webOS Nation Forums
> Other Forums
> Off Topic
>
Destroying Healthcare in America
First
...
13 63 103 108 109 110 111 112 113
114 115 116 117 118 123
...
Last
Guest:
KAM1138
at: 05:33 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
..and don't forget about the part where your fellow citizens don't have the same understanding of certain matters that you do.
Yes, you're the only one who truly understands. All Hail KAM!
I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding what I'm saying here.
I didn't say "they don't understand." I'm saying they see things differently than I do.
You are really misreading my intention there.
KAM
Moderator:
groovy
at: 05:34 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
The stance that nothing is wrong with the American healthcare system won't convince Americans.
Maybe I missed it but who is saying there's nothing wrong with US health care?
Moderator:
groovy
at: 05:38 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by davidra:
You're a Canadian and you just don't understand. Additionally we don't care what you think. Right, Micael? Kam?
Another strawman argument.
Member:
Toby
at: 05:40 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
..and don't forget about the part where your fellow citizens don't have the same understanding of certain matters that you do.
Where is the value judgment inherent in that statement (i.e. not having the same equating to my view is better)? Also, even if there were one, the word you are reaching for is egomania or egotism. Megalomania would imply an obsession with power, domination, wealth, etc. Egomania would be an obsession with self. Egotism would simply be narcissism.
Originally Posted by :
Yes, you're the only one who truly understands. All Hail KAM!
That's a non sequitur. Many of my fellow citizens don't have the same shoe size as I do. Now, I'm a megalomaniac.
Guest:
KAM1138
at: 05:43 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
Name calling isn't classy and really diminishes your viewpoints.
Considering you only joined in June 2009 and have very few posts over that time (mainly in the OFF TOPIC section), are you one of those people with two accounts the moderator is warning us about?
I'm going to assume you are being sincere here. If so, I'd expect you'd note behavior of all posters who are "name calling" instead of singling me out, because I think its obvious that 1thing2add and I don't get along that well.
Now, its interesting that you noted that I joined in June, but accused me of not defending the Constitution while President Bush was in office. Of course perhaps you did so after the post I'm now responding to.
But no, I am not who the moderator is referring to. I have one account here, and have never posted here under a different name.
Interesting however, that you again ask me that question, while 1thing2add has fewer topic posts and joined even later than I did. I believe however that a third party (not a moderator) alleged that 1thing2add is in fact someone who has had different identities (I don't know if that is true or not).
Should I doubt your sincerity here? Are you just pointing various fingers at me, accusing me of being a megalomaniac, despite explaining myself (several times now).
I hope that you are just honestly mistaken and overzealous. I've answered each of your posts here today without any hostility whatsoever.
KAM
Guest:
KAM1138
at: 05:45 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
Although a direct payer system could theoretically work, historically it hasn't--which is why we have Medicare and Medicaid today.
It's a pipe dream to pretend this is a viable alternative.
Ah, very open minded consideration you made there for what...5 minutes?
Well, no sense wasting any time discussing that with you then. Thanks for saving me the time.
KAM
Moderator:
groovy
at: 05:45 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
Read through this thread, there are many on here claiming that there is nothing wrong (or they will say "we all agree that there must be health reform but don't agree on how it should be done" and offer no alternative to what's being proposed).
If you can't provide any alternate solutions and, instead, resort to name-calling like ****, socialist, fascist, death panels, etc., you really don't want the system to change.
Not true. There have been other alternatives offered. They are usually dismissed outright if they are even responded to at all. The people who support the President's type of reform are just as willing/unwilling to see the benefit of other alternatives as those opposed.
Member:
Toby
at: 05:52 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
Since this is a thread about healthcare, it seems that KAM is referring to his understanding about healthcare.
There is a whole thread of people on here who understand healthcare quite well--yet KAM claims many of his fellow citizens don't have the same understanding that he/she does. Who could KAM be referring to....the baker down the street?
The who is irrelevant. The point is that if he's saying that others don't have the "same understanding (or don't care) about certain things [he] do[es]", that does not mean that he understands anything better. It's an acknowledgement that others have different views, not that his are in any way better. Just because your computer is based on binary, it doesn't mean _you_ have to think that way.
Originally Posted by zelgo:
Although a direct payer system could theoretically work, historically it hasn't--which is why we have Medicare and Medicaid today.
It's a pipe dream to pretend this is a viable alternative.
Outside of a public single-payer system, have you ever seen a nationalized, successful example of a "direct" payer system? Is that to say that the consideration is a retrospective payment or prospective payment system?
Member:
Toby
at: 05:58 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
When I called you a megalomaniac, I was kidding--I don't know you. It was just how that line you wrote came across.
I think this is where someone is supposed to bring up projection.
Originally Posted by :
I'm not sure why anyone would have a second name on TC.
A reason that comes to mind is that one may have been banned previously for engaging in counterproductive or disruptive behavior.
Originally Posted by :
Are those people such losers that TC is their life?
I wouldn't even pretend to know what drives such behavior, but then again, I stopped using screen names in the 90s.
Originally Posted by :
It's not like this debate is involving the whole world--about 10 people are squabbling here.
10 people whose employers have no idea how much time they spend on TC instead of doing work...
Make that 9 or less. Some of us are capable of keeping track of multiple windows (and tabs for that matter).
Member:
phlegm
at: 06:02 PM 09/17/2009
I have another question, from a Canadian perspective...
Recently, the US gov't paid billions to bail out AIG et al. Maybe I'm out of touch, but I don't recall seeing a ton of debate over this. Certainly some concern, but definitely no protests, and no town hall screaming. (We get a lot of US television.)
Meanwhile, a public healthcare system is another government-proposed expenditure. (I'm thinking billions less than AIG et al, but in any event, let's call it equal.) Town hall screaming. Even yelling in Congress.
We could argue that both strategies are equally hard on the oft-quoted "future generation".
I'm curious why gov't involvement in economics seems to generate far less dissention than involvement in healthcare.
Member:
Toby
at: 06:04 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
um, whatever. It's time to move on from semantics.
LOL...perfect.
Originally Posted by zelgo:
No industrialized country has a successful direct payer system. In fact, the whole concept of insurance came about because direct payer didnt work for healthcare (as well as any other area with insurance).
To try to go back to direct payor is to pretend it didn't fail in the first place.
OK. To make it a little more clear, this would normally be referred to as "Private" pay, but I follow why the term "direct" is being tossed about. Thanks.
Moderator:
groovy
at: 06:11 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
The problem is that most of the alternatives seem to keep alot of what we already have.
I believe both the right's ideas (free market solutions) and left's ideas (Single payor) can work. The real problem is which side is easier to get to from where we are now.
Free market solutions require the participation of the elderly to function (which means ending Medicare). That's nearly impossible.
How free market solutions would work from the current system would be a fantastic discussion. Sadly, starting from the inflammatory title of this thread, most of the conservative side seems to mud-sling and deny healthcare facts rather than present well-thoughout reforms.
I think those are over-simplifications of both sides. Sure, there are some who want purely free-market and some who want purely state-run. But there are a huge variety of options in between. Forcing each camp into such a small box makes it easy to dismiss the arguments from the other side but it doesn't get you any closer to finding a real solution. I think this is where are politicians are now.
By the way, you have to admit the mud-slinging is coming from all sides.
Originally Posted by groovy:
I think those are over-simplifications of both sides. Sure, there are some who want purely free-market and some who want purely state-run. But there are a huge variety of options in between.
There is not a single proposal in congress to have a single-payer system, nor is there any proposal for a free-market free-for-all system. The proposals being considered are a mix of public and private insurances, with a public option as well as adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid, within the scope of the new system. As far as congress is concerned, the people have spoken and this is where is gets boiled down.
Member:
haydur
at: 06:31 PM 09/17/2009
You know something, nothing that Obama does or will do in the next 3 years will please the conservatives. Nothing. I just find it funny how they despise his administration so much...
I guess that's how I was feeling when Bush won the election for the first time in 2004.
Member:
Woof
at: 06:36 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by haydur:
You know something, nothing that Obama does or will do in the next 3 years will please the conservatives. Nothing. I just find it funny how they despise his administration so much...
I guess that's how I was feeling when Bush won the election for the first time in 2004.
Obama called Kanye West a jack a s s. I was pleased as punch that he did that. Maybe it's because I am more of a moderate?
Moderator:
groovy
at: 06:58 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
I don't. Read through the thread, the mud is coming from one side--as symbolized by the title of this entire thread.
I don't have the time or interest to try to prove this to you so I guess we agree to disagree. I can't comprehend how a person could
not see the mudslinging coming from all sides on this thread.
Moderator:
groovy
at: 07:14 PM 09/17/2009
Originally Posted by zelgo:
Press Release:
[B]
Lack of health insurance now more lethal
...
I'll have to read up on this one. But I hope the scholarship is better than that same couple's flawed analysis of medical bankruptcies.
Author's Woolhandler and her husband Himmelstein are staunch advocates are of a single-payer approach, by the way.
Originally Posted by groovy:
I'll have to read up on this one. But I hope the scholarship is better than that same couple's flawed analysis of medical bankruptcies.
Author's Woolhandler and her husband Himmelstein are staunch advocates are of a single-payer approach, by the way.
Instead of broad-brushing the authors, the science should be examined first. Besides, personal inclinations are compensated for within the statistical analysis of any solid, peer-reviewed clinical study. Wonder if this peer-reviewed, published Harvard study has a p-value not < .05. Hmmmmm. Yep! All Confidence Intervals = 95% so it can be taken as substantial.
pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
>
Destroying Healthcare in America
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks