# Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics

## Recommended Posts

As far as my health insurance, I have always gotten the care in a timely fashion and thought the quality was good. Last fall my allergies were much worse than previous years so I went to an allergy specialist. The felt they had the correct diagnosis, but wanted me to get an MRI to eliminate the possibility of a sinus infection. I was able to schedule the appointment within the same week and the wait was less than 20 minutes, it was a new clinic that provided the MRI.

Well, I'm a diabetic, and I've had the unfortunate experience of being out of work and having to choose whether to pay my cobra or buy my dinner. My experience hasn't been so rosy, so I support reform.

Either way, we're still off-topic.

##### Share on other sites

If we look at the memo sent out by those in favor of the bill, it is easier for me to understand the theatrics and tantrums.

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/fight

Arrive earlier than the other side does. We need to stack our folks in the front to create a wall around the Member, and we need to stake out the best spots for visibility and signs. Reconnaissance on the venue and an understanding of the staging will be important here. Make sure you do your homework so you can position your folks most effectively.

I think this illustrates one reason why, at Sen Carnahans town hall, the unions were allowing their members in and attempting to prevent the opposers from entering. Also why the front half of the hall was not evenly distributed, instead filled with those in favor.

##### Share on other sites
As for the disinformation, thats based on your opinion

No, it's based on the fact

I haven't seen any references giving evidence that this bill does not lay the ground work for a single payer system.

Simultaneously revising your wording AND shifting the burden of proof! Nice try.

Anybody who reads it cannot deny the bill is in fact a single payer system.

You say the bill will create a single payer system. That means you have the burden of proof. Perhaps you'd like to defend or retract your statement that this bill is in fact a single payer system.

##### Share on other sites
No, it's based on the fact

Simultaneously revising your wording AND shifting the burden of proof! Nice try.

You say the bill will create a single payer system. That means you have the burden of proof. Perhaps you'd like to defend or retract your statement that this bill is in fact a single payer system.

I acknowledged my error in an earlier post.

##### Share on other sites

Which posts did you want me to move, iNow? Just all of the ones that aren't focused on the demonstrations, you mean?

I'll check back later on.

##### Share on other sites
The not-for-profit organization would be like the post office - a money losing proposition supported by taxes. That's what government does - it provides expensive and poor service in all areas where it gets involved.

As opposed to the service provided by America's private insurance system, which pays for what is by far the world's most expensive healthcare system (even as a percentage of GDP) and also rated one of the lowest among industrialized countries?

Perhaps you need to put "expensive and poor service" in context, and also recognize that just because something is provided by the private sector doesn't mean they can do a better job than the government.

As far as the international track record for public healthcare systems go, they blow private ones out of the water. America's private healthcare system is absolutely abominable.

I acknowledged my error in an earlier post.

The post I was responding to was still making claims of "laying the groundwork for a single-payer system", which is a vague statement I can't directly dispute.

However, if you are admitting error about the current bills creating a single-payer system, I will leave it at that.

##### Share on other sites
Which posts did you want me to move, iNow? Just all of the ones that aren't focused on the demonstrations, you mean?

I'll check back later on.

You know what, man? I lost track. This thread was taken off the rails several pages ago. As hard as I tried, people couldn't seem to post on-topic, and we spent all of our time correcting falsehoods and unrelated comments.

It would have been great if a split had happened earlier, but with the rate at which off-topic posts were made, it become too quickly a herculean task to keep people focused.

I'm too tired to care right now. We've got like 16 threads on healthcare... probably no need for another. It's not like people are on-topic in those other ones, either. Cheers.

##### Share on other sites
Why do people continue asserting that dealing with the post office is any worse than.

Love the misrepresentation. Not what I said at all is it?

The post office is an example of a service which is always running in the red.

Government run services are never as good as privately run services and are always more expensive. The post office is supported by taxes to keep it from going bankrupt.

Government run health care would be headed the same way.

Insurance companies are easy to deal with compared to government bureaucracies. All I have to do with health insurance is provide a card to the care giver's office staff. Done.

The last issue people want to deal with is government involved in health care. Every 4 years could bring in a change to what is covered and how it is covered. What about abortion? It might be on the chopping block because the government makes health care rules.

Back to the OP.

I really enjoyed somebody standing up to the crowd and telling them exactly how they are acting, like children, and how this will accomplish nothing. Although it is saddening that it appears the message was lost on the crowd.

