navigator

I think telling them to push rope would be better recieved although there are more layers to that story.. I did find it interesting listening to some media try to vilify Fox over her firing and how the NAACP was 'snookered', while ignoring the fact that she was fired hours before the video was even aired. There are so many angles to this story but its off topic so I will just end by saying, either Fox has that much credibility or the administration is piling on more incompetence.

Evidently it is the news of record for some in this administration. Yesterday, Shirley Sherod was fired from the USDA because she was told (Im paraphrasing)"They said I was going to be on Glen Beck tonight and they wanted me to resign". She said she pulled over to the side of the road and gave her resignation. All this over an edited tape from 25 years ago that was supposed to be aired on Fox later in the day. As the dust begins to settle, the context of the full video removes most of the racist implication. There have been apologies issued to her today and the last I heard she has been offered a new position.

JohnB: I hope you are right, but I think you are overlooking a couple of things. First, the well casing is made of 2" steel that is being sandblasted with sand and rock and there is already some evidence of casing failure below the ocean floor. BP Well Bore And Casing Integrity May Be Blown, Says Florida’s Sen. Nelson Here is a link to some videos that appear to show oil leaking from the ocean floor. If the well head doesn't give up first, the casing below the ocean floor needs to be up to spec to tap into with the relief wells. Second, the well is tapped into the Tiber oil field which is estimated to hold 4-6 billion barrels of oil and is thought to be a migration field. A "huge" find is usually in the realm of 250 million barrels and under much less pressure due to the depth of the field. This well is 35k' below sea level. Third, your WWII comparison does not include toxic levels of hydrogen sulfide, benzene, methalene chloride and other toxic gases. It may not look like a catastrophe currently, but if they don't plug it soon this oil will end on shores all around the world. Back to the topic, the county I live in is no longer waiting on the fed/BP to even respond, let alone give them the green light. Okaloosa co. commisioners voted unanimously to take whatever action neccessary to protect The Destin Pass, the harbor and Choctawhatchee Bay, even if it meant going to jail. http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/okaloosa-30040-public-commission.html

The government seems to seldom take unintended consequences seriously. Government data shows that while 54 percent of the top-10-selling vehicles were manufactured domestically, eight out of 10 carry Japanese or South Korean nameplates.

Probably could, the statistics support freedom and not government control. I am still working on locating info in the bill to see if I can put the pieces together, but it is very long and complex. So far, IMO, the bill says I can keep what I currently have, currently. I am against a government deference, telling me I can keep my plan under the guise of allowing enormous constraints on the private health care providers, that don't adhere to the government guidelines, which constitute the public option. Further, the employer is not only reponsible for the funding, but also taxed, if the employers choose to offer private health care providers that do not fall under the public option, to new employees, in the health care exchange. /sorrybouthterunonsentences/

To be honest with you, it would be too tedious. You have admitted to grossly lacking objectability and show no effort to improve despite appeals from others. Your last four references consisted of a study that lacks credibility due to its inaccuracies and a comedy show with clips that are obviously edited removing all credibility. You have attacked my credibility and my acedemic integrity, while I attacked the merits of a post you made, using ridicule to make a point, using ridicule to make a point. Yes, I said that twice intentionally. Sorry JohnB, gut its more likened to the playpen. He gave you too much credit IMO, because you are the one poisoning the well while throwing the card the most, friend. I guess you are on topic at least.

I do think it has something to do with those agencies. I don't have a reference, but If I remember correctly, I read that in 2005 the US government spent 18 billion compared to the European Unions 4 billion in medical research. This is an area that I agree with the government involvement, providing funding to research in order to provide a higher quality of care to its citizens. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am not claiming they are wrong, I am claiming that the results are not always as clear or accurate as they seem. In one context they may be accurate, in others they may not. Are you implying that when the WHO conducted their study they went through each stillborns chart, in each and every country, to determine if there was a sign of life? How about if I include the statute of limitations for those countries I used as an example? http://www.eurocat.ulster.ac.uk/pdf/Report-8-Appendix-7.pdf

Lets look at some of those countries who are in the top 10%, lowest infant mortality rate, on your CIA mortality rate list. For example, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and France all use criteria like weight, length of the infant, length of pregnancy to determine a stillbirth, not any sign of life(refer to my link a couple posts up). Makes perfect sense to me. On this list the deck is stacked in their favor because those that don't meet the criteria are called a stillbirth. Even at that disadvantage, the US is still within 3 deaths out of a thousand births, compared to the highest of those five countries on the list, France. I don't think I need to go into detail the much higher fatality rate due babies born that do not meet those criteria. The criteria for Canada, who has 2 less deaths out of a thousand, is similar to the US except the baby must show signs of life after the umbilical cord is cut and placenta is removed. The European Union has less than 1 in a thousand less deaths and Isreal has 2 less, both use similar guidelines(refer to my second link in the same post). This is not way too low in IMO, actually it shows how good our pediatric care really is. Ofcourse not, maybe I am missing something, but how does this put the US at an advantage over other countries, in the context of treating cancer? I haven't spent much time looking into this, but it seems obvious to me this is a result of, not only, our access to anything and everything, but our liberties that allow extreme behavior, often to our detriment. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged We disagree on what HR 3200 will do to private health care in the US. I will try to address this, but it may take some time and I think it would be more on topic in the HR 3200 thread, so thats where I think I should address it.

The main one for me is how well does it serve the sick. The US leads the world in 13 of 16 catagories of cancer in another study. How much contribution is made to leading edge technology and drug developments. We have a robust market for medical research because there is a demand for it and people can afford it. As you get older whats more important, a car, a house, one year of life? Wait time is another one. Having access to a wait line is not health care. Whether you label the study scientific or not doesn't change the fact the results are inaccurate.

No different than any other service that has the hightest value. I think our differences can be found in whether health care is a priviledge or a right. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The WHO does not accurately reflect infant mortality rate, because different countries have different ways of defining a stillbirth. Ofcourse the US uses the highest standard, regardless of size, weight or permaturity, if the infant shows any sign of life it is considered alive. Other countries use wieght, length or level of prematurity, as an aggregate for stillbirth. What I find interesting is the WHO uses infant mortality rate to help form their ratings, but they rate the countries that use a lower standard than their own, higher in infant mortality than the US. This supports both my assertions that the study is not only inaccurate, but also driven by ideology. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged IMO, the WHO study places too much emphasis on the distibution of health care and not the actual quality. In the financial fairness section, a country with terrible health care, but all the citizens pay a uniform high price would score higher than a country with excellent health care across the board, with 50% of the citizens paying for all health care costs. The the only factor is how evenly the cost is spread throughout the population. If you don't understand my position I would say you feel health care is a right. Regardless, whether they make it to the hospital alive, the US has a much higher rate of homicides and MVAs. If the intent of the study was to be accurate then this should have benn accounted for. It is imperative on those developing a study to eliminate contrasts like these to insure its veracity. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not only was she rude, obviously ignoring an opponents question of HR3200 by answering her phone in the middle of the question, she mislead the crowd, by labeling one of those in favor who asked a question, as a pediatric primary care physician.

Evidently a review is in order. This was your statement that initially raised the question of whether or not the study is scientific. And my reply. You introduced the idea that it might be, using a hypothetical to bolster your opinion. IMO it seems to me this is an example of using debate technics to win the debate instead of advancing the discussion. If it is scientific then why present it by saying "also say the research..."? Maybe I should have just said "the onus is on you to prove it", duly noted, it would have saved several posts wasted on this back and forth whether its scientific or not. I thought the more civil way to reply was the way I did, at least acknowledging part of your statement.

I will need more time to look at how the infant mortality rate is determined. For example, it is not clear if abortions are included in the percentage. Homicide and accidental death rate from MVA’s are irrelevant to the quality of health care. So the US has the highest life expectancy in the context of health care. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMore than one member has stated that I haven't proven the WHO study is not scientific. Considering I did not make the claim that it was, why all of a sudden do you expect me to prove its not? Why has the onus changed? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt seems we determine the quality of health care in different ways. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how fairly health care of any quality is distributed. Regardless of how fairly it is distributed, the US has the highest quality based on the value that can be determined by the revenue the health care industry recieves.

Page 145 15 (4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The 16 employer provides for autoenrollment of the em17 ployee in accordance with subsection ©. An employer must auto enroll employees into public option plan. Page 24 sec 116 18 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan 19 shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commis20 sioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health 21 benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP 22 offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the 23 Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment suffi24 cient to meet such loss ratio. Government sets prices for all private health plans. Page 72 8 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within 9 the Health Choices Administration and under the direc10 tion of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange 11 in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, 12 through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of 13 affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a 14 public health insurance option. 15 Government is creating an health care exchange to bring private health care plans under government control. Page 265 sec1131 7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 8 1833(t)(3)©(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 9 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(3)©(iv)) is amended— 10 (A) by inserting ‘‘(which is subject to the 11 productivity adjustment described in subclause 12 (II) of such section)’’ after 13 ‘‘1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)’’; and 14 (B) by inserting ‘‘(but not below 0)’’ after 15 ‘‘reduced’’. 16 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 17 by paragraph (1) shall apply to increase factors for 18 services furnished in years beginning with 2010. Government mandates & controls productivity for private health care industries. page 84 sec 203 5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall specify 6 the benefits to be made available under Exchange-partici7 pating health benefits plans during each plan year, con8 sistent with subtitle C of title I and this section. 9 (b) LIMITATION ON HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS OF10 FERED BY OFFERING ENTITIES.—The Commissioner may 11 not enter into a contract with a QHBP offering entity 12 under section 204© for the offering of an Exchange-par13 ticipating health benefits plan in a service area unless the 14 following requirements are met: 15 (1) REQUIRED OFFERING OF BASIC PLAN.—The 16 entity offers only one basic plan for such service 17 area. Government mandates all benefit packages for private health care plans in the Exchange. These are some of the ways the government will control the "private" health care industry. IMO, based on this level of control, they are just another government run entity. I will see if I can find more ways the bill plans to micromanage the private health care industry.

levels of satisfaction are greatly affected by limited funding and program cutbacks. The level of satisfaction is primarily due to private health care subsidies. If you redifine private health care, maybe. And ignoring the evidence is? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The care may not be horrible, but its not as good either. We can not be certain without a more objective study, or at least an alternate study to make comparisons.

