Muzman on 22/8/2009 at 05:00
I was going to bring that show up, strangely because I thought she seemed reasonable (or perhaps didn't seem unreasonable). Not really getting the particulars of their disagreement, it seemed like she saw a risk of unpleasant interpretation in the wording, which happens.
Even if she's wrong and such an interpretation isn't really likely, I couldn't see why the conversation didn't go to changing the wording ever so slightly or to adding another clause that would render her interpretation impossible. I'd be curious to know how she reacted to something like that.
Rug Burn Junky on 22/8/2009 at 06:53
The point is, the interpretations weren't really "unlikely" so much as defying all forms of reason and logic. The incredulous attitude that Stewart had is because he's trying to reason with someone who's really just making shit up.
jay pettitt on 22/8/2009 at 07:47
Quote:
Not really getting the particulars of their disagreement, it seemed like she saw a risk of unpleasant interpretation in the wording, which happens.
I'm really not sure the world works that way. You'd not only need to manage to spectacularly misinterpret the bill to read 'save money - deny old folk health care they'd otherwise benefit from' - you'd need to sustain that misinterpretation by hoodwinking or recruiting officials across multiple departments not just in government but in health care and insurance - and you'd need to be able to defend it in courts when it gets challenged (which it will) without a judge turning around saying it's against
either the spirit or letter of the law or just plain not right.
What I can't stand about her is she's trying to dress up the argument 'use only proven and effective medicines and techniques when using public money please, not aromatherapy' as actually saying - they want to callously deny old people basics like heart surgery - and she does it while leaning forward, pleading with puppy eyes and touching your arm and 'sounding reasonable'. Old people are vulnerable because they're old, sometimes they get ill, often with multiple complications that mean the chances of surviving or recovering from major procedures are so remote. Turning that into 'liberal death bill' preying on the vulnerable while pouring on all the emotional appeal is such a disservice.
Tonamel on 22/8/2009 at 07:51
I have to agree with Muz, at least a little bit. Her presentation of her position came across as very forthright and reasonable. The trouble, of course, comes when you separate what she's saying from the way she's saying it. Then you realize that she just said that Americans get better health care than other countries because we have cheaper houses.
D'Juhn Keep on 22/8/2009 at 08:39
Her entirely motionless face really unnerved me
CCCToad on 22/8/2009 at 15:06
I think the fact that I posted an article that contradicts my original view should be enough to show that once I was contradicted, i dug past what the news was saying and found it incorrect. It was a draft version that made it mandatory, not the current version.
However, I did find that since the government pays for all such consults, the physicians have a strong incentive to push people through the door to perform those consults.
I just don't think government "social engineering" is necessary: just change the law so that if you don't have a good, legible living will you risk having your plug pulled.
My other objections still stand, such as the fact that it uses tax law and regulatory incentives to give the public option a competitive advantage over private and employer insurance.
Since i'm apparently a damned liar, I'll link to a site that has reputation for being credible:
(
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/)
Quote:
The legislation in Congress, however, would require employers to offer coverage (the so-called "employer mandate"), and it provides penalties for those who don't contribute to their employees' insurance, as well as subsidies to entice small businesses to offer coverage. Still, the CBO estimated that under the House bill, some firms, likely those with lower-wage employees, would decide to stop offering insurance. The mandate penalty might cost them less than providing coverage, and their low-wage workers would be eligible for federal subsidies to help them buy their own coverage through the exchange. The CBO estimated that "in 2016, about 3 million people (including spouses and dependents of workers) who would be covered by an employment-based plan under current law would not have an offer of coverage under the proposal."
So, can you keep your insurance under the health care proposals in Congress? Answer: It depends.
CCCToad on 22/8/2009 at 15:19
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
What I can't stand about her is she's trying to dress up the argument 'use only proven and effective medicines and techniques when using public money please, not aromatherapy' as actually saying - they want to callously deny old people basics like heart surgery - and she does it while leaning forward, pleading with puppy eyes and touching your arm and 'sounding reasonable'. Old people are vulnerable because they're old, sometimes they get ill, often with multiple complications that mean the chances of surviving or recovering from major procedures are so remote. Turning that into 'liberal death bill' preying on the vulnerable while pouring on all the emotional appeal is such a disservice.
Correct, not in the bill. The fear is based on viral soundbytes, where various adminstration officials, most notably Obama, have been filmed making statements to the effect that we might be better off not treating the elderly, such as the famous "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery and taking the painkiller" quote.
The decision on who gets care in the shortages will be up to whoever is appointed to run the public option, and the health care committee in charge of the public option. And as with overwhleming majority federal bureaucrats, they are most likely going to be unelected and unaccountable for their policies and decisions.
jay pettitt on 22/8/2009 at 16:06
Why the hell would they be
a) elected - seriously, you don't vote for refuse collectors either...
b) unaccountable - that's what reviews, contracts and courts are for.
I don't know how you plan to do it in the US, but in the UK I don't think bean counters get involved in deciding who gets treatment (SE would probably be able to tell you what's what), just what treatments are made generally available. Beyond that cases are assessed individually and according to clinical need.
CCCToad on 22/8/2009 at 16:19
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Why the hell would they be
a) elected - seriously, you don't vote for refuse collectors either...
b) unaccountable - that's what reviews, contracts and courts are for.
I don't know how you plan to do it in the US, but in the UK I don't think bean counters get involved in deciding who gets treatment (SE would probably be able to tell you what's what), just what treatments are made generally available. Beyond that cases are assessed individually and according to clinical need.
A: Those refuse collectors don't make decisions. Also, US agencies do set policies that have force of law. For example, the FCC is allowed to regulate decency standards in public broadcast, but the decision as to what is allowed and what isn't is made by bureaucrats in the FCC, not any elected official. Yet those are still as good as law because broadcasters must pay a fine for violating those standards, or lose their license.
B: In America, you can not sue the government or a government agency except in cases of misconduct, because of loss from quarantine, or postal service problems(see link). There is also the problem that accountability and oversight of government agencies in america is nowhere near as good as in Europe, incidents like the expenses scandal notwithstanding.
(
http://www.finchmccranie.com/refresher.htm)