Isn't it sad when an elected official refuses to listen to the constituents. This is the voice of public dissent and outrage.

Thanks for showing us what a callous person this Senator is. They need to hear that most citizens are against these horrible health care bills. They need to understand that the democratic process applies to them.

##### Share on other sites

Haha wow,

I leave for a few hours and things go a million different directions..

I think this train got ran into the ground..Stimulating Intellectualism while it was going though..

Cheers all

##### Share on other sites
As opposed to the service provided by America's private insurance system, which pays for what is by far the world's most expensive healthcare system (even as a percentage of GDP) and also rated one of the lowest among industrialized countries?

References? I ask that question against my better judgement due to the fact that time and time again Inow has singled me out for being off topic. Maybe he would give me permission to discuss this or we could move it to a thread where it will be closer to the topic?

Perhaps you need to put "expensive and poor service" in context, and also recognize that just because something is provided by the private sector doesn't mean they can do a better job than the government.

As far as the international track record for public healthcare systems go, they blow private ones out of the water. America's private healthcare system is absolutely abominable.

Again I would love to discuss this, but will refrain for the same reasons as above.

The post I was responding to was still making claims of "laying the groundwork for a single-payer system", which is a vague statement I can't directly dispute.

However, if you are admitting error about the current bills creating a single-payer system, I will leave it at that.

I will only say that the wording in the bill gives plenty of room for it to evolve.

Otherwise, see above.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
You know what, man? I lost track. This thread was taken off the rails several pages ago. As hard as I tried, people couldn't seem to post on-topic, and we spent all of our time correcting falsehoods and unrelated comments.

It would have been great if a split had happened earlier, but with the rate at which off-topic posts were made, it become too quickly a herculean task to keep people focused.

Herculean? LOL, several posters have been off topic and you engaged in the discussion, the only one you have raised your off topic concerns with is me.

Ever since the political compass of this thread changed, you haven't added anything, to the on topic posts, of substance.

##### Share on other sites

iNow, just so that I've got this right.

Someone (perhaps organised) is using the same tactics that the political left and unions have been using for the last 30 years or so and you're crying "foul"?

It would also appear that these tactics are still being used to disrupt opposition.

Nancy and the Astroturfers.

I note that the "antis" arrived with hand made placards while the "pros" were obviously far more organised, with loud hailers and professionally printed placards. There is indeed some astroturfing going on, but I would suggest the "pros" are better at it. (Which would imply that they've been doing it longer.)

Sorry mate, but I find the level of political discourse in the US to be laughable. Both sides often use certain tactics while complaining about the other side using them. It's like watching kindergarten kids fight.

##### Share on other sites

JohnB has raised an interesting point that shows the irony of this whole mess.

What I find ironic is that the OP used the word "interupt" in the OP to describe the behavior of the opposers...

Seriously, they are getting people to stand up, shout an abrasive question, sit down immediately, and then continually interupt the response to keep the congressman uncomfortable and scared... Then to upload a video recording of the event so as to extend the embarrassment they caused the congressman to the widest possible audience, and over-represent the opposition.

There's also this memo circulating explaining specifically how to disrupt town hall style meetings:

Nowhere in the memo from the opposers does it say "interupt". Instead, it says something along the lines of "wait for an oppurtunity to stand up and shout..." followed by "sit right back down".

By definition "wait for an oppurtunity to stand up.." is not an interuption.

Now lets look at the memo from those in favor...

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/fight

Interrupt them when they get disruptive and refocus the meeting: Line up a number of people who feel comfortable interrupting and prepare them with statements like:

Clearly they are being told to interupt. So the OP is complaing that the opponents are doing something that those in favor are clearly advocating.

Thats spreading propaganda and taking it to a whole new level that I am not sure how to define.

What I find, not only the most ironic, but truly appalling is we need to look no further than this thread to find evidence of this. Based on the OPs admission of guilt that the thread title was grossly lacking objectivity he made this statement...

Guilty as charged. I have learned through experience that a provocative thread title helps to encourage thread participation. The title of the thread, however, has zero impact on its actual content. Thanks.

He has made no attempt to change the thread title, in an attempt to be more objective, effectively continuing to spread the propaganda. the fact that this is a science forum compounds the issue even more. Aren't scientists supposed to be held to a higher standard in this regard? Another thing I find dishearting is the other members of this board have stood by and allowed it.

This whole thing is beyond absurd.

##### Share on other sites
Love the misrepresentation. Not what I said at all is it?

The post office is an example of a service which is always running in the red.

This has much more to do with the fact that demand for their services are down. With the advent of email, snail mail is less needed. This problem of "lower demand for services" will never apply to healthcare, so your analogy/comparison fails.

Government run services are never as good as privately run services and are always more expensive.

As I said... all it takes is one single example to prove you wrong, and I've already provided one example. Simply repeating an invalid assertion without adding any new information doesn't suddenly make it true.

Government run health care would be headed the same way.

Uh huh... What else does your crystal ball tell you? Do you read Tarot cards and speak to the dead, too?

Insurance companies are easy to deal with compared to government bureaucracies.

Another baseless assertion.

All I have to do with health insurance is provide a card to the care giver's office staff. Done.

And you further assume it won't be the same if government is involved without any evidence that this is the case. Is there anything else you wish to make up to support your preconceived notions? Do unicorns and leprechauns enter into your logic at any point?

Isn't it sad when an elected official refuses to listen to the constituents.

This is plainly false. They are listening, and you have no reason to suggest otherwise. The problem is that the people are yelling and difficult to hear, not that representatives aren't listening. You continue making stuff up which has zero basis in reality, and it's rather tiresome.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
As opposed to the service provided by America's private insurance system, which pays for what is by far the world's most expensive healthcare system (even as a percentage of GDP) and also rated one of the lowest among industrialized countries?
References?

It disturbs me somewhat that you are here in this thread arguing so ferociously on the topic of healthcare and you are not even aware of the facts.

As requested, and on bascule's behalf:

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.

<...>

One key recommendation from the report is for countries to extend health insurance to as large a percentage of the population as possible. WHO says that it is better to make "pre-payments" on health care as much as possible, whether in the form of insurance, taxes or social security.

While private health expenses in industrial countries now average only some 25 percent because of universal health coverage (except in the United States, where it is 56%)

<...>

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

Full report here: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf

Please note that, due to the complexity of performing such clear and articulate measures, the report above is only as recent as 2000. However, all major indicators suggest that costs have risen dramatically since that time, and performance has continually become worse in terms of US healthcare output. More support of these comments available (and well referenced) below:

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or$7900 per person. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP. In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly$12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700. <...> Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens. <...> According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 1999. <...> A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was$12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Again I would love to discuss this, but will refrain for the same reasons as above.

This is no excuse to avoid answering someones question. I am heartened to see that you are finally making an attempt to remain on topic as I've requested, but you can always open a new thread so as not to circumvent questions put to you. Continually playing "oh woe is me... iNow won't let me respond off-topic" is not a valid excuse. Open a new thread if you truly have an argument to make, okay?

Ever since the political compass of this thread changed, you haven't added anything, to the on topic posts, of substance.

You have been asked this repeatedly (and hopefully infracted, too)...

Stop with the personal attacks. Thanks.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Sorry mate, but I find the level of political discourse in the US to be laughable. Both sides often use certain tactics while complaining about the other side using them. It's like watching kindergarten kids fight.

And that's precisely my larger point, John. I'm not blaming any political party or affiliation for what's going on (not intentionally, anyway). I'm drawing attention to how ignorant and immature we continue to be in our nation when discussing such important issues. We never get past the booger throwing stage it seems...

I couldn't agree more that we are like a bunch of fighting kindergarten kids. That's the discussion I was hoping to have, but we're not even mature enough to do that here in this thread without ranting and throwing around a bunch of unfocused rage... and then spending time debunking the continued false assertions and misinformation.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
He has made no attempt to change the thread title, in an attempt to be more objective, effectively continuing to spread the propaganda.

I know you are still new to this forum, and probably are not aware, but only staff have the permission level to alter a thread title after its creation. I do not have that authority, so you are poisoning the well and attacking me personally using a false criterion which is impossible to achieve.

the fact that this is a science forum compounds the issue even more. Aren't scientists supposed to be held to a higher standard in this regard? Another thing I find dishearting is the other members of this board have stood by and allowed it.

This whole thing is beyond absurd.

And your entire post was yet another personal attack. Cut this shit out man. You've been here for like 2 days, and people are already tired of your antics and inability to act in a civil manner.

Edited by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

##### Share on other sites

So one the big cable news issue today was the fact that the crowd at President Obama's townhall meeting was calm, respectful, and engaged in a civil debate. The pundits explanation of this range from, Obama seeded the crowd with supporters to respecting the office of the president. Personally I feel that the crowd was simply being respectful to the president and that they realized you cannot accomplish anything by yelling.

Also in an interview with Matt Lauer Press Secretary Gibbs discuses his thoughts on the situation with townhalls. He points to the fact that the yelling and shouting is unproductive and not needed. Aside from that it he seemed to blame cable television for the yelling. Some have taken this to mean that the dissension to healthcare reform was AstroTurf, but I think he was simply suggesting that cable news networks are purposely trying to create turmoil by showing every little incident and using fear mongering tactics.

Here is the Secretary Gibbs interview sorry I could not get it to embed.

##### Share on other sites

As I said... all it takes is one single example to prove you wrong, and I've already provided one example. Simply repeating an invalid assertion without adding any new information doesn't suddenly make it true.

So because one system works it invalidates the fact that there are numerous others that can't stay within budget and continue to make cutbacks? Also, there was the fiasco, a few years ago, regarding the terrible conditions at Walter Reed Med Center. If you go back further there have been other problems, IMO its not always been as good as you make it sound.

This is plainly false. They are listening, and you have no reason to suggest otherwise. The problem is that the people are yelling and difficult to hear, not that representatives aren't listening. You continue making stuff up which has zero basis in reality, and it's rather tiresome.

They are listening, now.

It disturbs me somewhat that you are here in this thread arguing so ferociously on the topic of healthcare and you are not even aware of the facts.

Don't be disturbed, I was aware of this study. Just didn't want to assume this is what he was reffering to, had he said the US ranks 37th...I would have known he was reffering to the WHO study.

As requested, and on bascule's behalf:...

Please note that, due to the complexity of performing such clear and articulate measures, the report above is only as recent as 2000. However, all major indicators suggest that costs have risen dramatically since that time, and performance has continually become worse in terms of US healthcare output.[

It may be clear and articulate, but how objective were the parameters used to make the conclusions? Did this study not surprise anybody else when they first read it enough to motivate them to research its validity? Due to the fact the majority of Americans are happy with their health care and the tens of thousands of people that come from all over the world, including countries that ranked higher than the US, for health care?

http://www.spineuniverse.com/authorbio.php?authorID=35

Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD

Professor of Neurological Surgery

Northwestern University

http://www.healthandsharing.com/21/articledetail

"When it comes to quality healthcare, the United States Health Care is second to none!" Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 out of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1

But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution:25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent

“Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2

“Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well.

The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the **“percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.

“Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.

In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government sponsored health care systems.

Or we can look at this analysis.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259

WHOm Are They Kidding?

by Glen Whitman

Armed with supposedly objective reports showing the American medical system is among the worst in the developed world, candidates left and right -- but mostly left -- are plugging ambitious plans to "fix" healthcare. Invariably, their plans call for more government intervention. Senators Clinton and Obama both want to regulate premiums and benefits while increasing healthcare subsidies, and Clinton would go even further by requiring everyone to buy a federally-defined health insurance policy.

But is lack of government really the problem -- and if so, how would we know? Healthcare interventionists frequently cite the World Health Organization's World Health Report 2000, which studied the performance of 191 countries' healthcare systems -- and awarded the U.S. a dismal rank of number 37. While the WHO rankings are touted as an objective measure of the relative performance of healthcare systems, in reality they depend on a number of ideological or logically incoherent assumptions.

The WHO rankings are based on a constructed index of five factors. One factor is "health level," defined as a country's disability-adjusted life expectancy. Another is "health responsiveness," which includes desirable characteristics of healthcare like speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities.

Both of these are sensible indicators of health quality, but they constitute only 37.5 percent of each country's score. The other 62.5 percent encompasses factors only tenuously connected to the quality of care -- and that can actually punish a country's ranking for superior performance.

Take "Financial Fairness" (FF), worth 25 percent of the total. This factor measures inequality in how much households spend on healthcare as a percentage of their income. The greater the inequality, the worse the country's performance.

Notice that FF necessarily improves when the government shoulders more of the health spending burden, rather than relying on the private sector. To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in healthcare is therefore to engage in circular reasoning, because the rankings are designed to favor greater government involvement. (Clinton's plan would attempt to improve the American FF score by capping insurance premiums.)

The ostensible reason to include FF in the health index is to account for people landing in dire financial straits because of their health needs. Yet the FF factor worsens for every household that deviates from the average percentage of income spent on healthcare, regardless of whether the deviation is on the high side or low side.

That means the FF factor doesn't just penalize a country because some households are especially likely to become impoverished from health costs; it also penalizes a country because some households are especially unlikely to become impoverished from health costs.

The other two factors, "health distribution" and "responsiveness distribution," are no better. Together worth 37.5 percent of a country's score, these factors measure inequality in health level and responsiveness. Strictly speaking, neither measures healthcare performance, because inequality is distinct from quality of care. It's entirely possible to have a healthcare system characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone.

Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is "excellent" for most citizens but merely "good" for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly "poor" for everyone. Country B would score higher than Country A in responsiveness distribution, despite Country A having better responsiveness for even its worst-off citizens.

What if the quality of healthcare improves for half of the population, while remaining the same for the other half? This should be regarded as an unambiguous improvement: some people get better off, and no one gets worse off. But in the WHO index, the effect is ambiguous because the improvement could increase inequality.

The WHO rankings have also been adjusted to reflect efficiency: how well a country is doing relative to how much it spends. In the media, however, this distinction is often lost.

Costa Rica ranks higher than the United States (number 36 versus number 37), but that does not mean Costa Ricans get better healthcare than Americans. Americans most likely get better healthcare -- just not as much better as could be expected given how much we spend. If the question is health outcomes alone, without reference to spending, we should look at the unadjusted ranking, where the U.S. is number 15 and Costa Rica is number 45. (And even the number 15 rank is problematic, for all the reasons discussed above.)

The WHO rankings implicitly take all differences in health outcomes unexplained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. These variables were excluded largely because of underlying paternalist assumptions about the proper role of the health system.

If the culture has a predilection for unhealthy foods, there may be little healthcare providers can do about it. Conversely, if the culture has a pre-existing preference for healthy foods, the healthcare system hardly deserves the credit. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking people's preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others, and then praises or blames the health system for them.

Those who cite the WHO ranking to justify greater government involvement in the health system -- like the plans pitched by the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- are assuming what they're trying to prove. The WHO healthcare ranking system does not escape political bias. It advances ideological assumptions that most Americans might find questionable under the guise of objectivity.

Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.

Thats a very misleading statistic also

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18125

The Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured at 45.7 million and nearly 10 million are not citizens; that makes every media claim of uninsured Americans higher than 35.9 million wrong.

More than 17 million of the uninsured make at least $50,000 per year, 8.4 million make$50,000 to $74,999 per year and 9.1 million make$75,000 or higher.

The National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that uninsured people get about $1,500 of free health care per year,$6,000 per family of four.

The Urban Institute found that 25 percent of the uninsured already qualify for government health insurance programs; even the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation puts the number of uninsured Americans who don't qualify for government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 8.2 million and 13.9 million. Further, the Congressional Budget Office says that 45 percent of the uninsured will be insured within four months, and 36 million people would remain uninsured even if the Senate's$1.6 trillion health care plan is passed.

This is no excuse to avoid answering someones question. I am heartened to see that you are finally making an attempt to remain on topic as I've requested, but you can always open a new thread so as not to circumvent questions put to you. Continually playing "oh woe is me... iNow won't let me respond off-topic" is not a valid excuse. Open a new thread if you truly have an argument to make, okay?

Huh? I did answer a question, you proceeded to tell me it was off-topic and then listed a alternate plan yourself, although nobody asked you for an alternate view.

You have been asked this repeatedly (and hopefully infracted, too)...

Stop with the personal attacks. Thanks.

Only stated the facts, maybe a reality check is in order.

I know you are still new to this forum, and probably are not aware, but only staff have the permission level to alter a thread title after its creation. I do not have that authority, so you are poisoning the well and attacking me personally using a false criterion which is impossible to achieve.

Upon your admission of guilt, you clearly stated the reasons why you had no intention of changing the title and it had nothing to do with the reasons your citing now.

I also considered, I wasn't really sure, whether a title could be edited by a member. However, the moderator I have dealt with seemed reasonable enough and if he choose not to edit the title, had you requested it, I am sure he would have informed me.

And your entire post was yet another personal attack. Cut this shit out man. You've been here for like 2 days, and people are already tired of your antics and inability to act in a civil manner.

I only stated the facts and exposed the hypocrasy surrounding them.

##### Share on other sites
I hate to break it to everyone, but it's gone way beyond "interrupting", and into people bringing guns to these events while making thinly-veiled threats against the President. Last time I checked, that was treason.

Part of me is wondering how much longer navigator will continue denying there is a problem with the tone of these events, and when he'll say some falsehood like "those in support of health care reform are being worse by bringing grenades."

I'm sure there's a conservative think tank out there somewhere that will support such a ridiculous premise.

Yes folks... Navigator DID just cite the CATO Institute in his response above... a CTT which consistently argues that we'd all be better off with LESS regulation in healthcare (and argues regularly against human induced climate change).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute#Overview

Edited by iNow

##### Share on other sites

Far as I can tell navigator is challenging your opinion, and it's having an appropriate impact on the discussion. Sorry you don't like it, but you've said yourself that challenging opinions is appropriate. He might need to tone it down a bit, and may need some more work on the difference between a factual statement and an opinion statement, but I see a few snipes from you at stereologist that could use the same toning-down. Relax and have a conversation, for Pete's sake. It's what you asked for, remember?

I think these demonstrations do have a component of rabble-rousing to them, but as I've said before I believe they also have an element of truth and real public sentiment behind them (I base this on Congress' consistently low approval ratings and Obama's poll drop since he hitched his wagon to the House plan). The left has consistently tried to make the case that opposition to the House plan is opposition to health care reform. I believe they are wrong, and I think we've established that several of us feel this way, believing that there's more to this than simple conservative rabble-rousing.

You're welcome to think and state otherwise, of course. More power to you, and more power to stereologist, navigator and JohnB as well.

##### Share on other sites
Part of me is wondering how much longer navigator will continue denying there is a problem with the tone of these events, and when he'll say some falsehood like "those in support of health care reform are being worse by bringing grenades."

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.

I'm sure there's a conservative think tank out there somewhere that will support such a ridiculous premise.

You don't think there is a radical left think tank that would do the same?

Yes folks... Navigator DID just cite the CATO Institute in his response above... a CTT which consistently argues that we'd all be better off with LESS regulation in healthcare (and argues regularly against human induced climate change).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute#Overview

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.

##### Share on other sites

navigator, the Cato Institute analysis still supports my claim: given the amount we spend on healthcare, the most spent by any country in the world even as a percentage of GDP, we do not receive the world's highest quality healthcare. The present system is monumentally inefficient and expensive.

##### Share on other sites
navigator, the Cato Institute analysis still supports my claim: given the amount we spend on healthcare, the most spent by any country in the world even as a percentage of GDP, we do not receive the world's highest quality healthcare. The present system is monumentally inefficient and expensive.

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!

##### Share on other sites

If I remember correctly he supported the separate assertion he made that we don't have the best health care in the world. Stating that we have the best because people come here to get it is a straw man -- he didn't say it was the worst, so there are plenty of places they can come from where health care is not as good and his statement can still be true and more relevant to the discussion than yours.

One of the best ways to find common ground is by not seeking to avoid it. You already agree that there are problems in the health care system. You and bascule appear to be closer in your assessments than you want each other to think.

##### Share on other sites

This clip within the clip thing...why not the full videos?

The first few are more humorous jabs at people being afraid of Obama, but later my point is supported robustly with clips specific to the quote unquote "debate" taking place.

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.

The final clip in the first video is especially telling.

Yeah, I know.

##### Share on other sites

I don't see any merit or productive discussion in the above post at all, navigator. Looks like shooting the messenger. If you have something specific to call attention to, do that please. Ridicule is not an argument, whether it comes from you or from someone else.

---------

ABC News made an interesting point in tonight's broadcast, saying that supporters of health care are spending twice as much as opponents, which would seem to go to the question of whether these town hall meetings are being unevenly influenced by the right. Unfortunately they haven't posted a source for that or an article saying it on their web site yet.

##### Share on other sites
If I remember correctly he supported the separate assertion he made that we don't have the best health care in the world. Stating that we have the best because people come here to get it is a straw man -- he didn't say it was the worst, so there are plenty of places they can come from where health care is not as good and his statement can still be true and more relevant to the discussion than yours.

What indicator are you using for quality? I thought he said "we do not recieve the worlds highest quality health care".

One of the best ways to find common ground is by not seeking to avoid it. You already agree that there are problems in the health care system. You and bascule appear to be closer in your assessments than you want each other to think.

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.

Edited by navigator
Consecutive posts merged.

## Create an account

Register a new account