I posted two analysis, its looking more and more like they were ignored. The other analysis was from a nuerosurgeon and professor at the U of Northwestern, I included his bio with a long list of credentials in the medical field.

The majority of those with private health care are satisfied, while medicare, medicaid et al seem to be going broke requiring more funding or cutbacks in programs and sometimes both. If the USPS was so good there would be no market for UPS, FedX IMO. Today the Veterans Health Administration appears to be ok. A few years ago it seemed terrible and previous to that it was up and down. I see a pattern, as soon as there is sufficient funding things improve. But then, for example, people get lax, because their job is often not measured by productivity, and all of a sudden efficiency drops and more money is required. I would like to hear some other examples though.

I have not moved the goal posts, the level of objectability used to construct your indicator is highly questionable. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Maybe, but nobody wants to address whats in the analysis. The Cato analysis was only used to high light the lack of objectability in the WHO study. My assertion is that it is the best because it is the highest quality money can buy. It had nothing to do with how it was reported, its how the study was conducted.

I disagree due to several ways the study gives an advantage to socialized programs. If it was a scientific study it would have more credibility, but its not. A partial answer would be the study placed more importance on everybody paying the same percentage of income on health care vs a wide gap. The smaller the gap the better the rating was given. That has nothing to do with the quality of health care. There are several answers to your question, but the analysis explains it much better than I can.

I don't understand, I was hoping to disect the bill itself and rely not on some one elses opinion. However, IMO based on the amount of control the government leverages on the private health providers, there is a subjective point that determines at what point its still considered private. I agree, one aspect of this is the ~13 million non citizens, whether or not they are covered. I have heard reports both ways.

delete Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged IMO using the WHO study as an indicator is invalid, given the way it was conducted. What facts have you given to show the analysis of the WHO report is wrong?

Your absolutely right, that was uncivil behavior, my apologies to both of you. I should have just said I would like to see the unedited videos for context, because I assert that they would have a much more thumb up view. I heard that too. I also heard it was partially due to a much more vigoruous media campiagn. I am not sure if it has caused an influx on the right, but I would say an increase due to people getting more concerned, more involved, and changing their mind, regardless of their political leaning. Some would say it is due to fear mongering. The HR 3200 thread would be a good place to determine if thats true. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, try again. What gives the World Health Organization more credibility than Cato? That may seem absurd to you, but honestly, their political leanings? The merits of the arguement in the analysis disqualifying the who assement as an objective view of health care ratings. Its quite obvious the way the Who study was conducted. Socialized programs were given advantages while our system was at a disadvantage, due to patients paying for health care themselves based on desire and available funding and not a tax rate, was put at a disadvantage. The study inherently puts countries with socialized health care at an advantage.

What indicator are you using for quality? I thought he said "we do not recieve the worlds highest quality health care". I agree, there are problems in US health care, higher administrative and treatment costs from tort rulings, our products and services are more expensive, questionable profits from CEOs and lobbyists. But then we have a more comprehensive use of high cost, high tech equipment, R&D of new drugs all leading to revelutionary health care, which is vital to progress. I wish there was a government model we could look at to improve some of them, while maintaining the others, or at the very worst just maintain, just one. The sad part is no matter how bad it has gotten, we keep injecting more government and it keeps getting worse IMO.

This clip within the clip thing...why not the full videos? Oh, I get it, there was a moderator, its the comedy channel hahaha. Why do you need a moderator... edit... were the context is obviously construed ...edit... with intentions of degrading somebody ...edit... causing political discord... edit... only intending humor...edit... to prove your point? I think thats funny, do you? Oh, sorry, I forgot the spin. Yeah, I know.

The support of your claim is assuming we do not have the best health care in the world. The US recieves the most in private health care revenue in the world, from non citizens. In other words, people from other countries spend the most here, because it is the best!

I have never denied there is a problem with the tone of those events. I have shown evidence that the worst of it is from those in favor, and they are also the ones who are hypocritically spreading propaganda. I also hope those Mokele linked get what they deserve, thats the radical extremists, not the opponents of this bill. You don't think there is a radical left think tank that would do the same? How is that any different than yes folks, Inow just linked a source that is obviously lacking objectivity, attempting to prop up socialism by using deception tactics. At least Cato is honest about their intentions. What is telling though, you attacked the messenger and not the merits of the analysis. Here is some deception used by Obama at last nights town hall... The little girl who talked about mean signs, Dem plant.