Rogue Keeper on 19/8/2009 at 14:06

---

Scots + Fett = Geniuses!

(http://img515.imageshack.us/i/palinriflebikini.jpg/) http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/3873/palinriflebikini.th.jpg

Rug Burn Junky on 19/8/2009 at 18:13

---

The fact that you didn't say that is irrelevant, because that's what we were discussing, so please try to follow along:

[INDENT]
Ignorant retards complaining about the bill: They have Death Panels!
RBJ: Actually, no, they don't, they just allow people to charge consultations about living wills to their insurance under the bill.
Ignorant retard named CCCToad: BUT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THOSE CONSULTATIONS MANDATORY
RBJ: Actually, no, they're not mandatory, they're optional, you're making shit up. And and how the fuck does that pertain to my original point?[/INDENT]

See, wasn't that easy?

I don't infer that you're retarded because you disagree, I infer that because you're regurgitating stuff you don't understand and haven't fully thought through. For one, what evidence do I need to prove to you that they're not mandatory... show you the spot in the bill where requiring these conferences is mandatory ISN'T there? Really, will that work? Think it through.

Again, you're taking a simplistic view. Allocation of treatment is already upon us, except now it's done by insurance companies trying to make a buck. The bill doesn't have some 1984 big brother committee deciding on whether you get your ritalin, they're proposing review committees similar to what the Mayo clinic and other hospitals already do. You know, have health professionals set policy. Scary stuff.

A) the phrase is "straw man" B) I wrote a paragraph about one topic, and stayed on that topic, BEFORE YOU EVEN JOINED THE CONVERSATION. So, if I was just setting up a straw man to say GOTCHA to you, then I'm mighty fucking impressed with my ESP to know that you would come along and say stupid shit. You're the one who started pooping in your hand and throwing it at your monitor. Never mind the fact that your "Yeah, but they're mandatory" is a straw man distracting from my point that the consultations are actually a positive.

Your other objections are based on poor, simplistic interpretations of passages that you don't quite understand. It's not my job to improve your critical reading skills, have your "pre-law" professors do it, that's why they get the big bucks.

But, in the interest of charity, let's take one of your gross exaggerations, the idea that "OMG Doctors get paid the same regardless of Specialty!" A plain reading of just the section you quoted states that the service performed is categorized on the basis of the service, not the doctor's specialization.

Regardless, it doesn't address payment anywhere in that section. You've made similar mistakes throughout your arguments, leaping to wild conclusions that aren't even supported on the basis of what you quote. The point being, you're cherrypicking sections without context, and applying your wild fantasies to them... or rather, more likely, applying the wild two-bit fantasies of whatever website you cribbed that from.


This is hysterical whining. You're taking a philosophical paper from 13 fucking years ago, and saying "OMG, they're going to let useless people die"... which, in your case, I would rather appreciate, but alas, I'm not in charge.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but sometimes, smart people explore all of the philosophical, ethical, and logical implications of policies just as hypotheticals and thought experiments. It's what's known as "intellectual rigor." I've no doubt that you're unfamiliar with it.

In any event, Emmanual is not simply advocating that course. His passage is far more subtle than that. He is responding to the idea that when faced with decisions of allocation, there can be no moral basis for making that allocation. In replying to that school of thought, he tosses off possible conceptions of a moral basis upon which to act and even states therein that he is "not fully defending it."

Christ, this shit is simple and you should be shot for stupidity for parroting it.

Oh, and by the fucking way, that was not Rahm Emmanuel writing that. Nor is he doing double duty as the health care advisor (hint, there are more than one). Let me know when you figure out how you fucked that up. When you do figure it out, you'll have one more clue as to why I infer that you're retarded.

----------------------------

Now, as to the whining about the "public option." They're not setting it up to have advantages as part of some evil conspiracy. You're putting the cart before the horse. They're proposing the public option BECAUSE private health insurance is inherently flawed. The basic economics of Health insurance requires massive amounts of the costs to be spent towards overhead - specifically to denying coverage and denying claims. The lack of a profit motive for the public option obviates the need for it to have such overhead, which is both wasteful and destructive.

But don't listen to me, read (http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf) Kenneth Arrow instead. I'm sure you have the same philosophical bent towards "Free markets" that is common among a certain stream of misanthropes, but sadly, that's not the answer here. It doesn't work.

The reason you're not "seeing any reform" is because you're choosing to remain ignorant. The competitive advantage that a public option would have is exactly what will reign in the high costs. At the end of the day, I find it pitiable that you lack an understanding of what's in your, or the rest of society's, best interest.

CCCToad on 19/8/2009 at 19:22

---

Show me where I argued that the private insurance companies are a good thing.

Again, read the post a bit more carefully. There's enough statements like that floating out there that the anger against the health care bill can be attributed to something other than insanity or mental retardation.

You also incorrectly state that the public option will lower costs because of competition. The actual legislation appears designed to use tax changes to give the public option a competitive advantage. Furthermore, even if it does that, there is nothing in it to lower healthCARE costs, only to lower insurance premiums.

In my opinion, the root of the problem goes even deeper than that, with a tax system that favors corporations over privately owned companies. The example that comes to mind is the estate tax. Sounds like a great idea, but the catch is that a corporation never dies, so that they are given a massive competitive advantage. A good example was the creator of the slinky, who's family had to sell his company after his death in order to pay the tax, and production was eventually shipped overseas(china I believe, but I don't remember where exactly).

The taxes imposed in the health care bill seem to do a similiar thing, with regular auditing of in-company health care, and taxing of those who are enrolled in private health care which does not meet certain requirements. that provision needs to be dropped, as it provides both an "unfair" advantage to the public option, and makes it harder for people to "self insure" by keeping an emergency cash reserve. It creates incentive to push people towards either a government plan, or an independant corporate plan.




The biggest reason that I am opposed to this version? without addressing medical costs (NOT insurance costs), is a detrimental budget effect. Most estimates I have seen is that bill result in a large overall increase in the amount of government money spent on healthcare, and it seems like they are counting on being able to "ration' costs down.

Finally, my biggest reason for opposition to the promise of a government-run system is no-confidence. Just look at the Bush administration: we were told that the fighting in Iraq was over in 2003, saw massive corruption in the handling of government contracts, saw horrible mismanagement of the financial sector while corruption ran rampant, and saw massive invasions into civil liberties. While the top of the ticket may have changed, it is utterly naive to think that this time, they're really really REALLY serious about all those promises to cut corruption and make things better for us. After all, only MOST of the same buereacrats and congressmen are still in office.


They're might not be a huge profit motivation, but there is a HUGE power motivation. This would be true even if you weren't mistaken in asserting that the medical industry is against this bill: the pharmacuetical research association, which "represents the country's leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, " has launched its own ad campaign in favor of the bill:(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aHMaDF4PRvMQ) and (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24384.html)

The messages might seem contradictory at first, but look carefully: they are opposed to allowing medicate to negotiate drug prices (mentioned earlier, and a law that is part of the reason why I vote zero confidence), but are in favor of the health care "reform" bill.



Which two groups benefit? large corporate insurance and the government split it.

Rug Burn Junky on 19/8/2009 at 21:44

---

I'm not reading your post more carefully, in fact, I'm not going to trouble myself with reading it at all. You've already amply demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about, and taking the time to further disabuse of your ignorance isn't worth it for me because I simply have better things to do with my time.

Run the fuck along.

CCCToad on 19/8/2009 at 22:26

---

i'll let that post speak for itself