Page 11 of 29 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151621 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 567
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Actually it was davidra who asked what he should do tomorrow. He's a doctor.

    theog doesnt share that type of info.

    I for one am enjoying your posts. Keep it up.
    Ok, then I want davidra to acknowledge all those things...
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Now in my college logic course, we learned that is called a false choice. Nice try.
    What's false about it? You stated, as if it were fact, that those programs weren't effective. Yet those who are involved have very high satisfaction rates. So, by that metric, it is very effective.

    Of course you can't eliminate the programs now. That's why we want to prevent them from creating more programs like that.
    Why can't you? If I were in Congress and truly felt that that government-run health care is "socialist", "communist" and "ruining our country", and felt that the federal government has no rights to be involved in health care, then I'd have a moral and legal obligation to work toward eliminating them. Otherwise, it's just rhetoric and political posturing.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  3. #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    What's false about it? You stated, as if it were fact, that those programs weren't effective. Yet those who are involved have very high satisfaction rates. So, by that metric, it is very effective.



    Why can't you? If I were in Congress and truly felt that that government-run health care is "socialist", "communist" and "ruining our country", and felt that the federal government has no rights to be involved in health care, then I'd have a moral and legal obligation to work toward eliminating them. Otherwise, it's just rhetoric and political posturing.
    The logical fallacy is called a false choice. Google it. The idea is that it makes the assumption that those are the only two choices. Either you support unlimited government programs for social entitlements, or you want to abolish them all. It's a false choice, and therefore can't be answered. Let's learn from the Salem witch trials. If she floats, she is a witch and we will burn her at the stake. If she sinks and drowns, I guess she wasn't a witch. Or when Bush said "if you aren't for us, you are against us. (see what I did there, I just criticized a republican again. Did you see how that worked? and remember, I don't approve of the morons in that video, either...) That's a false choice. Also called "Morton's Fork." Am I the only one that took that class? It was a foundation course for math, computer science, and business majors. Most useful class I ever took. Anyone? Buehler?

    False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Now, why can't we eliminate them? Because there are millions that are now dependent on them. I doubt there is any american that could possible suggest that would be a good idea. My parents worked their tails off for for almost 60 years, and paid lots of taxes for all those years. Taxes that were supposed to fund medicare and social security for them. If you went back 60 years and told them to invest it, that's on thing. But if you take the taxes and commit to delivery of those services after retirement... you can't possible change the game like that. But, you COULD start now with my kids, and let them save/invest in something that would grow. If they invested in govt bonds, we wouldn't have to borrow so much from the Chinese, maybe....
  4. #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Why can't you? If I were in Congress and truly felt that that government-run health care is "socialist", "communist" and "ruining our country", and felt that the federal government has no rights to be involved in health care, then I'd have a moral and legal obligation to work toward eliminating them. Otherwise, it's just rhetoric and political posturing.
    Work toward it is waaaaay different than outright eliminating them. If we started to eliminate them today, it would be at least two or three generations before we could do that without pulling the rug our from under millions of hard working Americans that have paid taxes and been told the can count on it.

    So, while we are figuring out how to fix or eliminate a massive program over the next 40 or 50 years, let's realize the benefit of not creating another one that is even bigger.

    Why does that make you think I'm a hater or a radical? We should keep our commitments. We should be REALLY careful before making more commitments.

    How is that rhetoric or posturing? Seriously. Anyone? Bhueler?
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    My parents worked their tails off for for almost 60 years, and paid lots of taxes for all those years. Taxes that were supposed to fund medicare and social security for them. If you went back 60 years and told them to invest it, that's on thing. But if you take the taxes and commit to delivery of those services after retirement... you can't possible change the game like that. But, you COULD start now with my kids, and let them save/invest in something that would grow. If they invested in govt bonds, we wouldn't have to borrow so much from the Chinese, maybe....
    No, their taxes paid for those folks who were currently on Social Security and Medicare, with the understanding that the next generation would take care of them. Big difference.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    No, their taxes paid for those folks who were currently on Social Security and Medicare, with the understanding that the next generation would take care of them. Big difference.
    Either way, you can't pull the rug out from under honest, hard working people that trusted government, paid their taxes, and played by the rules. That's the point.
  7. #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post

    Why does that make you think I'm a hater or a radical? We should keep our commitments. We should be REALLY careful before making more commitments.

