tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post689686379381064892..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Hypocrisy in ALL directions.David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91514804073264672472007-08-09T16:21:00.000-07:002007-08-09T16:21:00.000-07:00Dr Brin and others involved, Very enjoyable observ...Dr Brin and others involved, <BR/><BR/>Very enjoyable observations argument's being made. <BR/><BR/>I'm a navy bomb technician and I just returned from Iraq a few weeks ago, so I have one distinct pov of the effects of the Bush agenda (really the Chaney agenda). Bush creates a tangled mess with logical fallacies in everything he is involved in and he is totally out of touch with reality, (not that we did not already know this) so I could care less whether he contradicts his man show, re: his colon checkup.<BR/><BR/>Been meaning to get a viewing of "Sicko", as I had a good conversation with a National geographic photographer on a plane ride recently. He highly recommended watching it, as he is from New Zealand, and he was saying there socialist health care program trumps America's in every way imaginable.<BR/><BR/>on my way to blockbusterHigh_Brisancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10762706513621112880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13055591749525543012007-07-24T07:52:00.000-07:002007-07-24T07:52:00.000-07:00It's pathetic, but I had to jump on this one from ...It's pathetic, but I had to jump on this one from the comments.<BR/><BR/><I>...invent new diseases like "restless leg syndrome"...</I><BR/><BR/>Apparently you missed the <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?q=gene+restless+leg+syndrome&btnG=Google+Search" REL="nofollow">news</A> where they've identified genes causing RLS. Since it's hereditary and my would-be-saintly mother has passed it on to my brother and myself, I have to take issue with the notion that it is an "invented" disease. So would the woman whom I sometimes involuntarily kick at night as I'm descending into sleep.<BR/><BR/>As for Dr. Brin's post, I'm not going to take issue with his practice of finding fault where fault lies. I am an avowed liberal, and I freely admit that liberals do <B>not</B> have all the answers. I have simply asserted for the past ten years that conservatives have made extraordinary advances in finding answers that have no basis in reality, then justifying those answers with remarkably blatant lies. I can understand why Murdoch created Fox News, because without their own propaganda outlet conservatives couldn't hope to pass their lies off on a discerning population.<BR/><BR/>Libertarians, well, everybody's got their own vision of an impossible utopia. I don't begrudge them theirs.SpaceGhotihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13966275517866561166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1497838430708904512007-07-23T11:04:00.000-07:002007-07-23T11:04:00.000-07:00I'm surprised to see so much vitriol here! It rea...I'm surprised to see so much vitriol here! It really is sad and strange. I'm actually pretty pro-Moore, but I didn't find anything in Dr. Brin's comments that would warrent these accusations against him. <BR/><BR/>Dr. Brin is basically making the point that the Left needs <I>credibility</I>, and credibility can only be earned by discussing the facts honestly. These differences in perception should be discussed without so much heat and fury. <BR/><BR/>Now, to (politely) disagree with Dr. Brin - I think it's hard to extrapolate from any one single-payer system to generalize about single-payer systems in general. I'm not sure why Dr. Brin thinks that "expensive procedures" are forbidden past a certain point in these systems. <BR/><BR/>Here is a link to the Commonwealth Fund study used (very selectively and dishonestly) by Dr. Sanjay Gupta in his fraudulent "debunking" of Michael Moore on CNN. <BR/><BR/>http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=313012<BR/><BR/> From here, you can read a summary of the findings, and download PDF's providing data on six countries, including the U.S., and compare performance of health-care systems over a wide variety of indicators. <BR/><BR/>Whatever restrictions are to be found in single-payer systems, they clearly do not result in poorer health. A visit to the World Health Organization website, where you can look at the stats country-by-country, makes this quite clear.<BR/><BR/>As for R&D - the U.S. only spends about 5.5 cents out of every healthcare dollar on research. Our inflated exenditures cannot be explained by research finding.Andrew S. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13868554030118262701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38037574539062580052007-07-23T11:02:00.000-07:002007-07-23T11:02:00.000-07:00Re Colonoscopy, David, I simply don't believe you....Re Colonoscopy, David, I simply don't believe you. A relative of mine has Crohn's, and described the procedure as marvelously invasive and painful. <BR/><BR/>Further, the "manliest men", flipping around memes of the anti-gay variety as is intimated G.W. Bush does, would not want any sort of substance sent the wrong direction through the colon, and might actually *need* anesthesia to become less... well... anal retentive about the procedure.<BR/><BR/>ahem. <BR/><BR/>Finally, I don't know where you get off announcing that a U.S. citizen can simply choose a different insurance company. Those choices, in my long experience, are usually hedged about by enrollment windows, or in my case at least, simply don't exist at all: Only one company is willing to offer the kind of coverage I (a healthy late-30's male with wife and children, in a small business) need. And even then the deductible plus stop-loss virtually guarantees four years of debt for every year of medical catastrophe anyway. <BR/><BR/>Chew on that. And thank you very much, when my colonoscopy time comes around, I'll be asking for the Propofol by name and never casting a single aspersion toward ANY man who chooses the same. I can't get Kaiser here (since they don't sell it to even healthy individuals at any price here, ^#$% them!) so I suppose I'll be stuck without the manly test of an anesthesia-free HMO-colonoscopy. <BR/><BR/>You have no case here, David. No possible rich comparison exists. Kerry's enemies hated him for contextualizing the Vietnam experience in a way which they thought was completely anti-esprit-de-corps. He might not have been the traitor they claimed, but it's certain that he overspent political coin in the 70's to get Vietnam stopped. And it helped to cost him the Presidency. <BR/><BR/>And perhaps... just perhaps?... the AMA has changed recommendations for a standard colonoscopy since you had it, to include some anesthetic?Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29541138950846856922007-07-23T05:45:00.000-07:002007-07-23T05:45:00.000-07:00Wait a minute... I live in France and my doctor ne...Wait a minute... I live in France and my doctor never picks up the phone and requests authorization from a gov bureaucrat to treat me!!<BR/><BR/>Here is how it's done in France:<BR/>a) Get appointment with doctor. Easy enough to do: you call, doctor checks agenda, doctor gives you appointment, sometimes as early as... the same day.<BR/>b) Get diagnosed by doctor.<BR/>c) Doctor fills out prescription.<BR/>d) You pay doctor.<BR/>e) You get your prescription from nearest Pharmacy.<BR/>f) Pay Pharmacy (sometimes, as easy as showing your social security card).<BR/>g) The end.<BR/><BR/>Getting surgery adds a few more steps (see surgeon, make appointment for surgery, pay hospital, etc), but you get my drift.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, this is in France. F-R-A-N-C-E. No rationing of health care for us, thank you very much, we are French.<BR/><BR/>The system has its problems (high taxes, recurrent deficit, etc) bu t health care rationing is not one of them. <BR/><BR/>You diminish your credibility by repeating these neocon lies, IMHO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17156106948019359162007-07-23T01:06:00.000-07:002007-07-23T01:06:00.000-07:001. Regards colonoscopy. I see no reason to hold so...1. Regards colonoscopy. I see no reason to hold someone who tolerates pain being inflicted on them in a better light than one who doesn't. That seems like an anti-social ideal shall we all poke ourselves in the eye in order to get social approval? That would be a race to the bottom...<BR/><BR/>2. However you have a point in regard to the SBVFT and the big government etc. Although it seems the SBVFT were trying to point out a sort of dishonesty /hypocrisy themselves regardless of the actual moral implications regarding his war service.<BR/><BR/>3. regards Moore I don’t take him very seriously - but them again I am being forced to take less and less of the media seriously to the point that it seems to be becoming one huge running gag. The answer to money driven right leaning media is apparently money driven left leaning media... No wonder America is two huge tribes beating each other up.<BR/><BR/>4. "Although I don't like him so much, just for being a flip-flopper"<BR/>I see this floating through all of the debates - apparently in US politics you can't have two different opinions on similar issues no mater how many differences there may be. And you can't change your opinion no matter how much evidence comes up. "Look I'm not a flip flopper I still think bushes war plan was perfect!!" <BR/>Or<BR/>"Mike Moore only ever says true things!"<BR/>No wonder you can’t find a good leader you eliminate all the good ones via your selection process!Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80774273961330446702007-07-22T20:12:00.000-07:002007-07-22T20:12:00.000-07:00Ever hear of our national obesitiy epidemic and it...<I>Ever hear of our national obesitiy epidemic and its effects on diabetes, heart disease etc?</I><BR/><BR/>I have heard vague rumors about it.<BR/><BR/><I>As an MD I could start my own blog about what makes Americans "Sick", and poor choices are way ahead of greedy HMOs.</I><BR/><BR/>Would it include Corporations marketing crap food laden with corn fructose twenty four hours a day, seven days a week? <BR/><BR/>Would it also include Land Developers who build neighborhoods without sidewalks or even shoulders in which it is practically impossible to go anywhere without driving?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73242364980782675092007-07-22T19:57:00.000-07:002007-07-22T19:57:00.000-07:00That would be "provoked" not "proved." My bad.Canu...That would be "provoked" not "proved." My bad.<BR/><BR/>Canuckistan BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25912472309408955962007-07-22T19:55:00.000-07:002007-07-22T19:55:00.000-07:00The point is that Michael Moore is not a journalis...The point is that Michael Moore is not a journalist, nor a documentarian, nor even a polemicist. He is a down & dirty propagandist, which is exactly what is needed right now, someone to get down and duke it out with O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc.<BR/><BR/>So he makes broad, simplistic arguments leavened with unfair juxtapositions and heavy-handed jeering humour (what he did to Alzheimer's-addled Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine was downright viscious). He pulls stupid clownish stunts (just try and go to Cuba and ask for medical treatment; and if you actually do get some, enjoy the quality).<BR/><BR/>So what? It's called propaganda, not reasoned discourse, and it is how elections are won in the real world.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, he is still far gentler, funnier, and much more intelligent than the Fox stable of frothing raving loonies. <BR/><BR/>He is also much more closely in tune with the working class/ blue collar NASCAR types that currently vote red, than the Democratic punditry, and, apoligies, libertarian thinkers like Dr. Brin. <BR/><BR/>You want to beat down the neocons? To echo Rumsfield, you have to go with the political opposition you have, not the one you want, and in that constellation Moore is pretty heavy artillery, god bless him.<BR/><BR/>(Oh, and comparing international medical care/ rationing systems is a very complex task, that you brushed through rather glibly and proved some of my countrymen to overreact. It's pretty clear that what Americans call "single payer" is the least bad system, but all the systems are so complex that it is easy to find an extreme example of almost anything good or bad that you want. In any case, the relationship between research spending and the mechanism financing care systems is murky at best.)<BR/><BR/>Canuckistan BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46912480699562885332007-07-22T19:42:00.000-07:002007-07-22T19:42:00.000-07:00Anon:I believe you will find a refinement to David...Anon:<BR/>I believe you will find a refinement to David's comment <A HREF="#c58964654328384351" REL="nofollow">here</A>, where he places the emphasis on non-standard procedures (those that are perhaps 'not in the scope of coverage'?). Not a retraction, perhaps, but a definitely a clarification.<BR/><BR/>In turn, I would suggest that it is 'extremely dishonest' to insinuate that(A)the need for 'correction' was demonstrated by you in the first place, and (B) no acknowledgment was given.<BR/><BR/>Adverbs can be as inflammatory as capitals.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81800501695180437832007-07-22T19:19:00.000-07:002007-07-22T19:19:00.000-07:00Aww, Don, I knew I could count on you.I would not ...Aww, Don, I knew I could count on you.<BR/>I would not mention Mr. Moore's physique except in the context of his most recent project. Ever hear of our national obesitiy epidemic and its effects on diabetes, heart disease etc?<BR/>As an MD I could start my own blog about what makes Americans "Sick", and poor choices are way ahead of greedy HMOs.<BR/><BR/>I was commenting on Kerry's shortcomings as a Democratic Pres. candidate. Really, the standard bearer for the Party of the People? I like Hillary better than Teresa.<BR/>And Kerry's record on things was marred by whether or not he was, or was not, or maybe was in favor or opposition to the Iraq war. Gutless. I much prefer Feingold. He is consistent. And he appears to have been right.<BR/>Hear that from conservatives very often Don?<BR/>Moore gets no more ink from me. I gave him as much credit as I could, he does see the issues of the day. He is just more interested in making money and publicity than solving any of them. And hardly anybody sues characters like Moore, it just feeds their publicity machines.<BR/>And, no, I do not care for him, but he enjoys the same First Amendment rights as you and I.<BR/>Tacitus2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75054029917410756512007-07-22T18:06:00.000-07:002007-07-22T18:06:00.000-07:00By co-incidence, I saw "Sicko" yesterday. A funny,...By co-incidence, I saw "Sicko" yesterday. A funny, relentless, and cringe-inducing polemic. I went in knowing where the holes were, but still managed to be impressed. And learned a lot. Well worth seeing, even if the guy who made it is "paunchy."<BR/><BR/>In one sequence, Moore describes -- and shows -- the AMA propaganda campaigns used to attack "socialized medicine" back in the 1950s. Real embarrassing red-scare stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75933527723228535162007-07-22T17:26:00.000-07:002007-07-22T17:26:00.000-07:00Brin, why have you not retracted your claim that C...Brin, why have you not retracted your claim that Canadian doctors need government permission to treat patients?<BR/><BR/>It's extremely dishonest to continue spreading false information after one has been corrected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78834335215600675632007-07-22T15:35:00.000-07:002007-07-22T15:35:00.000-07:00An ambivalent voting record, Ambivalent voting rec...<I>An ambivalent voting record,</I> <BR/><BR/>Ambivalent voting record? <A HREF="http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53306" REL="nofollow">Project Vote Smart - Senator Kerry - Interest Group Ratings</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004121M&sort=rating" REL="nofollow">Project Vote Smart - National Journal - Composite Liberal Score Ratings</A><BR/><BR/>When a Senator gets an 87% Liberal Rating from National Journal, you'll have to point out where you see the ambivalence...<BR/><BR/><I>a screechy ketchup heiress wife</I> <BR/>Cause Pat, Betty, Nancy, Barbara and Laura have been such delightful peaches...<BR/><BR/><I>2.Mr. Moore merits little attention from the serious.</I><BR/>Why not? Has he been found to be inaccurate in his reporting? If so please list those inaccuracies and the court cases that he has lost due to said inaccuracies.<BR/> <BR/><I> He is a paunchy</I><BR/>Him and a large percentage of the population,<BR/> <I>opportunist,</I><BR/>I thought America was about finding opportunity and taking advantage of it, so what is wrong about being an opportunist?<BR/><I>with journalistic ethics a couple of notches below those of his political isomers over at Fox.</I><BR/>I have yet to see him cheer a war in which he is not willing to participate, or to lie about the facts in any of his movies.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Give him credit where he deserves it though. Most serious politicians run and hide from real issues. Moore correctly, and somewhat courageously addresses them. The fact that his conclusions are almost invariably wrong does not entirely detract from this.</I><BR/><BR/>So basically you don't care for his conclusions, therefor he <B>merits little attention from the serious. He is a paunchy opportunist, with journalistic ethics a couple of notches below those of his political isomers over at Fox.</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84382606945411878282007-07-22T15:24:00.000-07:002007-07-22T15:24:00.000-07:00Oh, and I maintain that having the government dict...Oh, and I maintain that having the government dictate how good broadband should be is unneccessary and foolish. <BR/><BR/>By all means, break up the oligopolies and encourage competition, but don't lose faith in the market system altogether.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35543045985116520052007-07-22T15:16:00.000-07:002007-07-22T15:16:00.000-07:00Sorry, friend Zechariah, but your language is weig...<I>Sorry, friend Zechariah, but your language is weighted and freighted with unmerited and unquestioned assumptions. Forgive me, but this is an example of “ostrich” conservatism at its worst. Looking for an excuse to retain some vestigial loyalty to a “side” that has gone from grumpy to loony to insane to monstrous to outright treasonous in the last decade or so. <BR/><BR/>Um, my friend (and I mean that, so please stay!)</I><BR/><BR/>Citokate accepted, and yes, I'm still here. You're right that I couldn't name any actual legisaltion out of hand. I just listen to the republican debates and they mention specific programs that they would cut. However, during the republican debates I hear Ron Paul talk about cutting the Department of Education (so States have more control) and consistently voting against funding anything he doesn't think the government should fund. Then I get all starry eyed and hope maybe this guy could do it, but maybe I'm wrong.<BR/><BR/>I do know that not all republicans are as spendthrift as George Bush (and if you look at republican forums, a great many republicans dislike him for that reason). For example, I already knew that Mitt Romney helped resolve deficits in Massachusetts and at the Salt Lake games (although I don't like him so much, just for being a flip-flopper)sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91764329794405718952007-07-22T14:11:00.000-07:002007-07-22T14:11:00.000-07:00MY private insurance doctor (at Kaiser)So are we c...<I>MY private insurance doctor (at Kaiser)</I><BR/><BR/>So are we comparing the health care that you, a reasonably well-off citizen fortunate enough to score health care and presumably not in imminent danger of losing it, get against the health care that every Canadian or French citizen gets? Don't you think that's at least a tad disingenuous?<BR/><BR/>If you were in a system that provided universal healthcare, and didn't like the rationing, you're in a position to leap across the border or purchase supplemental insurance or whatever--the exact mechanics depend on how the plan is implemented. The upshot, however, is that you get better care than at least (almost certainly more than) fifty million other Americans, and under a UHC plan, you would also get better care than at least (almost certainly more than) fifty million Americans. Your privilege is safe. Honest.<BR/><BR/><I>Moreover, I have never given you guys ANY excuse for your turgid, unjustified and downright lying attempt to put works in my mouth, that I am defending golden parachute insurance company CEOs.</I><BR/><BR/>You feel that I'm out of line, I see. You were defending the current system by listing some ways in which it's better than a single-payer system. These are bog-standard talking points for insurance company shills, which don't stand up to the merest investigation. If you don't have an interest in keeping HMO execs rolling in hookers 'n' blow, then what's your excuse for spitting back talking points when you should know better?<BR/><BR/><I>(Cheating/lying CEOs who I've attacked FAR more effectively than you ever have.)</I><BR/><BR/>Must we now display credentials before we can criticize you? It's, I'm told, the only antidote to error--and you've made some.<BR/><BR/><I>What fascinates me here is how guys can skim a lengthy missive like mine (above) and leap to shriek at the strawman that they think they see...</I><BR/><BR/>It's quite possible, even probable, that I've misread you. I've explain how I derived my conclusions from what you've written; if you'd like to explain how they're wrong, please do so; I would appreciate it if you did more than assert that they're made of straw.<BR/><BR/>And yes, if I see something that I disagree with, I'm going to reply to it; are you suggesting that I quote the rest of the article and add "I agree" after each paragraph?<BR/><BR/><I>Dig it, my attacks on the neocons are VASTLY more fierce than my kid glove cautions toward Michael Moore.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, whoopty-do. You're still wrong.<BR/><BR/>Look, if it'll help you listen to me, I don't think Moore is always right. I think his style is abrasive and frequently smarmy; I think this drowns out the good points he makes, and leads to him preaching to the choir rather than reaching a wider audience.<BR/><BR/>I said it before, but maybe it got lost in the shuffle: I'm sure there are good points to be made about the downsides of universal healthcare. However, the ones you're making seem to be drawn from the sort of nonsense being spit out by the likes of Dr. Sanjay Gupta at CNN. If you have good points to be made, I can't see 'em.<BR/><BR/>Simply contradicting what the other person says isn't skepticism; it's silliness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79515291361417567722007-07-22T13:52:00.000-07:002007-07-22T13:52:00.000-07:00David, you have stirred em up today.1. regards col...David, you have stirred em up today.<BR/>1. regards colonoscopy, you can eschew meds if you desire. Me, I said yes to drugs and dropped out of the time space continuum for about half an hour. President Bush is pretty much damned either way on this one. Either invoke a silly but technically accurate rule and be mocked, or take all kinds of crap for putting Evil Uncle Dick in charge for a while without informing us.<BR/>2.Mr. Moore merits little attention from the serious. He is a paunchy opportunist, with journalistic ethics a couple of notches below those of his political isomers over at Fox. Give him credit where he deserves it though. Most serious politicians run and hide from real issues. Moore correctly, and somewhat courageously addresses them. The fact that his conclusions are almost invariably wrong does not entirely detract from this.<BR/>3. I concur, it was unfair to take Kerry to task for embelishing his war record. It is a perogative of all old soldiers so to do. It became an issue because the DFL, in its usual tin eared style, decided that a heroic soldierboy was just the thing to run against W. He was a poor candidate in so many ways. An ambivalent voting record, a screechy ketchup heiress wife, an apparent JFK fetish. Who knows what mischief he would have gotten into were he elected on a platform of being a better soldier than the Pride of the Texas Airforce? (save your screeds, he would not, most likely, have done worse)<BR/>Lets come up with a couple of better candidates this time, so I can put to rest MY midnight fear, that the country has become something that NO politician can effectively run.<BR/>Tacitus2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54608417820325559542007-07-22T12:43:00.000-07:002007-07-22T12:43:00.000-07:00No, Don, YOU are the one who does not get it. It ...No, Don, YOU are the one who does not get it. <BR/><BR/>It is plain, in black and white, that I do not claim "equivalency"... so plain that your use of that word constitutes and open and outright, deliberate lie. A knowing and dastardly lie.<BR/><BR/>I call it that directly, with no allowance for error and telling it to your face that it is a deliberate act. You know very well that I have made EXTREMELY clear the difference in both quality and quantitative scale that makes the movements very very different...<BR/><BR/>...one of them a direct threat to all of us and all of civilization...<BR/><BR/>...and the other filled with good people and good intentions, yet also displaying faults that<BR/><BR/>1) ONLY HURT ITS CREDIBLE ABILITY TO RESCUE US FROM MONSTERS (surely something warranting criticism)<BR/><BR/>2) Remind us that incipient dogmatic madness lurks in ALL directions! And I refuse to take my wary eye away from dogmatists who are on "my side"... simply because they are on "my side."<BR/><BR/>Dig it. HOW DO YOU THING GOLDWATER CONSERVATISM GOT TAKEN OVER BY MAD DEOCONS?<BR/><BR/>They did it step by step, by tweaking the definitions of conservatism and ensuring that no internal critics could ever get away with pointing out the progressive gogmatic creep...<BR/><BR/>Just as you are trying to do to me.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ask any reasonable person out there. I rage at the monsters and give them 99.99% of my heat. But I turn my skeptical eye toward ALL would-be prescribers. All "sides." It is what a sane (and I mean that) member of Enlightenment civilization ought to do.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25443050102129540562007-07-22T12:20:00.000-07:002007-07-22T12:20:00.000-07:00The problem Dr Brin is that you are incapable of w...The problem Dr Brin is that you are incapable of writing a post that rightfully trashes the Bush Administration and the Republicans without doing a "but on the other hand" the Democrats or the left have committed some minor sin. You keep looking for equivalency, but there isn't any.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-589646543283843512007-07-22T11:56:00.000-07:002007-07-22T11:56:00.000-07:00I see I provoked some screeches, so let's get pers...I see I provoked some screeches, so let's get perspective, here. MY private insurance doctor (at Kaiser) is no more required to get permission from his company's bureaucrats, for routine treatment, than a Canadian doctor is. Not even remotely. The company does not want the added cost of answering phone calls about bandaids, and neither do govt single payer bureaucrats.<BR/><BR/>The issues arise when more expensive procedures and tests appear at the boundaries of routine. And here, doctors face supervisors, looking over their shoulders, in BOTH systems.<BR/><BR/>Only, in most government systems, (for sure in France... and even in Oregon!) government committees actually ration how many - say - quadruple bypass operations shall be performed per yer. They set limits to the age of patients who may get these procedures and do calculations of "quality of remaining years of life" in order to estimate whether the patient's added years, multiplied by some imrpovement factor, justify the expense.<BR/><BR/>Past a certain age, you can kiss expensive procedures goodbye.<BR/><BR/>Unpleasant? Grow up and live with the fact that the alternative system is NOT perfect! In fact, it has many ways that it's nasty and officious and dismally awful.<BR/><BR/>Is it still better than the US system? Sure! By far . Moreover, I have never given you guys ANY excuse for your turgid, unjustified and downright lying attempt to put works in my mouth, that I am defending golden parachute insurance company CEOs. (Cheating/lying CEOs who I've attacked FAR more effectively than you ever have.)<BR/><BR/>What fascinates me here is how guys can skim a lengthy missive like mine (above) and leap to shriek at the strawman that they think they see...<BR/><BR/>...while perfectly illustrating my point about simplistic factions being unable to see complexity in any issue. <BR/><BR/>Dig it, my attacks on the neocons are VASTLY more fierce than my kid glove cautions toward Michael Moore. Your inability to ponder the mild faults of your own side... faults that HURT the credibility of your own side and its pragmatic ability to succeed... only show that you are prey to the same FUNDAMENTAL ETHICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FLAWS AS THE NEOCONS.<BR/><BR/>You are obsessed with "sides." <BR/><BR/>I am obsessed with problem solving. And I have never, ever seen a "side" that had a monopoly on wisdom.<BR/><BR/>Down with monopolies.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2730934407746394052007-07-22T11:17:00.000-07:002007-07-22T11:17:00.000-07:00As another Canadian, echoing the first comment in ...As another Canadian, echoing the first comment in this thread, are you high? Canadian doctors do not go through a "getting approval" phase of any kind whatsoever. They see the patient, they recommend the treatment, make referrals, etc. The only personal they consult is you, the patient.<BR/><BR/>We actually do not wait six months up to our necks in pigshit just to get a bandaid up here! No, there is no nefarious health Politburo who has to "O.K." what doctors decide to do. Doctors *are* the authorities in this system.<BR/><BR/>Sheesh! Just because it seems <I>logical</I> to you that governmental single-payers must exert bureaucratic control over every transaction in a socialized medical system, doesn't make it <I>true!</I> You logic is more based on outdated red-scare cold-war tribalism than anything corresponding to reality in other countries outside the "Home Team USA" cult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24732569023511901522007-07-22T08:14:00.000-07:002007-07-22T08:14:00.000-07:00(4) Elaborating on that. At least if you hate your...<I>(4) Elaborating on that. At least if you hate your insurance bureaucrats, you can try another company. Government bureaucrats have a monopoly on their rationing power. Is that automatically good?</I><BR/><BR/>Are you aware that citizens of many nations with free universal health care can purchase supplemental health insurance if they so desire? And given that most people get their insurance through their job--indeed, it's used as a tool to keep people in jobs they hate and in which they're treated poorly--you're essentially saying "At least if you hate your insurance bureaucrats, you can get another job." Ponder <I>that</I>.<BR/><BR/>In any case, while there are clearly flaws in every system, it's disingenuous at best to pretend that there's any sort of debate over whether or not universal health care is a good idea. The extra money that you're so fond of ends up going largely into the pockets of insurance companies--glorified middlemen. There's no reason to assume that taking money away from these leeches is going to also take it away from much-needed research. If you're so concerned about research funding in this country, perhaps you should be more concerned that much of the money that should be funding it is instead funding hookers 'n' blow for high-paid insurance execs.<BR/><BR/>But perhaps I'm being too hasty. Can you explain how billion-dollar golden parachutes for executives and shamefully high infant mortality rates for the rest of us are good things? Because you haven't said that there's a way to retain the high research funding while ameliorating those problems, and so I'm forced to assume that you consider them regrettable but necessary.<BR/><BR/>I'd be all for it if you were bringing up interesting points, but you're just repeating the right-wing talking points you claim to have understood and rejected--bureaucrats rather than doctors will make your treatment decisions, R&D funding will dry up, and Michael Moore's films contain about ten percent "bullshit". Perhaps you'd like to consult with Dr. Sanjay Gupta on that last point?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86188161887634219522007-07-22T05:55:00.000-07:002007-07-22T05:55:00.000-07:00Dr Brin,I think that you should stop your little g...Dr Brin,<BR/><BR/>I think that you should stop your little game of finding flaws in our great right-wing leaders and their policies and then for the sake of balance, bashing a so called "lefties" like "Michael Moore". It is insulting to your readers intelligence and to your "lefty" victim to be compared to any member of the current ruling elite of this country.<BR/><BR/>I put "lefty" in quotes in that most of the lefties that you pick on are basically centrist who believe in treating people with a modicum of decency, paying them a fair wage for an honest day's work and not letting unscrupulous businesses rip them of left and right.<BR/><BR/>If this is the definition of lefty, then this country has moved so far to the right that it's getting exactly what it deserves.<BR/><BR/>Now as far as Medical research goes:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/fundscience/abstracts.htm#koizumi" REL="nofollow"> In FY 1999, NIH funding reached $15 billion.</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/fundscience/abstracts.htm#spilker" REL="nofollow"> R&D investments by research-based pharmaceutical companies have grown tremendously over the last two decades, from $2.0 billion in 1980 to an estimated $21.1 billion in 1998. Approximately 36 percent of the world’s private-sector pharmaceutical R&D is carried out in the United States, and U.S. firms hold approximately 33 percent of the worldwide commercial market.</A><BR/><BR/>Uncle Sam pays for the basic research and then the leaches at PHaRMA use this research to create some drugs and invent new diseases like "restless leg syndrome" or "social anxiety syndrome" to market more useless crap to the American Public.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33751565246999046602007-07-22T00:51:00.000-07:002007-07-22T00:51:00.000-07:00[i](Canadian doctors have to) get on the phone and...[i](Canadian doctors have to) get on the phone and get permission from some GOVERNMENT bureaucrat, in order to get approval to treat you![/i]<BR/><BR/>WTF are you talking about?<BR/><BR/>Canadian doctors do not require government approval to render any treatment they and their patients deem necessary. If a treatment or procedure is within the scope of coverage (dental care, vision correction, among other things, aren't covered), it will be covered, no questions asked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com