Krugman Poll on Canadian Healthcare

[Meister]

Quite honestly I don't give a fuck about your experience, your opinion, what you think about people who usually disagree with media polling or who you have talked to.

Wow, that was rude, but more importantly counter-productive. Shame on you Jay.

just being honest I don't appreciate being compared to the likes of Glenn Beck because someone disagrees with my opinion.

I would never compare you to Glenn Beck, I would compare your sorry ass to a moron.
I've done my trolling for the day

 

[mskafka]

Most polls are fairly accurate? - neato!..... and that's good enough for you but for me I don't have the proof that media polls are conducted using scientific methodologies . Oh and at least in my experience the people who agree with the accuracy of the media polls are the ones who agree with the conclusions.

Statisticians and mathematicians verify the soundness of methodologies of pollsters. Polls generally are pretty simple constructs. When the polls are released, they are usually accompanied by the study and the methodologies. The ABC/Washington Post polls are considered to be fairly rigorous.

Its generally been my experience that people without a background in statistics and who disagree with the conclusions are the ones who question the polls. That is to be expected. Usually the people who disagree with polls are on the Right and think the mainstream media is conspiring against them. They generally agree with the likes of Glen Beck. That is whom you are casting your lot with, FWIW.

It is also my experience talking to Americans about this issue over the years that the poll is a fairly accurate reflection of how Americans feel about health care.

An absurd as well as untrue cartoon.

really... so why are the insurance companies in business - for profit or to help U.S citizens out?

Let's not obfuscate.

Article was about profit.

The cartoon was untrue and misleading.

The idea of profitless-society, the emblem of leftist thinking is remarkable in that you
1. do not understand human nature

2. fail to see capitalism as the locomotive that has moved civilization from feudalism to modern societies and democracy.

3. probably still believe "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" even though it has failed and led to heinous systems everywhere it has been tried

4. probably have not studied the Stakhanovite Movement of 1935, in which the Soviet systme found that rewarding extra work was far more efficient than the "from each...." system.

And "for profit or to help U.S citizens" is one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. It does both.

The larger question: do you deny that 1. Governement estimates of costs historically go to 8 to 10 times in cost overruns, 2. universal healthcare systems are famous for rationing of care and reducing access.

so I take it that you will no longer need these services - mail, garbage collection, library, school, police and firemen since they are not for profit either?[/QUOTE

No, in some peoples' minds, everything should be for profit. Can you imagine? 911 for profit. If you subscribe, "we will dispatch fire to your house if it catches ablaze". for only $50.00 per month. The cost of a latte a day.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Wow, that was rude, but more importantly counter-productive. Shame on you Jay.

just being honest I don't appreciate being compared to the likes of Glenn Beck because someone disagrees with my opinion.

I would never compare you to Glenn Beck, I would compare your sorry ass to a moron.
I've done my trolling for the day

not another poster who thinks I care what they have to say!......at least this one knows it's a troll.

 

[Bfgrn]

“Another key administration figure… is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff…”is one of those responsible for inserting into the “healthcare bill” the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of ‘social justice,’ and the society as a whole.
CPN - Tools


Dr. Emanuel says that the usual recommendations for cutting costs (often urged by President Obama) are window dressing: "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records, and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." (Health Affairs, February 27, 2008.)

True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Defend Your Health Care

Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted. "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy...physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)
By far, the most dangerous misconception in Washington is that the way to rein in health spending is by slowing the development and use of new technology. Imagine any industry or nation thriving on such a philosophy. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."
Defend Your Health Care

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.
DEADLY DOCTORS - New York Post

And, to see what American 'healthcare' would look like under these prescriptions:
LONDON, July 31, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a case that is being hailed as a victory for proponents of assisted suicide, Britain's Law Lords have ruled that the public prosecutors must "clarify" current law on the issue. The House of Lords judicial committee ruled yesterday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales must issue "guidance" on when and in what circumstances the law making it a criminal offense to assist suicide will be prosecuted.
Britain's Law Lords Rule in Favor of Assisted Suicide Seeker

And so we note that once again leftists and their dupes are never able to 'connect the dots' to see where their plans would lead, and are quick with the ubiquitous term 'lies' for any that disagree, or show them to be the dissemblers that they are.

I challenge the dupe who wrote the post to deny any of the material, and therefore to accept that the major 'cost savings' envisioned is in the denial of technology and pharmaceutical aid to the sick and the old.

WOW PC...you continue to post the same GARBAGE that I have debunked...

You really are the most disingenuous person on this board... you post TOTAL lies, promote them as undeniable truths and then spout condescending bluster...

You couldn't POSSIBLY have READ any of the articles written by Dr. Emanuel that your scum bag sources have hacked up with the express purpose of to portraying a twisted and most often OPPOSITE view of the man's beliefs...it really is amazing just how scummy and unscrupulous you right wingers are...TRUTH is not even a consideration in your piles of GARBAGE...

Wow, looks like I hit a nerve.

Exactly my intention.

That's what happens when one calls a 'dupe' a 'dupe.'

I note that, aside from the vitupertion, you were not able to deny any of the documented quotes form your champion, Dr. Emanuel.

Should it be necessary, I can do the same for Dr. Blumenthal, another of those involved in the administrations 'healthcare' proposals.

Your spinning out of control must be one of the side effects of the public turning on the proposals.

But, I'm sure the good Dr. Emanuel has some 'special' pills to calm you down.

So, let's review:

1. Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care.

2. [Doctors] should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere.

3. Dr. Emanuel also blames high U.S. spending on standards Americans take for granted.

4. Dr. Emanuel criticizes Americans for being "enamored with technology."

5. Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...

6. ...not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

7. He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years"

8. ...rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiques—one thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care…”

It is my fondest hope that those on the left will recover from the dementia that requires them to spout talking points that, actually, work to their own detriment.

But, you are right in line with other libs who know better what is good for the rest of us, kind of like this:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

PC, you have the right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts...

I will ask you one question...did you READ this?

http://www.ipalc.org/Healthcare_Policy/The%20Perfect%20Storm%20of%20Overutilization%20%28JAMA%202008%29.pdf

You're facing a huge dilemma PC...I investigate your right wing hit pieces...If you didn't read it, you're mindlessly spreading the false, fear mongering right wing propaganda of the insurance and pharma corporations that want to kill health care reform...if you did read it, you have a major comprehension problem...

So PC, WHICH is it?

 

[Toro]

Quite honestly I don't give a fuck about your experience, your opinion, what you think about people who usually disagree with media polling or who you have talked to.

Wow, that was rude, but more importantly counter-productive. Shame on you Jay.

just being honest I don't appreciate being compared to the likes of Glenn Beck because someone disagrees with my opinion.

I didn't compare you to Glen Beck. I compared you to the people who agree with Glen Beck.

Whether or not you care or agree about my opinion is irrelevant. It is not about opinion. It is about math and statistical sampling. And you are simply wrong.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Wow, that was rude, but more importantly counter-productive. Shame on you Jay.

just being honest I don't appreciate being compared to the likes of Glenn Beck because someone disagrees with my opinion.

I didn't compare you to Glen Beck. I compared you to the people who agree with Glen Beck.

Whether or not you care or agree about my opinion is irrelevant. It is not about opinion. It is about math and statistical sampling. And you are simply wrong.

the day you can prove that the opinions of 1000 people on a media call list = the overall opinion of all us citizens on a subject I will agree with you.... until then I say you are the one that is wrong.

 

[Meister]

just being honest I don't appreciate being compared to the likes of Glenn Beck because someone disagrees with my opinion.

I would never compare you to Glenn Beck, I would compare your sorry ass to a moron.
I've done my trolling for the day

not another poster who thinks I care what they have to say!......at least this one knows it's a troll.

canuk...at least I admit when I'm trolling, you've been doing it for the last 2 days.

 

[Toro]

the day you can prove that the opinions of 1000 people on a media call list = the overall opinion of all us citizens on a subject I will agree with you.... until then I say you are the one that is wrong.

My guess is that math isn't your strong suit.

Best Estimates: A Guide to Sample Size and Margin of Error | Public Agenda

All you have to do is see how polls have predicted the outcome of an event. These are the Presidential polls just before the election. They are all a national sample of about 1000 people with a sample error of 3%, 19 times out of 20. As you can see here, most of the polls were either within the standard error or within 1% of the standard error.

Poll Average: Barack Obama vs. John McCain 2008

Here is the math on polling. It explains how 1,000 people can be an accurate reflection of a population of 200 million.

http://flightline.highline.edu/hburn/Math 210/Course Docs/Polling.ppt

Do you live in America? Have you ever lived in America?

 

[mskafka]

"1. Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care."

I'm trying to find a video of Dr. Emanuel actually speaking this. Links anyone?

From what I've read, Dr. Emanuel is saying that physicians take the hippocratic oath too seriously. And I also understood him to say that for this reason, doctors are overtreating their patients. Yes, and no. Doctors respect the Hippocratic Oath and they do overtreat patients. And this is because they are trying to avoid a lawsuit. If a doctor misses something during his assessment, someone will have his head on a platter. I don't think that it's because they take the oath too seriously. "First do no harm", is what is commonly quoted as the oath, though the actual oath is much longer.

I want to think that what he means, is that doctors are overburdened and stressed, and that a return to the days when unnecessary tests weren't being conducted would be easier and better for everyone involved. Medicine was once practiced this way. Sometimes, doing too much can do more harm than good. Multiple attempts at IV access, too many unsuccessful intubation attempts by one provider before passing the ball. If a 35 year old woman goes to the emergency room with abdominal pain, her abdominal issues will not only be explored, but she will get a 12-lead EKG to rule out a heart attack. Granted women don't always present with a heart attack in the typical way. But nothing is left to chance.

Physicians should be able to relax a bit, and not worry about everyone suing them. This is one of the biggest causes of healthcare costs. I don't think that there was sinister meaning behind Dr. Emanuel's statement. Maybe it wasn't the point that he was trying to convey.

I have started many IV's on people who didn't need them, because it is the standard of care, and it is the protocol for that particular patient's complaint. We will be 99.9% sure that the patient doesn't have the problem that we have narrowed down in our minds. But if we don't "stay the course" and do everything possible to rule it out.....lawsuit.

Make the laws so that it is more difficult to sue for malpractice, and not all, but some of the problems would resolve themselves.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Exactly.

Jay....answer a question for me if you will....is it true it is against the law to purchase private healthcare Ins. in Canada....and if it is yes why?....

you can buy extra insurance if you feel you need extra coverage.

thanks for answering Jay.....

 

[GWV5903]

Funny you would use WW II as an example

Why is that "funny"? It was a "socialist" Democrat (Roosevelt) who won it for us.

if you think Europe is fixed your really drinking too much of the Obama Kool Aid

It WAS fixed by the US Government after WW2. What they did with it afterwards was not up to us.

Hoover Dam, constructing highways.. are a far cry from who decides my health care choices

You're absolutely right. Doing those things was much more difficult than running a public health insurance option would be.

Your right about Roosevelt being a socialist, but it was Truman who ended WW II, get your FACTS straight, leave your emotions at home....

You&#8217;re too naive & emotional to debate this with, when they can deliver this with FACTS that it will cost less and continue offering leading edge medicine, then and only then will you have something, until then wake up.......

 

[Vast LWC]

but it was Truman who ended WW II, get your FACTS straight, leave your emotions at home

Hmm perhaps you should read what I wrote before you correct me. I said:

(Roosevelt) who won it for us.

Not: (Roosevelt) who ended it for us

See the difference there? Take your own advice and get your facts straight. Oh and....

You&#8217;re too naive & emotional to debate this with

Once again, the typical Neo-Con response, when confronted with an actual response to your foolishness (instead of some sycophant agreeing with you)...

you insult your opponent, latch on to some meaningless semantic argument, and imply that they're unintelligent (or "naive" in your case) because they don't see things your way.

So typical. Sigh.

 

[Vast LWC]

MSK, you said:

Make the laws so that it is more difficult to sue for malpractice, and not all, but some of the problems would resolve themselves.

While I agree that frivolous lawsuits have in fact gotten out of control in our society, Congress did in fact pass Tort Reform a few years back, and it changed nothing.

 

[Vast LWC]

All you have to do is see how polls have predicted the outcome of an event.

While I agree with the math, there is always the one flaw in polling: that it depends entirely on the sample being completely random.

There are differences, beyond the margin of error, from one poll to the next, as anyone can see just by going to RealClearPolitics.

But aside from these fluctuations, I agree the polls are rarely beyond outside of the MOA in most circumstances, and therefore generally reliable.

 

[Meister]

but it was Truman who ended WW II, get your FACTS straight, leave your emotions at home

Hmm perhaps you should read what I wrote before you correct me. I said:

(Roosevelt) who won it for us.

Not: (Roosevelt) who ended it for us

See the difference there? Take your own advice and get your facts straight. Oh and....

You’re too naive & emotional to debate this with

Once again, the typical Neo-Con response, when confronted with an actual response to your foolishness (instead of some sycophant agreeing with you)...

you insult your opponent, latch on to some meaningless semantic argument, and imply that they're unintelligent (or "naive" in your case) because they don't see things your way.

So typical. Sigh.

Roosevelt was not the president when the war was won, and you trying to spin it is an Epic Fail. Truman gave the order to drop the bombs, and that is when we won the war.You have brought nothing to this thread but your emotional tripe without the facts. The previous poster made some good poionts which you just refute with no more than emotional opinions.
Try looking up the the definition of Neo-Con.....because you have no idea what it means. I will give you a clue though.....it doesn't mean everyone that doesn't agree with you.

 

[mskafka]

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

“…when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.”
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)”
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth


Enlightened?

no I'm not....and nobody else should be either when you are citing a poll conducted on less than 5000 people on a media call list like it's a real indicator of how all Americans feel....... ABC - they should stick to T.V shows like Full House

Thank you for carefully observing rules #2, 3, 4, and 9 of the Liberal Libretto

Through skillful machinations, I was able to get my hands on the (apocryphal) “Liberal Libretto”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky.
Actually, I pointed over a libs shoulder and shouted ‘watch out’ and grabbed the book.

Here is the full set for you to review.

1. Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.

2. Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”
b. Claim the public has been ‘brainwashed,’ and politicians bought.

4. Be sure to you carry your ‘concern’ as though it was a hypodermic needle, but one filled with poison. Furrow your brow, look vaguely sad, (think Leon Panetta) but watch for opportunities to stab, to use abusive language, using your (imagined) superiority to allow you to do violence to the reputation of those who have alternative views.

5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “ I’m only interested in discourse.”

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’

7. Never, never criticize in any way any government or movement that is totalitarian, homicidal or anti-American.
a. Claim to idolize despots and tyrants. But always state how their people love them.
b. The corollary applies: never support traditional American values. Important terms: imperialist, oppressor
c. Deny atrocities by tyrants. If not possible, explain they were necessary. Finally, justify them, and, show how America was ultimately at fault.
d. Support government officials and appointees.
I. This does not apply to uniformed government employees such as police or military.

8. Remember to spend appropriate time in front of the mirror practicing outrage, shock, and disbelief, or, and best, a sarcastic sneer.

9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them.

10. Remember the gullible and grumbling always identify with vague terms like ‘hope’ ‘change’ ‘new’ ‘empathy’ and ‘better.’


Both Saul, and, I'm sure, the Public School Education System, are very, very proud of you.

Again I'll ask you, Chic: Are you yourself of the proleteriat, or are you among those who know "what's best" for the proleteriat?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many Americans don't have healthcare at all?
How many Americans are happy with the healthcare they have?

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

“…when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.”
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)”
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth


Enlightened?

Chic, who are the "hard-core" uninsured? What are the characteristics of a hard-core uninsured individual?

Persons under age 65
Number uninsured at the time of interview: 43.6 million (2008)
cdc.gov

I have a feeling that I know what your rebuttal will be, so let me have it.

Long time no see.

Did you see my note to you re: the Kafkaesque " The Monster of Florence,"? By Spezi.

Now, as far as the uninsured.
1. The bogus figure tossed around by your side is conflated with
a) those who are currently eligible for programs in which they have not bothered to enroll,
b) those wealthy enough (over $75K) to purchase their own health insurance
c) the critierion to make the list is to be without healthcare for even a short period during the reporting year, say if you have changed jobs.

The figure for the unfortunate who have serious illnesses which are not fully covered, and the illegal population is a fraction of the "47 million," and is probably between 8 and 15 million. We must continue to provide healthcare for every individual within our borders, as we do currently.

And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system.

For Conservatives, data informs policy. Therefore it is incumbant upon those wishing to make a substantive case for your plan to determine the costs of aiding these two groups, and comparaing that cost to the cost of ObamaCare.

Experience has shown that cost overruns on these healthcare programs is approximately 8 to 10 times the estimates, so the advertized price of $1.4-1.6 trillion is probably $14 to 16 trillion.
"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate...In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's "
Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online

My suspicion is that the 5 or 6 suggestions that I have made in the past, and would be willing to review for you, would reduce the costs and maintain the system that "...82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."

Based on the above figures, desire for change in the healthcare system is ideological, and not medical nor consumer driven.


Further, the a posteriori evidence of every 'universal healthcare' scheme is that there is a reduction in access, and a rationing of care. (Canada, UK, Massachusetts, Tennessee, For starts.) This alone should obviate any desires on the part of thinking individuals for said program.

Summary: unless you can show the total figure for aiding the chronically uninsured and the illegal population, and indicate the savings that would be the result of destroying a systmem which is clearly (polls) preferred, you have no winning argument outside of the political.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Statisticians and mathematicians verify the soundness of methodologies of pollsters. Polls generally are pretty simple constructs. When the polls are released, they are usually accompanied by the study and the methodologies. The ABC/Washington Post polls are considered to be fairly rigorous.

Its generally been my experience that people without a background in statistics and who disagree with the conclusions are the ones who question the polls. That is to be expected. Usually the people who disagree with polls are on the Right and think the mainstream media is conspiring against them. They generally agree with the likes of Glen Beck. That is whom you are casting your lot with, FWIW.

It is also my experience talking to Americans about this issue over the years that the poll is a fairly accurate reflection of how Americans feel about health care.

Let's not obfuscate.

Article was about profit.

The cartoon was untrue and misleading.

The idea of profitless-society, the emblem of leftist thinking is remarkable in that you
1. do not understand human nature

2. fail to see capitalism as the locomotive that has moved civilization from feudalism to modern societies and democracy.

3. probably still believe "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" even though it has failed and led to heinous systems everywhere it has been tried

4. probably have not studied the Stakhanovite Movement of 1935, in which the Soviet systme found that rewarding extra work was far more efficient than the "from each...." system.

And "for profit or to help U.S citizens" is one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. It does both.

The larger question: do you deny that 1. Governement estimates of costs historically go to 8 to 10 times in cost overruns, 2. universal healthcare systems are famous for rationing of care and reducing access.

so I take it that you will no longer need these services - mail, garbage collection, library, school, police and firemen since they are not for profit either?[/QUOTE

No, in some peoples' minds, everything should be for profit. Can you imagine? 911 for profit. If you subscribe, "we will dispatch fire to your house if it catches ablaze". for only $50.00 per month. The cost of a latte a day.

I do my best to be kind, and overlook many of the glaring flaws in your abilty to conduct a logical debate, or discussion, but I must say that you bring to mind the famous quote by Frank Norris:
"...self-centered in opinion, with curious lacunae of astounding ignorance"


Now, in your ken or experience, which of the following are carried out by un-paid volunteers who act in accordance with "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"?
" mail, garbage collection, library, school, police and firemen since they are not for profit either..."

 

[auditor0007]

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

“…when one digs deep enough, one finds that only 8 million folks can be classified as "chronically uninsured;" that's still a problem, of course, but a much more manageable one, and puts the lie to the canard that our system is irretrievably broken.”
InsureBlog: Vindicated!

“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)”
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth


Enlightened?

Chic, who are the "hard-core" uninsured? What are the characteristics of a hard-core uninsured individual?

Persons under age 65
Number uninsured at the time of interview: 43.6 million (2008)
cdc.gov

I have a feeling that I know what your rebuttal will be, so let me have it.

Long time no see.

Did you see my note to you re: the Kafkaesque " The Monster of Florence,"? By Spezi.

Now, as far as the uninsured.
1. The bogus figure tossed around by your side is conflated with
a) those who are currently eligible for programs in which they have not bothered to enroll,
b) those wealthy enough (over $75K) to purchase their own health insurance
c) the critierion to make the list is to be without healthcare for even a short period during the reporting year, say if you have changed jobs.

The figure for the unfortunate who have serious illnesses which are not fully covered, and the illegal population is a fraction of the "47 million," and is probably between 8 and 15 million. We must continue to provide healthcare for every individual within our borders, as we do currently.

And recall, the healthcare providers have already agreed to dispense with the 'pre-existing conditions' requirement, without changes to the law. This alone inveighs against scraping the current system.

For Conservatives, data informs policy. Therefore it is incumbant upon those wishing to make a substantive case for your plan to determine the costs of aiding these two groups, and comparaing that cost to the cost of ObamaCare.

Experience has shown that cost overruns on these healthcare programs is approximately 8 to 10 times the estimates, so the advertized price of $1.4-1.6 trillion is probably $14 to 16 trillion.
"In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate...In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's "
Doug Bandow on Medicare on National Review Online

My suspicion is that the 5 or 6 suggestions that I have made in the past, and would be willing to review for you, would reduce the costs and maintain the system that "...82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."

Based on the above figures, desire for change in the healthcare system is ideological, and not medical nor consumer driven.


Further, the a posteriori evidence of every 'universal healthcare' scheme is that there is a reduction in access, and a rationing of care. (Canada, UK, Massachusetts, Tennessee, For starts.) This alone should obviate any desires on the part of thinking individuals for said program.

Summary: unless you can show the total figure for aiding the chronically uninsured and the illegal population, and indicate the savings that would be the result of destroying a systmem which is clearly (polls) preferred, you have no winning argument outside of the political.

Here's the problem PC. While the vast majority of Americans are happy with their current healthcare, that will not exist within ten years as prices double again. Employers will not be able to continue carrying the load and this system will collapse. That is not saying that having the government run things would be better.

The biggest problem is that the argument of "it not being broken, so why fix it" is the ideology that will eventually lead to full government control and rationing as the cost surpasses our ability to pay. On top of this, more and more people will be forced out of the system.

Under the current system, if you lose your job and have a pre-existing condition, you can only get coverage through an employer plan, and if you are out of work long enough, then you have a one year wait on those pre-existing conditions. While insurance companies have said they will remove the constraints for those with pre-existing conditions, this is in reality a fallacy, because they will charge such a high premium that coverage will be unaffordable to all but the very few who find themselves in this position.

And here is another problem. What happens to the individual who has insurance through their employer, but becomes sick and then loses their job. Without a steady income due to their being sick, they can't afford Cobra, and even if they can, if the illness is extended, Cobra runs out. Then they are left to lose every asset they have worked for throughout their life before Medicaid will kick in. And for Medicaid to kick in, you have to be dirt poor.

Most people never find themselves in this situation, but for those who do, we make sure that there is no hope or way out for them. There are answers and solutions. The problem is that all we hear is that the current system is fine and everyone is happy with their healthcare now, so why change it? It has to be changed because the fact is that while it currently costs employers around $12,000 per year to cover a family of four, that cost is going to double to $24,000 per year within the next ten years. Again, this is unsustainable, and until everyone understands this, there will be more and more pressure to move toward a single payer government run system.

So if you want to discuss the real problems and how they can be solved, please do. But continuing on with the argument that all is well is not going to hold much longer.

 

[Vast LWC]

Roosevelt was not the president when the war was won, and you trying to spin it is an Epic Fail. Truman gave the order to drop the bombs, and that is when we won the war.

Anyone who knows anything about World War II knows that the war was effectively won by the time Truman decided to drop the bombs on Japan. Truman's decision was OBVIOUSLY not the turning point that won the war for the allies. Thus the phrase "Roosevelt won World War II" is entirely accurate.

Trying to prove some ridiculous semantic point makes you the "spinner", not me. Thanks for playing though.

You have brought nothing to this thread but your emotional tripe without the facts.

The only thing you sir have contributed to this thread are insults directed at me, and an attempt to somehow paint me as "emotional". I can assure you that I am far from "emotional" when I write these posts.

The previous poster made some good poionts which you just refute with no more than emotional opinions.

Which previous poster would that be? Political Chic? Which point was that, that I was refuting? Her list of insults of liberals? That was a "good point"?

Perhaps the fact that you believe such intentionally inflammatory garbage to be a "good point" explains much about you.

Try looking up the the definition of Neo-Con.....because you have no idea what it means.

Actually I know quite well what the term "Neo-Con" means.

Neo-Cons are a branch of Conservatives that started in the 70's, as a sort of "backlash" to the hippie-type movements that had taken place before-hand.

Only, instead of being traditional Conservative/Libertarians, they strongly supported American imperialism, and the pushing of religious morality upon the populace through political methods.

However, at some point during the Bush years, Neo-Conservatives became nothing but a bunch of loud-mouth nay-sayers, who will lie, cheat, and steal in order to retain what little power they have left.

The only thing you hear from Neo-Conservatives anymore are insults like "Socialist", "Facist", etc, etc. or criticisms of anyone else's ideas.

it doesn't mean everyone that doesn't agree with you.

Of course it doesn't, but Neo-Cons are easy to pick out. They will be the ones most loudly criticizing Liberals, using terms like "Socialist" and talking points straight from FoxNews, a network that is run-by and filled with... Neo-Cons.