - those "protestors" were the equivelent to a pack of Code Pinkers trying to crash a NRA event at which a Republican Congresscritter was an invited Speaker.<br /><br />I really don't know whether to be mad at you for failing to fact-check, or mad you for jabbering about right-wing kooks on teh intertubez somehow being the "last real journalists". <br /><br />They don't even know who is paying for the parties they crash :(<br /><br />Oh, the outrage. The people who paid for the event reserved seats for themselves first. Obviously, they're agents of the Fourth Reich.<br /><br />"There are crazy MF'ers on the far left" really isn't important, or relevant - The vast majority of us on the left call our crazies CRAZY.<br /><br />RE: Pelosi<br /><br />Do you *really* think it matters that the Swazis have red lines on them? <br /><br />We get that they're paranoid freaks who have entirely lost their collective minds and are gathering to scream "IslamoCommuFascist Foreigner!!!!" as loud as they can.<br /><br />That's what we're mocking. <br /><br />The "Obama wants to kill all the old people" paranoia is what Nancy of the blinky eyes was referencing, everyone understood, and there was no misleading.<br /><br />The point is - These people are so goddamned crazy that they think the Democrats - *Who invented Medicare over the strongest possible Republican objections for Christ sake* have decided that they want to let old people die.<br /><br /><br />WHen Cindy Sheehan or Code Pink or ANSWER coalition act like paranoid slow-witted freaks, only a tiny handfull on the left will sit around arguing about how some rightwing extremists do X or Y instead of simply saying -<br /><br />"Yes, those people are paranoid freaks I'd rather not associate with"<br /><br />Yet... sane and reasonable Republicans like you seem to feel a need to defend the absolute worst elements on your "side" or rant about 20 year old grudges when they act up...and I don't get it.<br /><br />Frankly, you're generally a pretty decent fellow. I can't understand why you can't just say - <br /><br />"Yes, a small minority of douchbags are making us look bad, most of us aren't like them, I don't support screaming and stomping and throwing fits and trying to shut down debate.<br /><br />BTW - Most of them aren't even Republicans, but are Constitutional Law Party, Libertarians, American Independence Party hanging off our coat-tails the way Greens and Socialists try to hang off yours"<br /><br />I don't excuse the tiny handfull of @wipes who broke windows at the RNC last fall - or the Cops who used their behavior as an excuse to start cracking the heads of innocent peaceful protestors.<br /><br />But what I *do* notice is that not one of these right-wing nutters has been tazed, or pepper sprayed, or arrested just for speaking. <br /><br />A leftist tried to shout down John Kerry last year...and got swarmed, pounded to the ground, and repeatedly tazed. Right-wingers pull the same melodramatic stunts..and they're politely asked to step outside and cool down.<br /><br />Such Thuggery.<br /><br />I've seen the video, btw, and the heavyset middle aged guy in the SEIU shirt is on the ground when it starts. Now, I don't know who started it, and there's no way to tell from the video.<br /><br />All an honest person could say is "A scuffle broke out". We seem to be becoming a smaller and smaller minority.<br /><br />Kenny boy (the guy in all tan in the video, appearing totally uninjured but now claiming that he was "savagely beaten") had his lawyer with him. That sets off no alarms for you?Jesternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3502185495858087942009-08-15T07:11:49.456-07:002009-08-15T07:11:49.456-07:00Travc
You are correct, I was mistaken on the &quo...Travc<br /><br />You are correct, I was mistaken on the "disingenous bullshit" matter. The conversation at the tail end of a long thread is rather like taproom discourse near closing time-passionate, slightly slurred and with a lot of background noise!<br />Accept my apology. Stefan, you dodged one there.<br /><br />The question of popularity of Congress vs your personal guy or gal has been addressed many a time, and with the exact results Rob H. projected. This reflects a fundamental problem in our political system--how do we work for the common good when it conflicts with the local pork delivery franchise. I can say that with no irony, as my Rep. is Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and you better believe he Capitalizes every word of that!<br />Maybe I should run against him....<br /><br />Yeh, that would turn out well.<br /><br />Tacitus2tacitus2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82983664045180142642009-08-15T06:29:53.773-07:002009-08-15T06:29:53.773-07:00Here's a thought. The pollsters need to ask a ...Here's a thought. The pollsters need to ask a two-tier question the next time they ask about Congress and their thoughts of it.<br /><br />1) How do you rate Congress in terms of the job they are doing?<br /><br />2) How do you rate your own Representative/Senator?<br /><br />I'm willing to bet that you'll see really low levels for Congress in general... but a surprisingly high level of approval for <i>their</i> Rep or Senator. Because <i>their</i> Rep/Senator is doing what it takes to represent their district and interests, and it's the <i>rest</i> of those "bums" who are to blame.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48966679650599042372009-08-14T20:49:33.554-07:002009-08-14T20:49:33.554-07:00T2, I think you got who wrote what crossed. No bi...T2, I think you got who wrote what crossed. No biggie, but I don't think your disingenuous at all. Hell, a conservative who is actually knowledgeable, thoughtful, and can make a decent argument is a treasured resource these days ;)<br /><br />As for "what the pesky public wants"... constitutional republic here. What the public wants is very important, but what makes sense has some room too. The NIH and NSF don't give out grants based on what research proposals the public likes. The DOD doesn't buy equipment based on public approval either... both a good and a bad side there.<br /><br />We really need to focus on the goals the public wants to achieve, not the means (or lack of means) the mob is convinced will realize them. What the overwhelming majority of people want is to not have to worry about access to healthcare. They want treatment when they need it... full stop. Now, how best to attempt that is an argument to have. However, it isn't something to debate in town-halls.<br /><br />BTW: As California keeps demonstrating, the public is crap at evaluating the technical details of legislation. If you love unintended consequences, then direct democracy should make your heart go all pitter-patter.<br /><br />PS: Town councils passing 'protest' resolutions is probably closer to what the founder's had in mind than mass marches. Hell, what do you think the Declaration of Independence was ;) (I'm being snarky... no actual insult intended.)Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52145886932137632202009-08-14T12:27:39.317-07:002009-08-14T12:27:39.317-07:00Bill Gates has filed some patents on 'Hurrican...Bill Gates has <a href="Automated%20program%20install%20for%20Access%2007%20has%20been%20submitted%20to%20SMS%20server.%20Install%20pop%20should%20show%20up%20in%20the%20next%202%20hours." rel="nofollow">filed some patents</a> on 'Hurricane Calming' by pumping cold water from 500' down to the surface, to reduce heat to hurricane.JuhnDonnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06795417373366495092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51564509456667606272009-08-14T06:56:43.446-07:002009-08-14T06:56:43.446-07:00What we're seeing is true believers that think...What we're seeing is true believers that think their cause is so important that it's okay to misrepresent the facts, sometimes massively. We have conservatives exaggerating what they perceive as negatives in health care reform and there's an issue or three at the other end of the spectrum where the proponents don't seem to mind the occasional stretching of the data. Problem is, exaggerations become known, and the response is often "I've been lied to!".Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43630956961731800842009-08-14T04:02:01.552-07:002009-08-14T04:02:01.552-07:00Trav
That I am full of bullshit can't be dism...Trav<br /><br />That I am full of bullshit can't be dismissed out of hand. It is an opinion I have heard before. But, disingenuous? Pshaw. And again I say, Pshaw. I am passing along current news from a paper that is hardly the National Dittohead-didn't Milwaukee elect two socialist mayors?-and adding the opinion that the times are strange.<br /><br />Yes, this list is current, after the recent disorder at town meetings. That's why its newsworthy. And the Republican town halls are at least as well publicized as the elusive and rara avia Democratic version.<br /><br />But this is Wisconsin for goodness sake, none of these pols fear for their lives. They fear being made to look weak and foolish, a not altogether unsaluatory effect that they likely fear more than death itsself.<br /><br />Missed 'ya Dave.<br /><br />I am sure my Contrary tweaking would have been administered a few well placed, and sometimes deserved smacks were you on shift.<br /><br />But honestly, are you adding to the quality of discourse by calling these protesters crackpots, obese waddlers and paid political agents?<br /><br />The "pro-reform" camp is hiring people too, some of whose waistlines could stand trimming I assume. (again, this is Wisconsin). And overall the Administration and its allies are outspending the other side exponentially if you count the TV ad campains.<br /><br />Consider the possibility that there is genuine outrage.* A bit frothy I admit, the whole Death Panel thing is extrapolating about as far out as the Manchurian candidate scenarios I have scoffed at.<br /><br />Maybe the Genuine Article is a new experience for the current crop of political gentry. I always felt that the Bush era protests did have a sort of cutesy, faux Woodstock feel to them (chants and puppets I think a poster said above). Public assembly and vigorous exercize of First Amendment rights does seem a bit closer to the mark than having suburban town councils in New Hampshire pass resolutions of disapproval.<br /><br />I will close though by saying that there are people on the progressive end of the spectrum whom I respect deeply. I know a retired physician who has been out every weekend holding up a sign protesting the war in Iraq. All through the Bush years. And he is still out there, often alone.<br /><br />Democracy is a messy business if you allow actual citizens to get involved.<br /><br />But I do retain perspective, despite my hard to conceal enjoyment of Gander Sauce. I expect in the end there will be some form of health care reform that will annoy both sides, but will more accurately reflect what those pesky citizens really want.<br /><br />Tacitus2<br /><br />*remind me again, of the general approval ratings of Congress.tacitus2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77844456083280277252009-08-13T23:50:58.044-07:002009-08-13T23:50:58.044-07:00Brin said: there's been discussion of the conc...Brin said: <i>there's been discussion of the concept of "Disputation Arenas." Or the notion that the art of argument badly needs an upgrade for modern times. </i><br /><br />Gee. D'ya think?<br /><br />Let's see, we've got paid flacks screaming about mythical "death panels" that will euthanize senior citizens when Obama's health care reform passes, and fat white guys waddling around with guns carrying signs threatening to murder the president of the United States.<br /><br />Hm. Yes, it is possible that the art of argument might need a wee bit of an upgrade. <br /><br />Here's an idea:<br /><br />Instead of screaming urban legends and outright lies and toting guns and making threats, we can settle this with duels -- flamethrowers at 10 paces. That should work.<br /><br />Next, we need a tastier variety of smear. "Death panels" isn't extreme enough, just doesn't get your blood racing. How about "attic insulation is made from the bodies of people over age 30 in Europe who get murdered in a Logan's-Run-style annual gerontocide?"<br /><br />Yeah, that's the ticket! There's nobody left over age 30 in Europe -- all those old people on the TV are inserted digitally, it's a giant conspiracy.<br /><br />Now if they could only find a way to work in grey reptoids and the hollow earth somehow...then we'd be cookin'.<br /><br />I love the way Obama talks to these flakes like they're rational people and gives them a detailed breakdown of the policy implications for about 5 minutes before he mentions that there isn't actually going to be an authanasia or death panels... So the crackpots with guns think, yeah, Gramma actually will get turned into Soylent Green and fed to us as premium dogfood. <br /><br />In the Lincoln Douglas debates, the American people sat around for three hours per session and listened to a reasoned discussion. Now they're carrying signs saying IT'S TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY and shouting down congressmen with chants of "No death panels! No death panels!"<br /><br />I feel like I'm living in the movie <i>Idiocracy.</i> I have this urge to phone Obama and yell "Do something smart!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88489809972036883412009-08-13T20:49:49.514-07:002009-08-13T20:49:49.514-07:00Were those lists made up before or after hate-craz...Were those lists made up before or after hate-crazed cranks started specifically targeting Democratic lawmakers' town halls in order up to turn them into media circuses?<br /><br />And the representatives themselves started getting death threats?<br /><br />Put another way, your post is disingenuous bullshit, T2.<br /><br />As for the Republican pols' town halls . . . the cranks probably don't even <i>know</i> about them.Stefan Joneshttp://home.comcast.net/~stefan_jones/dead_ray.jpgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6014934235087281972009-08-13T17:29:23.502-07:002009-08-13T17:29:23.502-07:00Looping back, sort of, to the original topic of Di...Looping back, sort of, to the original topic of Disputation Arenas.<br /><br />The Milwaukee Sentinal did a quick survey of the congressional delegation from my home state. Are they holding public meetings the rest of this month?<br />(D)Sen Kohl-0<br />(D)Sen Feingold-4<br />this does not surprise me, Feingold holds positions quite a bit more liberal than mine, but is a man with integrity. Very consistent despite changing political winds. A rarity. Kohl? pretty much dead wood.<br />(D) Rep. Baldwin-0 although you can sign up for a "telephone town hall" if you want to.<br />(D)Rep. Kind-4 <br />(D) Rep. Moore-0<br />(R) Rep. Sensenbrenner-0<br />(R) Rep Ryan-17<br />(R) Rep Petri-5<br />(D)Rep. Kagan-0<br />(D) Rep. Obey-0<br /><br />So, the total is, the three Republicans are holding 22 open meetings and the 7 Democrats a total of 8.<br /><br />Interesting the Rep.s from the staunchest Dem strongholds of Madison and Milwaukee are no shows.<br /><br />Rep. Sensenbrenner on the Republican side is also MIA.<br /><br />It almost looks as if there is something new under the sun.....our Congresspeople seem to fear us!<br /><br />My own (D) Rep. has announced no meetings, but says if he has any the will be announced "a few days prior". Not that he wants it to be easy for people to, you know, get off work or anything.<br /><br />Strange times, strange tides.<br /><br />Tacitus2tacitus2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12886579648084978112009-08-13T16:34:51.155-07:002009-08-13T16:34:51.155-07:00@Twinbeam regarding a series of 'simple' d...@Twinbeam regarding a series of 'simple' discrete reforms/fixes...<br /><br />There are different levels of complexity at work here. Yeah, single payer involves complicated work. It is a form of price control/fixing after all. However, the system is conceptually simple and the mechanisms for adaptation are relatively direct and transparent. The complexity is restricted primarily to a single domain: the services covered and reimbursement rates for those services.<br /><br />The current system is far more complicated due to the interactions of all the parts. The effects of a 'simple' rule change will often have difficult (or impossible) to predict effects all over the place.<br /><br />Aren't conservatives supposed to be wary of the law of unintended consequences? Single payer is a big change (with admittedly big disruptions for the industry), but under a single payer system unintended consequences are much easier to avoid and fix when they do occur.<br /><br />Addressing you specifics...<br /><br />Single payer addresses a lot more than providing access for the poor. (Technically, you could have single payer which isn't universal, but that would be dumb.) Most fundamentally it provides a direct allocation mechanism. Very simply, access to healthcare can be allocated based on need and not ability to pay. (That is not possible under a market system obviously.)<br /><br />"who pays, how much?"<br />Who is pretty easy actually: Everyone. How much is a point of argument, but most people consider a progressive scale fair. I'd advocate just paying for the system out of general tax revenue, but that isn't likely given the idiocy of the budgeting process.<br /><br />"how much is spent on whom?" and "who doesn't get treatment they want or think they need?"<br />Answered based on need as assessed by the provider (aka doctors). Private providers and insurance companies answer this question every day, with motives which we know damn well are not aligned with need.<br /><br />"how do we deal with fraud or incompetence?"<br />A damn sight better than we do under the current system. Instead of having to deal with privately owned 'arbitration' in the pay of the insurance industry, we would have the normal legal recourse. We'd also have a political recourse which is completely lacking in the current system.<br /><br />Really, the entire healthcare issue can be boiled down to one fundamental question.<br />Should access to healthcare be based on a person's ability to pay or their need? A system where profit is the central motivator cannot allocate based on need.<br />Our current system rations based on profitability and an individual's ability to pay, a single payer system would ration based on the social and public/political pressures exerted upon the board setting the benefits schedule.<br /><br />--<br />Actually, a profit based system would allocate based on need if everyone had exactly the same resources and identical rational utility functions... speaking of fantasy lands ;)Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1563990021017215322009-08-13T13:59:23.011-07:002009-08-13T13:59:23.011-07:00@David Smelser - No, I didn't even notice the ...@David Smelser - No, I didn't even notice the URL. You should learn to use: <br /><br /><a href="YOUR_URL_HERE"> ANY SIMPLE TEXT HERE </a><br /><br />e.g.:<br /><br /><a href="http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1310-Fixing-Health-Care-A-Real-Solution.html"> Denninger </a><br /><br /><a href="http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1310-Fixing-Health-Care-A-Real-Solution.html" rel="nofollow"> Denninger </a><br /><br />After reading that, while I can agree with the idea of breaking insurance free from employers, I have to say that neither you nor the article addressed the issue I raised - namely that some people are going to cost more than others, and some of that is going to be due to bad choices. <br /><br />Employee health insurance usually just turns a blind eye to that, and the employees don't care because they think the employer is paying for it - they never see the increased cost come out of their paycheck. <br /><br />Look in on any debate about obese people flying and whether they should have to pay for two seats - it turns ugly FAST, focusing on the idea that the over-weight are immoral and weak and deserve to pay more than the moral, strong-willed thin. <br /><br />The point isn't whether that is true or false, but that people are going to object to paying for those they feel are willfully behaving in a way that costs others money - and even worse, people often disagree about what is willful risky behavior (homosexuals and HIV/AIDS?). <br /><br />The same will apply to health insurance, except it will apply to a lot more conditions.<br /><br />A similar problem applies to point 4. If you go to the hospital, have some surgery, then get pneumonia - is that because of the surgery, or because your immune system was weakened by a lifetime of doing drugs? If you have diabetes and end up having a toe amputuated, but then gangrene results in you losing the whole foot - is that due to genetics, poor lifestyle choices, or the surgical removal of your toe?TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58081000310981799772009-08-13T13:21:59.459-07:002009-08-13T13:21:59.459-07:00@Travc:
I guess that's what I get for tryin...@Travc: <br /><br />I guess that's what I get for trying to propose a transparent, moderate approach that won't end up tearing the country apart...<br /><br />Talk about living in a dream land! Single payer <b>sounds</b> simple. It's a bit like explaining all natural phenomenon by saying "God makes it work that way." Very simple - except it simply ignores the vast complexity that has to go on behind the scenes.<br /><br />Just the transition to single payer would create a vast mess, as we throw out hundreds of existing alternatives, and replace them with a new one that is just getting up to speed, with all the chaos any new enterprise entails.<br /><br />And once it does get going, you really haven't solved any problem except "Some can't afford health care". You haven't solved "who pays, how much?", "how much is spent on whom?" and "who doesn't get treatment they want or think they need?", and "how do we deal with fraud or incompetence?" and on and on. <br /><br />I know - let's let God provide our health care! That'll solve everything! Like the government, He's omniscient and omnipotent and perfectly moral - and since He owns the universe, He won't even have to charge taxes like the government does!TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47414596110642902009-08-13T07:54:28.013-07:002009-08-13T07:54:28.013-07:00I wrote:
"1. If you sell "insurance&...I wrote:<br /> "1. If you sell "insurance" to anyone in a given state, you must accept all persons in that state on the same terms and at the same price."<br /><br />Twinbeam replied:<br />Really? The same price?<br /><br />To which I reply:<br />YES. I see no reason when I buy insurance, that it should cost different amounts whether I purchase it directly from insurance company as an individual, purchase by my small business employer, or purchased by my large business employer. The same company is providing the same benefits to the same individual who is going to the same doctors and has the same medical risks.<br /><br />I wrote:<br />"4. No event caused by the provision of your treatment may be billed to you."<br /><br />TB Replied: That's a good way to see the prices of risky but valuable treatments skyrocket OR disappear from the market. <br /><br />I reply: I guess you didn't read the full article I link (http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1310-Fixing-Health-Care-A-Real-Solution.html). Here is the relevant text:<br /><br />"No event caused by the provision of your treatment may be billed to you. Period. Specifically, MRSA infections and similar contracted in a hospital cannot result in billing of that treatment to the consumer. If you call someone to fix your roof and they break a picture window, they have to eat it - they can't bill you for the roof and the window which they broke! The best incentive for better-quality care, particularly when it comes to controlling in-hospital cross-infection rates, is to make it ruinously expensive for hospitals to fail to prevent these adverse events. Prohibiting by federal law the billing of any amount for a condition caused by the provider of health care (or a health facility) puts in place a very strong free-market disincentive for lax infection and process control."<br /><br />And here is the complete text for point #5:<br />"If you show up without insurance or ability to pay with a life-threatening condition, you will be treated, but the hospital cannot cost-shift the bill - it instead bills The Federal Government. We have created an expectation that if you show up needing emergency treatment you will get it, irrespective of ability to pay. This creates a monstrous problem for hospitals and results in the $30 aspirin, among other outrageous distortions. The solution is to have The Federal Government receive all uninsured and unpaid bills, with the debt being immediately paid by the government. Said debt then becomes a collection item against the citizen - a debt to the Treasury, administered by the Internal Revenue Service. If you cannot pay cash, that's fine - the IRS will be happy to take payments (at interest.) If you're an illegal alien the Federal Government will be mandated (by statute) to collect from the other nation, and if they refuse to pay, to deduct any such amount from foreign aid of any type and source on a dollar-for-dollar basis."David Smelserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596446730839038592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40211326864022005692009-08-13T06:47:28.619-07:002009-08-13T06:47:28.619-07:00Taking a small break from politics and health insu...Taking a small break from politics and health insurance, I've a question for Dr. Brin. In his short story <a href="http://www.davidbrin.com/tankfarm.htm" rel="nofollow">Tank Farm</a> he talks about using electrical charges to push a space station into a higher orbit. My question is this: would it be possible to do this with the ISS, and what would be needed to bring this about?<br /><br />One of the costs of the ISS is fuel to adjust the ISS's orbit. It seems to me that the principles used in <i>Tank Farm</i> could easily adjust the ISS orbit higher or lower as needed to dodge debris and thus significantly reduce the costs needed to run the ISS. The only question is: how?<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88052419278197168172009-08-13T00:41:52.983-07:002009-08-13T00:41:52.983-07:00I'll provide the link to the Committee on Ener...I'll provide the link to the Committee on Energy and Commerce healthcare reform bill page again... it is worth taking a good look at.<br /><a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1687&catid=156&Itemid=55" rel="nofollow">America's Affordable Health Choices Act</a><br /><br />The second item is a 4 page summary<br />and a good place to start.<br /><br />Funny thing, click on the "Minority" tab at the top right...<br />The second item in their list is "E&C Democrats Pass Government-Run Health Care". Compare that with what the bill actually does.<br /><br />It is also notable that the Republicans site basically just posts a bunch of news clips and press releases, many if not most about the politics and not policy. Illustrates their focus quite well.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69509468363002557152009-08-13T00:05:53.592-07:002009-08-13T00:05:53.592-07:00T2,
You missed my point about "reading the b...T2, <br />You missed my point about "reading the bill". Personally reading the entire bill is a horrible way for most people (including congresscritter) to actually understand it. Instead, they need to actually analyze and understand it, which is typically (and effectively) accomplished by dividing up the task among trusted delegates.<br /><br />When a congresscritter gets asked "have you read the bill" and the "not personally" soundbite is played back, that is a gotcha. What they (and we) need to do is synthesize analysis of the bill. (Actually, proposals for provisions in the bill at this point.) Many if not most of the people actually working on it in congress have been doing that carefully. "Have you read it" keeps the more important questions about what sources are being trusted and what the actual analysis says from being asked.<br /><br />Sadly lacking on the proponent side is publicly accessible analysis. There are some technical reports available, but informative press releases and summaries are generally missing. The right wing welfare system ('think tanks') have generated mountains of material, some of it gloriously fact free. Of course the media is not covering anything not spoon-fed them.<br /><br />There is one big exception... Henry Waxman (his staff really) has put together a great (if too dense IMO) site on the bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee.<br /><a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1687&catid=156&Itemid=55" rel="nofollow">Here</a><br />They really need to write more editorials and press releases from this material.<br />--<br /><br />Twinbeam... you are in a nice sounding fantasy land regarding a series of simple reform bills. The core problem is much more fundamental, and simply addressing individual symptoms won't do much good at all. ...Why does a line from Rocky Horror keep popping into my brain ;)<br /><br />The (non-blue dog) Dems made a big mistake by taking the simplest and most effective proposal off the table before the debate even started. Universal single-payer is a lot easier to argue for than the patches to the current system plus a hodge-podge of narrow 'fixes' being offered. It also created the disparity in 'energized' opponents to proponents we are now seeing. Reform proponents are rightly not terribly excited by 'better than nothing' reforms, while the opponents are dominated by a carefully cultivated crop of delusional folks railing against specters.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26010099667281319902009-08-12T22:01:43.941-07:002009-08-12T22:01:43.941-07:00The healthcare bill is just too big and incomprehe...The healthcare bill is just too big and incomprehensible for most people - of course they are easily led to anger and suspicion.<br /><br />Congress needs to go back to work, and pick the "top ten" urgent issues that they can actually do something about. Then work out short, comprehensible bills for maximum effect with minimum cost. One problem and solution per bill. Publish them for people to review and consider and comment on - no rush to vote. It won't eliminate all contention - but it should eliminate most of the fear. <br /><br />Instead of starting on the "socialized medicine" features, start with problems that affect the majority of people who are being asked to pay for the rest - maybe they'll respond more positively to paying more, if they've already seen other legislation passed that is going to save them money. <br /><br />Bob Cringely's idea for fixing malpractice insurance would be a good starting place. A single specific, obvious problem. An easy to understand solution. Benefits are easy to understand - and it doesn't hurt that one of those benefits is "anti-blood-sucking-lawyer-profiteering" - always a popular theme. A winner, IMO.<br /><br />Fixing the pre-existing conditions issue should be right up there. The burden should fall on the insurance company that was covering someone at the time the condition arose, so they have an incentive to keep that person with them and paying premiums. Leave non-covered conditions to a separate bill - again, trying to solve all problems in one bill will likely end up solving nothing well.<br /><br />High prices on new drugs - maybe the government should provide "innovation awards" - paid in direct proportion to the number of prescriptions of a new drug for its first few years. That way, drug companies have an incentive to drop the price, to maximize prescriptions. Pay for this with a surcharge on all drugs sold - we all benefit from medical innovation.<br /><br />Fixing the emergency room mess would be another top target - emergency rooms should simply be required to charge "full-price, insurance or cash up front" for non-emergency treatment. This one throws bone to the crowd who believe illegal immigrants (1/5th of the 45M uninsured) are the source of all problems.<br /><br />Immediately follow that by a bill that will allow anyone to sign up for a program that would assure them access to basic medical services at income-appropriate fees. Non-citizens could sign up - ensuring they have access to treatment - but would be placed at the highest fee category - essentially paying "typical costs". (Yeah, I know, your heart bleeds - but it's not going to pass otherwise.) Doctors would be assigned patients from the pool, just as lawyers may be assigned pro bono cases by judges, with all practicing doctors in an area getting about the same number and the same "co-pay" income from pool patients. It would be tacitly expected that they will shift excess costs to other patients, as is already common practice - socializing costs without taxes, to end-run the "socialism" attack.<br /><br />Chronic and catastrophic care would be dealt with separately - again, keep it simple, solve one problem at a time. With the above and other one-at-a-time healthcare solution bills in place, maybe we could tackle this difficult and expensive issue with appropriate humanity and rationality.TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5028310232391591912009-08-12T18:17:38.431-07:002009-08-12T18:17:38.431-07:00And once again, I have to say that perhaps the mos...And once again, I have to say that perhaps the most effective way of starting the ball rolling on universal health care that the Republicans could not nix would be to offer universal health care for all children until they reach 19 years of age. It does not matter how rich the parents are, or how poor. The government takes over for any and all existing policies.<br /><br />This means that private health care is either for one person or for a person and their spouse. This saves money for families and it reduces the cost for health insurance companies as well as they don't have to worry about children anymore. <br /><br />Best yet, 18 years down the road, we'll have a generation of people who were under a universal health care system all their lives and who won't freak at the thought of a single payer system. ^^<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34614106508102987302009-08-12T16:48:30.401-07:002009-08-12T16:48:30.401-07:00WillShat
You raise some interesting questions. In...WillShat<br />You raise some interesting questions. In Great Britain there is a single party payer system and little malpractice legal action. I believe there is occasional criminal action against drunk and inept practitioners. How would the Trial Lawyers, easily among the most staunch Dems, like that scenario?<br />Malpractice suits generally result from a convergence of bad decision(s), poor documentation, bad outcome, and a poor doctor patient relationship. When all converge you are in big trouble.<br />Eliminating malpractice suits in theory could reduce defensive testing, which dwarfs the actual cost of malpractice insurance. But there would still be matters of pride. Physicians are very sensitive to any accusation of imperfection, or to patient complaints that wants were unmet. <br />Really, what patients and their families demand is a major driver of the system costs. <br />Like you I would like to see a Universal system. In this I differ from most Conservatives. <br />But we need an honest evaluation of what it costs and what it does. Not seeing that yet.<br />"Trust us", say the Democrats. No thanks, say I.<br /><br />Tacitus2tacitus2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5553427946575939512009-08-12T16:39:50.083-07:002009-08-12T16:39:50.083-07:00A lively discussion. Thank you gentlemen, ladies ...A lively discussion. Thank you gentlemen, ladies and others of annonymous internet identity. I shall have to do a two parter to keep my thoughts from tangling on two topics.<br /><br />Stefan. Regards Fox I must defer to you. I never watch it. I can't recommend its shoddy reportage for either Conservatives to use as an information source or for progressives to try and understand their fellow citizens. I really should endure it for my edification. I can actually choke down light exposure to Kos after all.<br />It got me to thinking a bit. Maybe Conservatives and Progressives view all media differently? It is axiomatic among my brethern that the media is often fibbing...maybe there is no blind acceptance of Fox and Rush. I certainly look at a lot of news items and infer base motives. Perhaps it is a general effect. otoh, maybe if you are of a mind to believe what you see and hear less critically, you imagine that Fox actually is something other than a tawdry dog and pony show. What, the mouthpiece of the <br />GOP? Yeah, right.<br /><br />Regards the news, I see numerous things tossed out that I consider frivolous distractions, things to keep our eyes off the ball. Dick <br />Cheney involved in Fed Attny firings, reports of "concerns" about right wing militias. More noise about prosecutions of former Bush officials, Sarah Palin divorce rumors.<br />Not that any of these are off limits topics, but ideally there should be a concerted public debate on the issues of the day rather than a gnawing on old bones as a distraction. <br />Just some thoughts.<br /><br />Tacitus2<br />Oh, and Conservative bloggers, who actually are the best investigative reporters around these days, are finding evidence that the Obama Hitler posters are being copied off the Larouchie web sites, and in some instances being waved by folks later seen handing out flyers for their Democratic congressperson! Tawana Brawley lives?<br /><br />Tacitus2tacitus2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26887418626741176532009-08-12T15:41:19.375-07:002009-08-12T15:41:19.375-07:00Well, that's it.
It's not just reliable n...Well, that's it.<br /><br />It's not just reliable nutjob Sarah Palin, and eternal putz Newt Gingrich.<br /><br />Standing Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and GOP chair Michael Steele are onboard with the Grandma Must Die meme.<br /><br />Mainstream Republicans, running with a demonstrably false scare tactic.<br /><br />Shameless. Utterly shameless. Cynical political monkeywrenching.<br /><br />The GOP leadership is a bunch of worthless, pandering pols.<br /><br />'erlacite': Mineral formed by impact of coprolitic meteors on ice planets.Stefan Joneshttp://home.comcast.net/~stefan_jones/kira_squirrel_lo.JPGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49537189726992640092009-08-12T14:41:01.963-07:002009-08-12T14:41:01.963-07:00Tacitus2,
Wouldn't you agree, that the princi...Tacitus2,<br /><br />Wouldn't you agree, that the principle CAUSE of malpractice -- the systemic errors and DEFENSIVE -- but covering procedures that are not there to improve care would go away if we hand Universal/Single Payer health care with insurance companies out of the picture?<br /><br />Where torte reform has limited claims, it's had an average effect of 2% on prices -- I'm pretty sure that's not the angle you are arguing -- but it's pointing out that the DEFENSIVENESS of doctors and hospitals are due to costs. Remove the costs -- you remove the system. The reason patients have to go after malpractice aggressively, even if there wasn't a bad procedure -- is they can't afford the procedure in the first place -- much less a do-over.<br /><br />>> I'm of the mind that I'd actually prefer if Republicans stop the Health Care reform of Obama. I don't know who he is trying to compromise with. The Dems act like they didn't win a landslide. Why compromise BEFORE you debate, and take Single Payer off the table? Because Lobbyists spent their money well.<br /><br />Likely, this bill is too little, too late, and it just wrings out a few more years of pathetic from a failing system. It's the same reason I was against the TARP bailouts -- it's patching up a system that benefits the Robber Barons.<br /><br />We will eke out the next few years, with everyone pretending they can keep the status quo of corruption going.<br /><br />>> I predict soon, that idiots are going to cause some damage. That Same Old Corruption is going to break the Camel's back.<br /><br />I just can't stand the pathetic offerings of the Democrats -- as if the Conservatives had a point about economics, or that Globalism "wasn't all that bad."<br /><br />Better it fail and then let the Republicans hang with every hiccup from the failing status quo. Hopefully we can replace some incumbent Dems -- but then again, have we gotten rid of electronic voting yet? If not, then even THAT will be pointless.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.com