    How is that rhetoric or posturing? Seriously. Anyone? Bhueler?
    I never called you anything. I was referring to the hypocrisy of those Republicans and pundits who call health care, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security socialist and in violation of our Constitution, yet don't have the courage to uphold their skewed view of the Constitution by moving to eliminate them.

    They don't because it's about scoring points and defeating the President's initiative, rather than a serious discussion of policy.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Either way, you can't pull the rug out from under honest, hard working people that trusted government, paid their taxes, and played by the rules. That's the point.
    So if I am honest and hard-working, pay my taxes, and play by the rules, it's still okay for me to lose everything if I get cancer? Or to lose the ability to pay for health care because the insurance companies increase my rates by 50%?

    The central issue is simply whether health care is a right or a privilege. I believe it's a right, and the current bill has been confirmed to decrease, rather than increase, the deficit, so the "we're bankrupting our children" argument doesn't fly for me.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    That is factually wrong, despite spin to the contrary. He never said those decisions would be based upon cost effectiveness, but rather based upon evidence of effectiveness.

    His exact words were: "we can make sure that some of the waste that is not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller."

    You'll note that his entire point, spin to the contrary, was that doctors and patients should make decisions.
    No, that was not what he was saying--contrary to YOUR spin. What he revealed is that a third party would be telling the doctor and her Mother what is or isn't effective. This is clearly if one reads that quote. The entire statement is about he third party informing the Patient and Doctor, yet somehow magically, you COMPLETELY gloss over this. Spin Indeed. YOU are spinning this to ignore the entire mention of this third party. Blatant misdirection.

    Let me emphasize that portion, since you apparently do not realize that you've undermined your own selective reading of what the President actually said.
    "At least we can let Doctors Know and your Mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help."

    It seems he is referring to the Government as the "we" who is informing the Doctor and Patient of what is or isn't effective. Now, he didn't say that the third party would make the decision, but clearly, he is indicating that they would be involved, at least informing the Doctor and Patient.

    If the Doctors and patients are making these decisions (and who exactly "knows" better than the doctor treating the patient), why are "we" involved at all? Why would a doctor proficient in his field need to be told what is effective by some third party (government) entity? The entire position assumes that the "we" knows better and thus has to inform the Doctor and Patient.

    So, thanks for the vivid demonstration of exactly how one spins a key reference out of existence in order to forward a half-truth. You entirely ignore this entire reference to this third Party--NOT the Doctor and NOT the Patient. What you seem to be trying to ignore is that a Third party is involved.

    Of course my point was that there would be a third party involved, and that is EXACTLY what President Obama's statement confirms. For your own reason you ignore this and pretend that his point is that Doctors and Patients should make decisions. False--the point is that the third party informs the Doctor and patient about what's effective.

    And in reference to cost. It is true that President Obama didn't say "cost" but I think it is ridiculous to pretend that Cost is not a factor in this. It is--everyone knows cost is an issue, and a major justification for this so-called reform is to CONTROL COSTS. So to pretend that somehow this is totally unrelated is just not honest. I'm not even saying that's an invalid position to consider, but you aren't fooling anyone by waving your hand in order to ignore this key issue.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/19/2010 at 01:11 AM.
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The central issue is simply whether health care is a right or a privilege. I believe it's a right, and the current bill has been confirmed to decrease, rather than increase, the deficit, so the "we're bankrupting our children" argument doesn't fly for me.
    What makes health care a right? What justifies your position that someone is obligated to provide you with health care. If it is a RIGHT, then it cannot be denied. So, what makes you believe that someone MUST provide you something, just because you need it.

    To believe this is a right, by definition REQUIRES that someone else give you something (unless you are treating yourself, which I doubt is what you are referring to), and no one that understands rights can rightfully claim that someone else's rights (to their time, money, skills) are a slave to yours.

    Now if you've somehow figured out how your "right" to healthcare DOESN'T require someone provide you with something, I'd love to hear it.

    As far as "confirmed to decrease the deficit"--first, how gullible are you, or is you wishful thinking capability just beyond that of mortal man? But let's say this DOES turn out to be true--that doesn't mean there isn't a cost, so in fact, costs do actually increase.

    This point is apparently lost on some people. This COSTS almost a trillion dollars. It does not cost -100 Billion. Our children and grandchildren and beyond are still paying for this--in the form of fees, taxes, etc--all of which they have to pay for. This -100 billion (or whatever it is) is the difference in the ADDITIONAL cost and the expenditures.

    Let me make this simpler, since it is apparently hard to understand. If we raise taxes by a Trillion, and only spend 900 Billion, the DEFICIT is a net -100 Billion. It doesn't mean we saved money. Its like the old Joke about the wife telling the husband she saved money because she bought something on sale.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/18/2010 at 11:31 PM.
  11.    #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Let me emphasize that portion, since you apparently do not realize that you've undermined your own selective reading of what the President actually said.
    "At least we can let Doctors Know and your Mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help."

    It seems he is referring to the Government as the "we" who is informing the Doctor and Patient of what is or isn't effective. Now, he didn't say that the third party would make the decision, but clearly, he is indicating that they would be involved, at least informing the Doctor and Patient.

    If the Doctors and patients are making these decisions (and who exactly "knows" better than the doctor treating the patient), why are "we" involved at all? Why would a doctor proficient in his field need to be told what is effective by some third party (government) entity? The entire position assumes that the "we" knows better and thus has to inform the Doctor and Patient.

    So, thanks for the vivid demonstration of exactly how one spins a key reference out of existence in order to forward a half-truth. You entirely ignore this entire reference to this third Party--NOT the Doctor and NOT the Patient. What you seem to be trying to ignore is that a Third party is involved.

    Of course my point was that there would be a third party involved, and that is EXACTLY what President Obama's statement confirms. For your own reason you ignore this and pretend that his point is that Doctors and Patients should make decisions. False--the point is that the third party informs the Doctor and patient about what's effective.


    KAM
    No matter how many times we go through this, you just don't get it. I realize you think in absolutist terms,like "the government is bad" and "all doctors know what is right for the patient". As I've pointed out numerous times, summarizing research and making the results available to doctors is exactly what is needed to provide efficient cost-effective health care. That's why specialty societies and national organizations have developed clinical guidelines to give doctors suggestions about what works and what doesn't. There are something like 30,000 medical articles published every year. Believe it or not, we don't have time to read them all. That's why groups like the Agency for Health Quality and Research review the evidence to help doctors practice better.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Home Page

    That's why clinical guidelines are collected and organized so that doctors can efficiently find best practices at places like the National Guidelines Clearinghouse NGC - National Guideline Clearinghouse

    Using best practices and evidence-based guidelines are an excellent way to only spend your tax dollars on treatments that have been shown to be effective. If something is shown to be harmful, or ineffective, you would rather have it paid for just because I jump up and down and want to use it anyway? If you sprain your knee and want to have an MRI, and you are on Medicare, and there is no indication whatsoever to get one, should Medicare pay for it anyway? Of course not. We have to have controls over spending. We should be paying for those things that improve the health of the individual and the population, and not paying for things that don't. If you call that some kind of government intervention, fine, then that's what's needed to control costs so that people can get the care they need. But the most important concept is that this is NOT just about controlling costs. It actually represents better, higher quality care.

    And by the way...these groups that make these decisions are not government employees. They are experts in their fields. The information is collected and summarized by a variety of governmental agencies, but it is NOT the government that is determining these guidelines. It's organizations like the American College of Obstetics and Gynecology, or the American Lung Association, or the American Diabetes Association. This whole topic is just another reason why people who don't know much about how care is delivered need to educate themselves if they want to avoid sounding like empty-headed cretins. Simplistic blame of the government when in fact they are providing the information that is needed for quality care just makes people sound foolish.

    As an example, here are diabetes management guidelines from the American Diabetes Association that list the recommended care for diabetics.

    Diabetes guidelines

    Spend some time looking around those websites so you at least have a vague idea of what guidelines and recommendations are about...
    Last edited by davidra; 03/19/2010 at 02:29 AM.
  12.    #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Ok, then I want davidra to acknowledge all those things...
    Let me get this straight. You want me to acknowledge that you complimented Clinton and Gore? So what? You have steadfastly refused to answer the simplest questions by obfuscation and macroeconomic opinionated BS. It's the detail that you run away from. Stop saying you're not opposed to health care reform and tell me what you would do for people, real people, who have no insurance RIGHT NOW. I realize you feel like you have to expound at length, but you still avoid the realities of what not having insurance is like, just like the teabaggers in the video.

