Originally Posted by Justin '77

What a crock of shit. The author claims that because there is no jailtime penalty written in the bill that there is no jailtime penalty at all. As if a fee or tax were not enforced by threat of imprisonment...

That's what makes them fees/taxes. If they weren't collected under threat of imprisonment, they'd be simply 'voluntary contributions'.

Like the author said, the IRS is NOT going to put some Joe 6-pac in jail for $95; they'll just garnish the wage or the bank account.

You know, if you Glibertairans would jettison this whole alarmist thingee that started with Ayn, the rest of us might start taking you more seriously.

Well, maybe not...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, is the goal here better health, or better insurance?

By the end of today, on average, another 123 Americans will have died due to lack of health insurance -
http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...58G6W520090917

Is there something in your personal make-up that keeps you from getting this, or was it from your education? I'd like to know so I can make sure one of my youngsters aspiriing to be a MD will be sure to stay away from that particular school.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Your aspiring youngster will surely recognize the difference between health care and health insurance regardless of which med school attended. Ask any health care professional and see what they say.

Maybe my link was bad, so here's a quote that might help -

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

I think Dr. Himmelstein qualifies as a health care professional. But admittedly, the doctor is from some po-dunk school called Harvard Medical so what does he know?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oops! Caught me. I don't read your links.



Ask one that you know.

Okay, I asked three: they all agreed that an increased risk of death is a health care issue.

Imagine that?

What is it about today with you guys? I've gotten pretty use to flippant, irrational, or alarmist remarks from you all, but today has really been bizzare. Was it the turkey?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

1. But since when should the insurance companies - and those who do their bidding - get to dictate what happens to those, who, in their infinite wisdom (?), they refuse to provide coverage to, because they're "too sick," "too poor," etc.?

2. Why should the United States as a whole take a position on health-care policy that is even further to the right of that taken by arguably its most right-wing state - i.e., Utah?

3. And LOL @ the copout "If we cover everybody, where are we going to find enough doctors, etc., to provide care to them?" Isn't this rather like opposing the abolition of slavery on the grounds that it would make the emancipated slaves unemployed?

I'd say this Millennial - and he's from a bright-"red" neighborhood on Staten Island's East Shore - has it about right; no, make that exactly right:


Health-care reform is about ‘we,’ not ‘me’

Letters to the Editor/Staten Island Advance
November 25, 2009, 7:33AM
By Michael Hoffmann,
New Dorp


I don’t need health-care reform right now. I’m a student and still covered by my father’s insurance. But a recent health scare revealed the problem with our health care system.

I felt a small lump on my right testicle. Within a week I was examined by two urologists. Then next week, I was able to have a sonogram performed, even though the urologists were certain nothing was wrong. Shortly after, I went in for a follow up and it was confirmed that there was no reason for concern.

Sounds great, right?

What if my father had lost his job during the recession? What if my family wasn’t so lucky to have two well employed parents? Imagine someone in my position that didn’t have access to high priced health insurance:

“Well, the lump isn’t that big, I’ll wait.”“The discomfort isn’t that bad, I’m sure it’s nothing.”

“Man, this isn’t going away. I guess I’ll go wait in the emergency room and just get it checked.”

“What? Cancer? It may have spread.”

What may have been a treatable and manageable condition may have just become an expensive ordeal that will cost every taxpayer by employing our current health-care system, the emergency room. I shouldn’t have been able to avoid this situation, weeks of worry and the possibility of a condition worsening, because my family has money.

Health and peace of mind is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

I don’t need reform. I’ll be fine. But reform isn’t about “me.” It’s about “we.”

Hey, if it isn't truely all about the "Me" then why was his story written all about him, so to speak? I say, we should make all the poor liberal bastards work and earn their health care like everyone else.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The question was about the difference between health insurance and health care, I don't eat turkeys, and your last paragraph is nonsensical.

So, you've come around to understand the link between insurance and care? If so, great; if not, my last paragraph makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Hey, if it isn't truely all about the "Me" then why was his story written all about him, so to speak? I say, we should make all the poor liberal bastards work and earn their health care like everyone else.

Come to think of it, one could go through every story, posting, and opinion column on health care with a Find & Replace using the term "education." But would the change of subject matter change the arguments?

Let me start here. Let's say we have some poor devil who had to quit school in the 8th grade because he couldn't afford high school. [Alternate universe - or modern-day Africa.]

"Hey, if it isn't truely all about the "Me" then why was his story written all about him, so to speak? I say, we should make all the poor liberal bastards work and earn their education like everyone else."

Originally Posted by playwrite

So, you've come around to understand the link between insurance and care?

What link? I've gotten excellent care in a non-insurance, pay-as-you-go model. For a lot cheaper than the crappy care I got in an insurance model.

I mean, unless the link between insurance and care is one of inverse proportionality. I might be able to see that if I squint my eyes really hard, but I think it's still taking it a bit far.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Come to think of it, one could go through every story, posting, and opinion column on health care with a Find & Replace using the term "education." But would the change of subject matter change the arguments?

Let me start here. Let's say we have some poor devil who had to quit school in the 8th grade because he couldn't afford high school. [Alternate universe - or modern-day Africa.]

"Hey, if it isn't truely all about the "Me" then why was his story written all about him, so to speak? I say, we should make all the poor liberal bastards work and earn their education like everyone else."

Well, I can't speak for you but I earned my education too. The public provided me with the means (a building called a school with people called teachers who were there specifically to teach me the student and all the other people called students who were sent there by there parents to learn something of value for the purpose of increasing the value of the student) but I did all the work to make or earn the grades and to basically learn what was necessary for me to advance. What do you think, shall we just start granting honors, titles and degrees at birth vs working for them or earning them over the coarse of several years? Shall we all convert to the liberal way of thinking and doing? The way I see it, if we (the other group of Me's) allow this to happen then our children's children will all end up poor liberal bastards. Now, I'm not raising my child so that her child ends up being raised to be a poor liberal bastard. We won't ever stand for this because it's not in our nature or interest to ever stand for this. BTW, I am in favor of creating an economic system that places a liberal face on a liberal dollar that is printed for the specific purpose for the liberals to use, the liberal faithful to waste on their endless hopes and crazy liberal ideas and for the poor liberal bastards to take an interest in, to fight for and fight over it's distribution.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What link? I've gotten excellent care in a non-insurance, pay-as-you-go model. For a lot cheaper than the crappy care I got in an insurance model.

I mean, unless the link between insurance and care is one of inverse proportionality. I might be able to see that if I squint my eyes really hard, but I think it's still taking it a bit far.

Well, if you can pull your loving gaze away from that mirror you're holding, let me repeat this for you -

By the end of today, on average, another 123 Americans will have died due to lack of health insurance -
http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...58G6W520090917

and from one of the authors of the study -

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined,"

Since I originally posted that yesterday, by the end of today, 246 Americans will have died for lack of health insurance coverage.
Our resident doctor seems to have realized that is a health care issue, how about you? If not, is murder and drunk drivers okay as well as long as neither target you?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Since I originally posted that yesterday, by the end of today, 246 Americans will have died for lack of health insurance coverage.

Sort of a bullshit thing to say. They died (one presumes the point is) for lack of care. And for the fact that they live in a system where lack of insurance can correlate with inability to get care.

The author's claim that they died 'for lack of insurance' is begging the question big-time. He may as well be nothing more than a shill for the existing insurance-medical structure.

Hypocrisy by the numbers -

Cohn makes the oberservation of how much Repugs now love Medicare as they try to kill the Senate's HCR bill by stripping out the Medicare cuts.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatmen...when-they-dont

Very different that just a few years ago on campaign trails and in other legislative efforts where they ran on or attempted to take much greater cuts as evident by this chart -


where the current proposed cuts are at 5% and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act cut it by 12% (the Repugs wanted more).

And then there's this little summary of hypocrisy by the numbers -
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200912010001

Republican Senators Have Voted To Cut $1.58 Trillion From Medicare
During Senate debate this morning, several Republican Senators took to the floor to encourage passage of the McCain amendment and to discuss their wrong interpretation of Medicare funding in the Democrats' health care reform legislation. What is most interesting about this morning's debate is that these senators who falsely accused Democrats of cutting Medicare have themselves cut Medicare by $1.58 trillion during their collective tenure in Congress.

I believe that limits must be found to Medicare, but to think you could hammer out some bipartisan approach with these lying a-holes is fantasy.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Well, I can't speak for you but I earned my education too. The public provided me with the means (a building called a school with people called teachers who were there specifically to teach me the student and all the other people called students who were sent there by there parents to learn something of value for the purpose of increasing the value of the student) but I did all the work to make or earn the grades and to basically learn what was necessary for me to advance. What do you think, shall we just start granting honors, titles and degrees at birth vs working for them or earning them over the coarse of several years? Shall we all convert to the liberal way of thinking and doing? The way I see it, if we (the other group of Me's) allow this to happen then our children's children will all end up poor liberal bastards. Now, I'm not raising my child so that her child ends up being raised to be a poor liberal bastard. We won't ever stand for this because it's not in our nature or interest to ever stand for this. BTW, I am in favor of creating an economic system that places a liberal face on a liberal dollar that is printed for the specific purpose for the liberals to use, the liberal faithful to waste on their endless hopes and crazy liberal ideas and for the poor liberal bastards to take an interest in, to fight for and fight over it's distribution.

You worked for it - but in a free public school. The find & replace function would target those who think one should pay for their schooling in cold hard cash. Or debt.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...the fact that they live in a system where lack of insurance can correlate with inability to get care.

... well, duh, that's the point as specifically noted -

"For any doctor ... it's completely a no-brainer that people who can't get health care are going to die more from the kinds of things that health care is supposed to prevent," said Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Since you get the point, what is your point?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...The author's claim that they died 'for lack of insurance' is begging the question big-time. He may as well be nothing more than a shill for the existing insurance-medical structure.

Given who did the study, your asertion is actually pretty funny (but, in a sad way). You did read at least the news article (let alone the study's report), didn't you?

FYI, the report was released by the Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance. The ones who have most attempted (unsuccessfully) to rebut the findings comes from The National Center for Policy Analysis, the insurance companies' 'think' tank that backs a free-market approach to health care, i.e. money talks, the poor/middle classes walk - back out the door.

Listen to your doctor -

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...id=51884686001

and get your facts -

http://aarp.org/health/articles/heal...the_facts.html

Originally Posted by playwrite

Since you get the point, what is your point?

The point (I thought was made pretty clearly, but apparently not) is that -- contrary to your repeated assertions -- lack of insurance and lack of care are not even remotely the same thing. And from that it necessarily follows that attempts focused at fixing 'lack-of-insurance' should in no way be conflated with a real need to deal with the 'lack-of-care' problem.

In fact, the only people who would necessarily benefit from a reduction in 'lack-of-insurance' are the ones selling insurance. Hence my offering the possibility that the writer is a shill for them (or for those who hope to either join their ranks or to supplant them). I don't know that he is, of course -- he may just be an ignorant dupe, or someone with an addled brain -- I merely offer the possibility as something that would explain what he is saying.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

-- lack of insurance and lack of care are not even remotely the same thing.

In the face of the study's overwhelming evidence otherwise, I really don't know how to possible respond to you - other that to mourn the obvious loss of any remaining rational thinking from the glibertarian branch of this forum.

Based on CBO's determination , putting HCR impact on the Federal deficit into perspective -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112902952.html



Even if CBO is off by a few billion here or there, really, in the scheme of things....

Originally Posted by playwrite

In the face of the study's overwhelming evidence otherwise...

The study offers claims, but nothing resembling evidence. I would argue that the study was inherently faulty, in that it begged exactly the same question you did. That is, it noticeably avoided considering the numerous models in place right now (to say nothing of historical ones, but that's really not such a big quibble -- current would have done the trick well enough) in which lack of insurance has no correlation with lack of care. Having done so, of course, would have forced him to see that lack of insurance is no more the causative factor in deaths due to lack of care than that one wacky lung cell is the causative factor in the cancer-deaths of long-term smokers.

So, like a shill for Phillip-Morris, he took a study and limited its scope down so far as to eliminate any possibility of exposing root cause. And then treated it as if it said something important.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The study offers claims, but nothing resembling evidence. I would argue that the study was inherently faulty, in that it begged exactly the same question you did. That is, it noticeably avoided considering the numerous models in place right now (to say nothing of historical ones, but that's really not such a big quibble -- current would have done the trick well enough) in which lack of insurance has no correlation with lack of care. Having done so, of course, would have forced him to see that lack of insurance is no more the causative factor in deaths due to lack of care than that one wacky lung cell is the causative factor in the cancer-deaths of long-term smokers.

So, like a shill for Phillip-Morris, he took a study and limited its scope down so far as to eliminate any possibility of exposing root cause. And then treated it as if it said something important.

I don't know Justin; the statistical on this are pretty damn tight -

Mortality was significantly greater for uninsured adults than insured adults in an unadjusted proportional hazards analysis (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.83; 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 1.46, 2.29; p <.001) and remained significantly greater after adjustment for propensity scores (HR: 1.43; 95 percent CI: 1.10, 1.85; p = .009). In stratified survival analyses, insurance coverage was associated with significantly lower adjusted mortality in white adults (HR: 1.57; 95 percent CI: 1.16, 2.12), adults in the lowest income quartile (HR: 1.53; 95 percent CI: 1.11, 2.12), and adults with diabetes, hypertension, or heart disease (HR: 1.56; 95 percent CI: 1.15, 2.10) (all p <.01), but not in adults with higher incomes (HR: 1.27; 95 percent CI: 0.78, 2.06) or without these conditions (HR: 1.22; 95 percent CI: 0.82, 1.80). Mortality did not differ statistically between uninsured and insured non-Hispanic black adults (HR: 1.08; 95 percent CI: 0.67, 1.75; p = .73) or uninsured and insured Hispanic adults (HR: 0.48; 95 percent CI: 0.18, 1.28; p = .14).
In a sensitivity analysis, we found that the presence of an unobserved factor similar to smoking in prevalence (approximately 25 percent of the study cohort) and its association with insurance status (relative risk of being uninsured equal to 1.66) would have to be associated with a relative eight-year mortality risk of 2.65 for the association between insurance status and mortality to become non-significant when further adjusted for this unmeasured factor (HR: 1.28; 95 percent CI: 0.99, 1.67; p = .06). In comparison, smoking was associated with a relative eight-year mortality risk of 2.48

I don't think you can honestly and intellectually argue the lack of a very strong correlation. If you want to argue correlation-but-doubtful-causation, you're going to have to come up with something a whole hell of a lot more rational and persuasive than your mysterious "numerous models" or Rani's ‘ask your medical professional for a good anecdote.’

You do know that these types of studies have been used to make the strong linkages (or not) between illnesses and causative factors (e.g., smoking and lung cancers) nearly across the board for every suspected relationship? These types of studies aren’t exactly new to the field and it’s a little hard to see either Harvard Med or the AJPH publishing anything that isn’t pretty reputable.

The only other thing that I can possible see you arguing is that if there was a whole different system in the US for delivering health care, then there would be no correlation with health insurance because there would be no health insurance for anyone. That's true, a little more than silly, but still true.

I don't like the insurance model of paying for medical care myself. I'd rather see health insurance reserved for catastrophic cases - with the company under a mandate to pay off except in clear-cut cases of fraud. Ordinary care taken care of cash on the barrelhead - I will bet you prices would come back down so fast your head would spin. And plenty of free or low-cost clinics for people without money.

As for the enormous costs of medical school, or why doctors have to look to their incomes because of their huge debt load? I am very much in favor of the Northern Exposure model of paying for the schooling of health care practitioners. "We, the government, will pay your total expenses. You will be contractually bound to serve in an underserved area for (somewhere between 4 and 7 years - 7 max for sure). Sign here."

Originally Posted by playwrite

I don't know Justin; the statistical on this are pretty damn tight...

Yes, of course. Just like the statistics Phillip-Morris uses. Then again, the issue of sampling techniques is a pretty important one (you would, I'm sure, agree in the second case. Even if, inexplicably, not in the first). Insurance saves lives just like light cigarettes prevent cancer.

Non-smokers? They're not appropriate candidates for our study.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not even. They died from illness/injury. Lack of care/insurance does not kill people. Period.

I don't think that's completely fair. People may not be 'killed' by lack of medical attention, but it can certainly be argued -- appropriately -- that lack of treatment is a significant factor contributing to mortality.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

You worked for it - but in a free public school. The find & replace function would target those who think one should pay for their schooling in cold hard cash. Or debt.

GB, I currently pay for my childs share of the liberal so-called free public schooling with cold hard cash removed from me via taxation via state/local property taxes and federal income taxes. You should keep this in mind, I'm a bonified taxpayer. I'm not a liberal charity case looking for free or a clueless liberal twit. A taxpayer who also knows beyond all reasonable doubt that FREE PUBLIC SCHOOLING ISN'T FREE. Currently, I don't owe any tax debt. You see, all my taxes are currently paid in full. The only tax debt that I owe is whatever tax debts the liberals create for the taxpayer with all their silly liberal ideas. You know, the kind of liberal ideas that would place an unqualified or high risk borrower in a house they can barely afford and then help pass the legislation that has "WE" (the taxpayers) assume the losses on and the liberals gathering up all the profits from their losses. You see, even liberal nice can be liberal cruel in a liberal kind of way.

the alternate universe version of KIA

conservative debt, conservative debt, conservative debt, conservative debt, conservative debt, conservative debt, conservative debt, conservative debt, conservative debt, conservative debt