    You said you didn't think everyone should have to buy insurance. This is a very simple question. If someone chooses not to buy insurance and comes in the ER in an auto accident, will you send them away? If not, who will pay for their care? Be specific, now. I'm not sure how many times I can keep asking this since you seem to keep saying you aren't opposed to health insurance reform. Fine, if you want your opinion to mean anything, then tell me what you would do in that situation. And stop avoiding difficult decisions, because that's exactly what republicans/conservatives are doing with health care reform.
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Don't worry... after being baited by our mod, I now have an in infraction.

    Guess I should have seen that coming... this site is going back to the 2005/06 era. Maybe my talk of religion got under some of the mods skin....

    Guess I'll go away for a while and relax on another site.

    We will see what happens this weekend... everyone have fun!!
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  14.    #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Don't worry... after being baited by our mod, I now have an in infraction.

    Guess I should have seen that coming... this site is going back to the 2005/06 era. Maybe my talk of religion got under some of the mods skin....

    Guess I'll go away for a while and relax on another site.

    We will see what happens this weekend... everyone have fun!!
    Hey...if you don't have at least one, you've not been doing your job. Don't run off....
  15. #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    What makes health care a right? What justifies your position that someone is obligated to provide you with health care. If it is a RIGHT, then it cannot be denied. So, what makes you believe that someone MUST provide you something, just because you need it.
    Kam is correct here. In the USA healthcare isn't a right. There is no legislation making it a right such as there is in places like Canada, UK, France, etc.....
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Kam is correct here. In the USA healthcare isn't a right. There is no legislation making it a right such as there is in places like Canada, UK, France, etc.....
    why not?
  17. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    The logical fallacy is called a false choice.
    Personally, I've always thought false dichotomy is a better descriptor since it implies that it is presenting it as a dichotomy which creates the fallacy. False dilemma is OK, too. False choice usually leads to this sort of thing where it goes off course.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Let me make this simpler, since it is apparently hard to understand. If we raise taxes by a Trillion, and only spend 900 Billion, the DEFICIT is a net -100 Billion.
    Your analogy is incorrect because it does not factor expected future liabilities. A better analogy:

    If I spend $10,000 on new computers that cause my workers to become productive enough that I don't have to hire a new worker at $40,000, I just saved $30,000. But by your analogy, we would simply look at the balance sheet and say we lost $10,000.

    By spending $940 billion and essentially forcing the lower classes into insurance coverage, you're lowering your total liability among those deemed your highest risk. The CBO has estimated that the government will save over a trillion dollars in the next twenty years by what is essentially, just insuring risk. From a financial standpoint, it makes perfect sense. The side benefit that it happens to save peoples' lives is.. well, it's nice isn't it?

    There is no reasonable viewpoint to dislike the bill financially. There just isn't.

    I'm a business man. For the life of me, I cannot understand how business is not behind a single payer system 100%. The HR costs generated by administering health care to employees is a gigantic sucking black hole, requiring business that has no expertise in this area to hire people to do it for them. Why they don't want to outsource it in order to focus their time and capital on core competencies rather than pumping money into a useless HR department is beyond me.
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Kam is correct here. In the USA healthcare isn't a right. There is no legislation making it a right such as there is in places like Canada, UK, France, etc.....
    There is also no right to food, yet we provide food at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to housing, yet we provide housing at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to policing, yet we provide policing at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to fire protection, yet we provide fire protection at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to transportation links, yet we provide transportation links at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.
    There is no right to food inspection, yet we provide food inspection at the governmental level for our poorest citizens.

    That train of thought is a dead end.
    Last edited by biggyfred; 03/19/2010 at 09:27 AM.
  19.    #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Kam is correct here. In the USA healthcare isn't a right. There is no legislation making it a right such as there is in places like Canada, UK, France, etc.....
    No...but hopefully there is about to be.

    They are haranguing about the constitution, but the fact is there's no constitutional delineated right to education either...but we provide it. Why? Because it's the best thing for the country as a whole, AND for individuals. Just like health care.
    Last edited by davidra; 03/19/2010 at 09:36 AM.
  20. #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    why not?
    Because in the philosophical underpinnings of the US system of government, rights are those freedoms that you possess which the government is not supposed to take away from you. Government is not the source of rights. The Constitution is not the source of rights. You possess rights by virtue of your very existence. Your rights impose no burden upon anyone else.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions