Search This Blog

Saturday, May 22, 2010

A talk with a physician about Obamacare

Yesterday in the company of many fine fellows and a few feminine companions history was made. Maybe. We small group of erstwhile Quixotes have formed a chapter of a 527 organization with the intention of informing and energizing voters. I am hopeful that within a couple of months we can have a small impact and by 2012 we will help to focus grassroots efforts and perhaps even have a convention for Tea Party types to pre-qualify a people's candidate to run against the RINO that the dunderheads up the ladder drop down on our heads. You will know us when we have the html code ready for the badge to display on blogger.

In Indiana, many grassroots candidates lost to party hacks because the hacks had some name recognition and big money. We can't help with the money part. But we can inform voters so they don't just vote for a name they vaguely remember. Sadly, with some voters any recognition at all gets their vote. John Gacy? I heard of him, guess I should vote for him as Sheriff!

While working as a poll judge I was asked to tell people who the incumbent was and how to vote a straight ticket (primaries? Nothing but straight tickets) or who to vote for (which I could not do) and a few folks who were asking other voters who to vote for...shouldn't people KNOW something about candidates in advance? Well, we want to fix that!

While starting up the chapter with charter memberships and doing the officer thing (both by acclamation) and so on and so forth, I had the chance to have good conversations with some of the more honest local politicians and a few bloggers I had not met in person before and one exceedingly interesting wife of a blogger buddy who had a lot of eye-opening things to say about Obamacare.

My doctor and the people at my clinic are very concerned about what will happen once Obamacare really takes hold. I wondered what Dr. A would say and here is a close-to-verbatim recounting of the conversation. Keep in mind that I was holding a conversation with her about this and with two colleagues about two other topics so I was going back and forth between three people. Keep in mind that Dr. A was born and raised in Romania and remembers the communist years, is also fluent in Spanish and English is her third language! Makes me feel kind of dorky, but here we go.

R = Radar

A = Dr. A

R - So what kind of medicine do you practice?

A - I am, I do internal medicine, yes.

R - Where do you work? A hospital around here?

A - A clinic. I used to work in ******** Hospital but it was a consortium of physicians who were more concerned about money than caring for people and I grew tired of that, so I went out on my own. Hospitals are either going to focus on money or go broke and close.

R - Yes! My daughter had interupted aortic arch with ASD and VSD at birth and they rushed her to Michael Reese Hospital, which was a top class pediatric surgical hospital and her life was saved. Now the place is closed and abandoned...I saw some pictures of the place on Flickr and it was awful, a bunch of trash and junk now.

A - So now I work in Illinois.

R - Nearby? Can I go there?

A - (She then describes the area so I know what part of Illinois her clinic is in) I had to work in Illinois because I signed a non-compete in the state so I could not work in Indiana.

R- What do you think of Obamacare? Would it be a disaster?

A - No, I don't think so at first. But I think it is a lie. It really isn't free healthcare but it would lead to rationing. It would be hard to tell at first.

R - You think it would work at first?

A - Yes, at first it will not make so much difference. But it will go bad later on.

R - My doctor is worried he will go out of business. You know, I get a discount for paying cash? And I have gone to the same clinic since 1984 and they know me and what is going on with me. I am afraid I will lose them. Plus I can afford cash better than buying insurance.

A - Yes, well in Germany they have a system like this. It works but if you have a very difficult or expensive condition you must be politically connected or have money. Romania really did have free care but that was very bad.

R - Romania was free?

A - Yes, but the government would give a hospital a certain amount for the year and that was that. So they would get a million dollars and what do they buy? Soap, toilet paper, gloves, basic medicines, things like that. Then they have a few hundred thousand dollars and they pay for the most common medicines and then that is that. So if you come in with a broken hip and you need a special orthopedic device, you cannot have it...unless you pay for it and also pay a tip. In Romania people would tip doctors to get faster service or anything. If you had something that was not common and you had no money, you could not get help.

R - So it was actually a disaster?

A - Yes, for most people it was very bad if they were badly hurt or had a bad disease. It was a kind of rationing and it was about bribes and tips.

R - The underground cash only economy?

A - Yes. In this country a homeless bum can be rushed into the emergency room with broken bones and get xrays and everything he needs and then if he is ready to leave and has no money the hospital just pays. But someone who just wants to be checked for non emergency needs to show ID and maybe a visa card to get treatment. So the Obamacare is not about giving care to emergency patients who are poor.

R - But if it is free, then people will just come in with a headache and ask for all sorts of tests?

A - Okay. If my patient has a headache and we look at her condition and tell her there is a chance of brain cancer and she is a cash patient or has very poor insurance I know getting tested will cost her at least three hundred dollars. If she asks me the chances she has a tumor versus something common and I say one per cent then she can decide maybe she doesn't want the test. But if it will not cost her anything she will get it, you see? I get no money for the test, I will tell her the odds and let her decide. Under this Obamacare maybe everyone will want the test?

R - Sure. Again, I am a cash patient and everyone gives me a discount for cash so I would hate mandatory insurance.

A - I give thirty per cent for cash. If I have a Medicare patient and the charge is 63 dollars I probably only get 45 dollars back for that or maybe less and there is a lot of delay and paperwork. Some insurance only pays part of what is charged. I like cash payers. So many things are...

(At this point another guy interjects) There will be people who will be required to do operations they believe violates their Hypocratic oath and they will leave medicine!

R - Right, what if all physicians are required to do abortions? Some of them will not do it, believing the Hypocratic oath means they don't take innocent lives. What do you think?

A - I didn't take the oath.

R - No?

A - The room was crowded and a lot of the people did not smell good when they gave the oath so I just walked out and got my license anyway.

R - Wow. Romania was another world. Were there Trabants there?

A - No, but some other car like that, yes. But there is no bank loan at that time, you had to have the money to buy a house or buy a car so not many people owned cars. I was very privileged and so I was better off than most people. My grandfather was rich and had much land and money. When the communists took everything they took land but did not take the house, so my grandfather sold it and got a smaller house where we lived and we still had some money. My parents were professionals. My mother was a professor of economics and I loved math but she warned me not to be a teacher.

R - Why is that? A university professor is a good job!

A - No, not in Romania. The pay is not good. The students are not good, they are not respectful. My mother warned me to either be an accountant or maybe four other ideas and I decided to try medicine. When we finally were free from communism in 1989 I began thinking about how to go away from Romania. Before we had no visa, no passports.

R - This is off the subject, but what if doctors did pro bono work maybe one-two days a month to help give care to the poor? Couldn't we do okay with the present system and throw away Obamacare if maybe doctors with tort reform could pay less in insurance and maybe help out pro bono like a lot of lawyers do?

A - I wanted to do this. At my church, which is in Cook County I was going to give three hours in the afternoon after church on Sundays to help out people who needed care, but I can't do it because if I practice medicine in Cook instead of Will County I have to pay an extra ten thousand dollars insurance. To give free care. So I could not do it.

R - That is so stupid. Lawyers!

A - So at first here it will not be bad but soon there will be rationing because all national healthcare plans become rationing. Only the rich and connected people will get everything they need. The poor will die.

R - So the poor and elderly people will get minimal care and then they die faster and oh, well?

A - That is what will happen, yes. It will be harder for me to work. It will be hard on people.

R - But couldn't we just allow insurance plans crossing state lines and business consortium plans and make insurance more affordable? We really aren't doing this the right way?

A - Yes, this is better. Make insurance better. My husband and I pay six hundred dollars a month for disaster insurance, if we have something very bad that puts us in the hospital but otherwise we just pay cash. Imagine when Obamacare happens, insurance companies cannot keep out anyone with preexisting conditions and so cancer patients and people who are going to need a lot of care so all insurance will be expensive.

R - So paying the no-insurance penalty is probably what I need to do.

A - In the end it will hurt the poor and people who are older and have bad conditions so rationing will happen and people will die I think. The poor.

~

So someone more accomplished and smarter than me who works in the industry and has experience with socialized medicine AND totalitarian governments is completely against it but her manner was quite stoic. She seemed to expect to get dumped on and was ready to slog on through. I hope for her and her husband that Obamacare will be stopped and repealed before it ruins the greatest medical system in the world. Yes, there are flaws in the system and jerk lawyers like John Edwards have helped insurance costs for doctors shoot up precipitously (ten thousand dollars EXTRA a year to give free care in Cook County?!) but we have the best system anyway. You find plenty of people fleeing national medicine nations coming here to get special care. Once the government takes over health care, that will change and I think it will change faster than Dr. A. believes.

Her husband is a talented writer and an IT guy. I am a writer and an IT guy. They have been married twelve years and met on Thanksgiving in New York City and were married in February. I asked if it was love on first sight and A said "maybe third" but her husband said he proposed on their fifth date. Great couple! I met my wife in late July and we were married before Christmas. Sometimes you just know. It will be fun to introduce my wife to M and to A. I am keeping them anonymous for now. Their names do not matter right now. The problems and issues remain.

And a note from Robert Sumner of the Biblical Evangelist:


THE “FIRST LADY’S” STAFF: Information provided by Columnist Dan Kennedy: "In lecturing us about blowing our money, The Great Ozbama displays breathtaking gall. Given that he is blowing trillions of our money, not his, and burying us in debt as no president in history, silence on the subject would seem more reasonable. To be nit-picky about it, since he is in citing trips to Vegas as particularly objectionable, I hold in my casino chip-calloused fingers a list procured from CanadaFreePress.com of Mrs. Obama's staff and their salaries.

“She reportedly has a staff of 22 assistants. Yes, I said twenty-two. (Previous First Ladies' dedicated staffs were in the single digits). Michelle's little army includes a Chief of Staff costing $172,000 a year; a Deputy Chief of Staff at $90,000; a Director of Policy and Projects at $140,000; a Director of Communications at $102,000; a Deputy Director of Scheduling at $62,000; two Social Secretaries – mysteriously, one at $65,000, one at $64,000; an Associate Director of Correspondence at $45,000, an Assistant to the Social Secretary at $36,000, and more, in total consuming $6.3-million annually – thus $25-million during her 4-year term. Not to mention a make-up artist and hair stylist.

“I have one assistant. Answer my own correspondence. Keep my own calendar ... Mr. President, sir, if you are going to lecture me about blowing my money in Vegas or turning down my thermostat or inflating my tires, do you think you could reign in your wife's blowing of my money just a teeny bit?"

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

"She reportedly has a staff of 22 assistants. Yes, I said twenty-two. (Previous First Ladies' dedicated staffs were in the single digits)."

Debunked ages ago: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp

Anonymous said...

And here: http://m.factcheck.org/2009/08/michelle-obamas-staff/

radar said...

I heard it was debunked, yes, because she had MORE than 22. But they are re-labeled now to take the heat off.

Anonymous said...

Where do you keep digging up these lying websites? One after the other. It's uncanny.

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Interesting conversation with Dr. A, but you don't have to be a doctor to figure out that things are going to go from bad to worse.

You can think about it as a mathematical equation, where...

Future costs = $F
Existing costs = $E
New patient costs (base) = $NPb
New patient costs (illegals) = $NPi
Pre-existing conditions = $PE
159 New Govt agencies = $USG
Fines & Penalties = $FP
New Taxes = $NT
Lost Jobs = $LJ
Regulatory Cost Caps = $RCC
More Medicaid = $MM
Fewer Doctors = $MD
Increased waiting times = $WT
Interest on the debt = $ID
Care Rationing = $CR

$F = $E + $NPb + $NPi + $PE + $USG + $FP + $NT + $LJ + $MM + $MD + $WT + $ID - $RCC - $CR

In other words, Future costs = Existing costs + the cost of new patients who go onto the health care rolls + the costs of illegals who become new patients when ObamAmensty is passed + the cost to insurance companies for having to accept pre-existing conditions + the cost of 159 new government agencies + the cost of fines and penalties on individuals and organizations that do not comply with the law + the cost of new taxes on individuals (making more than $250,000) and businesses (passed on to the consumers) + the cost of jobs lost through disincentives + the increased costs of Medicaid + the cost to the economy of fewer doctors going into the system and more doctors quitting (because they can't make ends meet) + the cost of longer waiting times due to more patients and fewer doctors (time is money) + the cost of interest on the debt (when deficit spending and reality kick in) - the cost of insurance premiums (that would have been higher in a free market) due to cost caps imposed by new health regulatory agencies - the costs saved by the rationing of health care.

WomanHonorThyself said...

hi my friend.(hugs!).talk to any Canadians and u will know the truth about healthcare.. Hope ya had a great weekend my friend!:)

radar said...

What you really mean is that all recent first ladies have had big staffs. I wonder who has the expenses figured out?

radar said...

Notice no one wants to comment on Obamacare? Obamacare is a massive disaster, a government takeover of a huge portion of the economy. There is no way to defend it I suppose.

Anonymous said...

"Obamacare is a massive disaster, a government takeover of a huge portion of the economy."

As long as you walk around with misconceptions like that, what's the point of discussion?

highboy said...

Its funny how anonymous coward calls these websites liars and then cites factcheck.org as a source.

radar said...

"Obamacare is a massive disaster, a government takeover of a huge portion of the economy."

As long as you walk around with misconceptions like that, what's the point of discussion?


In other words, it is very difficult to defend yet another hugely expensive, doubtfully Constitutional, invasive Statist initiative of the Obama Administration.

Anonymous said...

"Obamacare is a massive disaster, a government takeover of a huge portion of the economy."

"As long as you walk around with misconceptions like that, what's the point of discussion?"

"In other words, it is very difficult to defend yet another hugely expensive, doubtfully Constitutional, invasive Statist initiative of the Obama Administration."


QED.

Chaos Engineer said...

It's not so much that it's hard to defend, it's that you haven't provided any sensible criticisms.

Some random examples of nonsense:

Your doctor friend says "it would lead to rationing". But we had rationing before! In fact, one of the big benefits of Obamacare is that it will lead to less denial of benefits by insurance companies and therefore less health care rationing.

"So the Obamacare is not about giving care to emergency patients who are poor." Who said it was? It's mostly about giving non-emergency health care to people who don't have health insurance today and who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. (That's the working poor and the lower-middle-class, as well as anyone who can't get insurance due to a preexisting condition.)

"What if all physicians are required to do abortions": Now you're just being silly. Do you think that every physician is required to be able to perform every single medical procedure?

If you'd like to debate the health care bill then we can do that, but it's hard to have a meaningful debate when you're not clear on even the broad outlines of the bill.

Can you at least skim the Wikipedia article and then try again?

Ironically, I think the only fact-based criticism came from Hawkeye of all people:

the costs of illegals who become new patients when ObamAmensty is passed

That's absolutely right! Naturalized American citizens are entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. Historically, first-generation American immigrants have been more likely to be among the working poor than later generations, so they'll probably benefit a lot from this program.

That's a definite problem for people who don't like first-generation American citizens. A lot of them were crying in their beer in their KKK Halls and Nazi Compounds when Ronald Reagan signed his amnesty law in 1986, and I bet they'll be crying just as hard if another batch of undocumented workers gets a pathway to citizenship.

And you know what? That suits me just fine. I just wish I could figure out a way to make them cry harder.

highboy said...

"But we had rationing before! In fact, one of the big benefits of Obamacare is that it will lead to less denial of benefits by insurance companies and therefore less health care rationing."

No, it won't. With less doctors and more patients, it will lead to more rationing.

"That's a definite problem for people who don't like first-generation American citizens. A lot of them were crying in their beer in their KKK Halls and Nazi Compounds when Ronald Reagan signed his amnesty law in 1986, and I bet they'll be crying just as hard if another batch of undocumented workers gets a pathway to citizenship.

There's a pretty good reason for that.

"Do you think that every physician is required to be able to perform every single medical procedure?"

No, but now every tax payer is forced to pay for them thanks to Obamacare so its kind of irrelevant. I know go ahead, tell me all about that executive order.....

But I'm happy that you're all about making people who believe in law and order cry.

Chaos Engineer said...

With less doctors and more patients, it will lead to more rationing.

Why would there be less doctors?

If there are more insured patients, then there's more money being spent on health care and that means more job opportunities for doctors.

No, but now every tax payer is forced to pay for them thanks to Obamacare so its kind of irrelevant.

No. You're thinking of Medicaid, which pays for some abortions when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest or if the mother's life is in danger. Obamacare doesn't expand abortion coverage beyond that.

By the way, could you explain to Radar that Obamacare won't force all physicians to perform abortions? I think he might listen to you.

highboy said...

"If there are more insured patients, then there's more money being spent on health care and that means more job opportunities for doctors."

Its not a matter of job opportunities for doctors, its a matter of the vast majority of doctors not wanting anything to do with Obamacare and nearly 49% ready to close up shop as a result of it. There is no more money being spent on healthcare, but rather its the government forcing insurance companies to insure people who can't afford it otherwise due to pre-existing conditions. It forces a business to provide a product to people, and forces those who do not want the product to purchase it anyway, both of which are so blatantly unConstitutional I can't believe a red blooded American would defend it.

"No. You're thinking of Medicaid, which pays for some abortions when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest or if the mother's life is in danger. Obamacare doesn't expand abortion coverage beyond that."

No, I'm thinking of the healthcare bill passed by Obama and the U.S Senate, now law. Its funny that Obamacare defenders keep trying to deny it allows public funding of abortion while the very politicians who support public funding of abortion are very open about this bill's unprecedented demand for such funding. In an attempt to restrict federal funds for abortions, the compromise includes an "abortion opt-out" clause, allowing state legislatures to decide whether their insurance exchanges will permit plans that allow abortion coverage.

"In addition, those who choose a health plan that includes abortion coverage would have to write two separate premium checks — one for abortion and one for all other services.

Critics say the latter requirement would stigmatize abortion coverage. But Boxer said it's only an "accounting procedure" that will do nothing to restrict coverage." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/23/v-print/81204/california-senators-back-health.html

Its simply a matter of fact that this bill gives cover for any state that wants to publicly fund abortions, and the Hyde Amendment only works if its extended to the new streams of funding, and the Obama healthcare bill does not, which is the very reason Obama gave his executive order, which as Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood said was nothing more than symbolic. His executive order has no power over a federal statute.

Chaos Engineer said...

There is no more money being spent on healthcare,

Yes, there is. There are some tax increases in the law, and some cuts to wasteful spending, and there will also be more money coming into the system because fewer bills will go unpaid due to medical bankruptcy.

The bipartisan CBO ran the numbers.

It forces a business to provide a product to people, and forces those who do not want the product to purchase it anyway, both of which are so blatantly unConstitutional I can't believe a red blooded American would defend it.

Huh? The Constitution clearly gives the government the power to regulate interstate commerce, and there are solid precedents for both the things you mention.

"Forcing businesses to provide a product to people" has been around since at least the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For "forcing those who don't want a product to purchase it", you only need to look at Medicare, which is an insurance program that everyone is required to pay for.

Both of these enjoy widespread bipartisan support and only crazy fringe extremists argue that they're unconstitutional. (And not even the garden variety crazy fringe extremists. Only the Rand Paul-style absolute lunatics.)

In addition, those who choose a health plan that includes abortion coverage would have to write two separate premium checks — one for abortion and one for all other services.

You're wandering pretty far afield. We're supposed to be arguing about whether the Obamacare bill would create a new requirement for taxpayers to fund abortions.

What you're talking about is abortion coverage in policies in the state insurance pool. At least one policy in every pool would have to not-provide abortion coverage, and anti-abortion people would be free to buy it. Some of them would be better off than they are today...a lot of people get insurance coverage through their jobs, and they might not be offered a policy that doesn't cover abortion. Getting insurance from a state pool would increase their options.

Even if a policy does cover abortion, government money can't be used to pay that part of the premium. That's the reason for the "two separate premium checks" that you mentioned.

So all you can really say is that Obamacare preserves people's rights to use their own money to pay for an insurance rider that covers abortions if their insurance company offers such a rider. That's a far cry from "forcing taxpayers to fund abortions". Don't you agree?

highboy said...

"Yes, there is. There are some tax increases in the law, and some cuts to wasteful spending, and there will also be more money coming into the system because fewer bills will go unpaid due to medical bankruptcy."

That's a flat out lie. There are no cuts to wasteful spending, and it even added some, like providing federal funding for the rehabilitation for native american pedophiles.

"Huh? The Constitution clearly gives the government the power to regulate interstate commerce, and there are solid precedents for both the things you mention."

Now you're making things up. The federal government has never had the Constitutional authority to force any American to buy a product. Ever.

"Both of these enjoy widespread bipartisan support and only crazy fringe extremists argue that they're unconstitutional. (And not even the garden variety crazy fringe extremists. Only the Rand Paul-style absolute lunatics.)"

You really are a lying hack. I can't believe you actually typed that. In case you've missed it, support for the repeal of Obamacare is up to about 63%, and state after state has filed for a lawsuit due to its Unconstitutionality. What planet you are living on is beyond me, but its certainly a lot more than "crazy fringe lunatics". But its interesting the way you insult RP, the only candidate in any presidential election who actually follows the letter of the Constitution.

"What you're talking about is abortion coverage in policies in the state insurance pool."

Once again, the Hyde Amendment only works if it can be extended to cover all money spent, which the Obamacare bill clearly did not, which is why OBAMA GAVE THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. He had no reason to do so if the Hyde Amendment weren't being trampled on, which it clearly was. But the problem is that executive orders are powerless against a statute once it is passed. The bill allows states an "opt-out" clause, which is the reason for the two premium checks. That means there has to be an abortion plan for them to "opt-out" of. You're simply denying reality on this chaos.

Chaos Engineer said...

That's a flat out lie. There are no cuts to wasteful spending,

President Clinton's wasteful "Medicare Plus" program (later renamed to "Medicare Advantage") is being cut by $130 billion dollars over 10 years starting in 2012. Here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor.

This was all over the news at the time. One of the key Republican arguments against the bill was that it would lead to Medicare cuts.

Do you really not remember that?

After reading the rest of your post, I get the feeling that you're over-tired. Maybe you should have a nice glass of warm milk and lie down for a while.

highboy said...

"After reading the rest of your post, I get the feeling that you're over-tired. Maybe you should have a nice glass of warm milk and lie down for a while."

You mean after reading the rest of my post you don't have an answer. Your positive outlook on this bill so far has not been supported by one substantiated fact, but rather a collection of theories and assumptions about what it may or may not do. But as a matter of verifiable fact, it is blatantly unconstitutional, which is why the vast majority of Americans what it repealed. I realize you want to demonize everyone of the 63% of Americans who feel that way by calling them lunatics but but sadly your opinion about their mental status is irrelevant to the truth of their position. Thanks for coming out.

Btw, as a point of fact, by cutting one program and adding more wasteful programs, no wasteful spending is being slashed.

creeper said...

"its a matter of the vast majority of doctors not wanting anything to do with Obamacare and nearly 49% ready to close up shop as a result of it"

Previously debunked here.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Previously debunked here."

I was part of that discussion and while you had an opposing viewpoint, I didn't read anywhere where it was debunked.

creeper said...

Then read the comment that I linked to, as well as the one by scohen that it makes reference to. The claim is debunked in different ways there, and I don't wish to insult your intelligence or waste my time by simply repeating what is written there.

Though you're now talking about 49% instead of 46%, so maybe you have some other poll in mind, not the debunked NJEM/Marc Schenker talking point?

-- creeper

highboy said...

"The results from the Medicus Firm survey, entitled “Physician Survey: Health Reform’s Impact on Physician Supply and Quality of Medical Care,” were intriguing, particularly in light of the most recently published career projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS predicts a more than a 22 percent increase in physician jobs during the ten-year period ending in 2018. This places physician careers in the top 20 fastest-growing occupations from 2008 to 2018. Meanwhile, nearly one-third of physicians responding to the survey indicated that they will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented.

“What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of health care could suffer,” said Steve Marsh, managing partner at The Medicus Firm in Dallas. “The reality is that there may not be enough doctors to provide quality medical care to the millions of newly insured patients.”

It’s probably not likely that nearly half of the nation’s physicians will suddenly quit practicing at once. However, even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system. Based on the survey results, health reform could, over time, prove to be counterproductive, in that it could decrease patients’ access to medical care while the objective is to improve access."

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform

creeper said...

Is that your way of retracting your claim re. the 49% then?

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Is that your way of retracting your claim re. the 49% then?"

I think it is, though your question seems rather sarcastic. Why, what am I missing?

Of course my bad numbers aside, the result is still the same. The bill is forcing doctors out of practice and adding too many new patients. Its nothing more than a pipe-dream theory that anything about this bill will fix healthcare or the economy. All verifiable signs point to the exact opposite, and that's without even getting into the blatant Constitutional problems this bill presents.

creeper said...

I guess there was some mild sarcasm in there, in part because we'd had this discussion before, arrived at the same spot, but then you came back in this post and made this claim about the 49% again. Which I take it we can now agree is not the case, right?

As for "the result still being the same", that's difficult to determine as long as we're wading through disinformation like that presented by Marc Schenker.

-- creeper

highboy said...

I really don't see how its difficult to determine. If we look at the facts, we see that around 30 million new patients will be insured and looking for healthcare. We see that a vast population of doctors are threatening to quit as a result, and few of the doctors that aren't are thrilled with the new policy. We see costs that are so staggering its going to set our rate of deficit into overdrive, and the idea that this bill will cut wasteful spending is nothing more than a myth, as it adds as much as it "cuts". That's not even getting into the fact that the majority of this country doesn't want it, the Constitution doesn't support it, and the best argument advocates of the bill can come up with apparently is to just write off the majority of Americans as lunatics. Its pretty much the same stance Obama and the democrats have taken as well, which is why they find themselves at odds with virtually everyone.

creeper said...

You're proving my point. There's so much propaganda there that it's close to impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

To take one example, you say that "the majority of this country doesn't want it", presumably based on polls. But if we went by the polls, then they would/should have passed a healthcare bill featuring a public option instead, seeing as a majority of the country did support that.

Re. "the Constitution doesn't support it". Neither of us are Constitutional scholars, though I suspect the administration and congress have access to a few. The commerce clause provides a fair bit of cover, as I understand it. If the healthcare bill is actually challenged in court, we'll see what the outcome is.

"We see that a vast population of doctors are threatening to quit as a result"

If the only point of evidence you have for this is the aforementioned poll, then no, we don't necessarily see that. There are good reasons in part to dismiss those numbers (seeing as they're in relation to a different question, for starters) and in part to be suspicious of them.

"the best argument advocates of the bill can come up with apparently is to just write off the majority of Americans as lunatics"

Link? It sounds like you really haven't strayed outside the confines of your partisan blogroll on this subject and read any arguments by advocates of the bill. They're out there, if you care to look.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"To take one example, you say that "the majority of this country doesn't want it", presumably based on polls. But if we went by the polls, then they would/should have passed a healthcare bill featuring a public option instead, seeing as a majority of the country did support that."

The majority you speak of was about 51% on average. Since this bill has been passed Obamacare has an opposition with America of about 63% http://www.examiner.com/x-47431-DuPage-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d24-Repeal-ObamaCare-63-of-Americans-want-national-health-care-plan-undone

The more they learn of the bill and its costs, not to mention effects, the more they dislike it, and that is without an even more expensive public option.

"Re. "the Constitution doesn't support it". Neither of us are Constitutional scholars, though I suspect the administration and congress have access to a few."

I'm sorry creeper but this is such a lame argument that comes up every time the unConstitutionality of this bill comes up. So you'll still take that position regardless of the issue? Wiretaps? Iraq? Abortion? On all of these you'll claim "I'm not an expert?" You don't have to be a Constitutional scholar to realize the basic liberty of free enterprise, and that the federal government has no authority to demand I buy a product, or an insurance company to sell one. This argument is just absurd on the face of it.

"If the only point of evidence you have for this is the aforementioned poll, then no, we don't necessarily see that. There are good reasons in part to dismiss those numbers (seeing as they're in relation to a different question, for starters) and in part to be suspicious of them."

What evidence do you have to be suspicious of the numbers?

"Link? It sounds like you really haven't strayed outside the confines of your partisan blogroll on this subject and read any arguments by advocates of the bill. They're out there, if you care to look."

I'm referring to the crackpot just a few comments before you showed up here who seems to think that the only people who see this bill as unConstitutional are fringe lunatics, despite the fact that the majority of America wants the bill repealed, and over 16 suits have been filed. As for better arguments, don't presume here creeper. I'm personal friends with more than one person in government, my own brother is a Senator's Chief of Staff, and I'm trying to help him as he forms his own political consultant company. That doesn't make me an expert, but I've seen the debates, I've heard the arguments, and I've heard nothing more substantial to support this bill than hopeful assumptions and theories. Offer a better argument with some verifiable evidence to support it and I'll be happy to listen. Even if I had no clue what was in this bill, the very fact that a verified liar like Obama would tell me he's cutting wasteful spending would give me pause, especially since the evidence points to the contrary.

creeper said...

"To take one example, you say that "the majority of this country doesn't want it", presumably based on polls. But if we went by the polls, then they would/should have passed a healthcare bill featuring a public option instead, seeing as a majority of the country did support that."

The majority you speak of was about 51% on average."


1. Link? Here's one.

2. 51% is a majority.

"Since this bill has been passed Obamacare has an opposition with America of about 63% http://www.examiner.com/x-47431-DuPage-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d24-Repeal-ObamaCare-63-of-Americans-want-national-health-care-plan-undone"

Not quite.

"The more they learn of the bill and its costs, not to mention effects, the more they dislike it, and that is without an even more expensive public option."

The trend is unclear about that: both the trendlines for favoring and opposing the bill are heading south. Which is weird: they're becoming more undecided over time, both pro and con.

But the trendline you wish to see is not there.

"Re. "the Constitution doesn't support it". Neither of us are Constitutional scholars, though I suspect the administration and congress have access to a few."

I'm sorry creeper but this is such a lame argument that comes up every time the unConstitutionality of this bill comes up. So you'll still take that position regardless of the issue? Wiretaps? Iraq? Abortion? On all of these you'll claim "I'm not an expert?""


Get back to me on this question if you EVER see me dragging the Constitution into any of these arguments. Until then, your point is moot.

"You don't have to be a Constitutional scholar to realize the basic liberty of free enterprise, and that the federal government has no authority to demand I buy a product, or an insurance company to sell one. This argument is just absurd on the face of it."

If it makes you happy. I don't claim to be an authority on the finer points of the commerce clause, nor do I consider you one.

""If the only point of evidence you have for this is the aforementioned poll, then no, we don't necessarily see that. There are good reasons in part to dismiss those numbers (seeing as they're in relation to a different question, for starters) and in part to be suspicious of them."

What evidence do you have to be suspicious of the numbers?"


The ones I pointed out the last time we discussed this. I won't insult your intelligence nor waste my time by copying them here. You can find the link in the earlier comments.

-- creeper

creeper said...

""Link? It sounds like you really haven't strayed outside the confines of your partisan blogroll on this subject and read any arguments by advocates of the bill. They're out there, if you care to look."

I'm referring to the crackpot just a few comments before you showed up here who seems to think that the only people who see this bill as unConstitutional are fringe lunatics, despite the fact that the majority of America wants the bill repealed, and over 16 suits have been filed."


Sorry, highboy, but that's a logic fail. Your claim was:

"the best argument advocates of the bill can come up with apparently is to just write off the majority of Americans as lunatics"

whereas what you're now retreating to, based on this comment, would be:

"the best argument that one particular advocate of the bill can come up with apparently is to just write off the majority of Americans as lunatics"

- which is of course not just a much weaker argument (close to non-existent in significance) -

- but it's not even true. You're referring to Chaos Engineer, and he (or she) has made far more informed comments on the healthcare bill in the comments than you have.

"As for better arguments, don't presume here creeper. I'm personal friends with more than one person in government, my own brother is a Senator's Chief of Staff,"

Argument from authority... always a winner, eh?

"and I'm trying to help him as he forms his own political consultant company."

By advising him, or with spare cash?

"That doesn't make me an expert,"

Sorry, but it shows.

"but I've seen the debates, I've heard the arguments, and I've heard nothing more substantial to support this bill than hopeful assumptions and theories."

And you're happy to stick to your claim that "the best argument advocates of the bill can come up with apparently is to just write off the majority of Americans as lunatics".

Clearly you either weren't paying attention or you're just being flippant.

"Offer a better argument with some verifiable evidence to support it and I'll be happy to listen."

You mean while you're busy ignoring arguments just like that? Yeah, I'll make sure to get right on that.

"Even if I had no clue what was in this bill,"

You'll have to admit that's not outside the realm of possibility...

"the very fact that a verified liar like Obama would tell me he's cutting wasteful spending would give me pause, especially since the evidence points to the contrary."

Curious. How do you feel about garbage from "verified liars" presented on this blog like AiG? Do they give you pause?

Not so much, I'm guessing.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"51% is a majority."

A 1% difference yes, hardly comparable to a whopping 64% majority.

"Not quite."

I'm sorry, you're saying that the poll numbers I cited are somehow wrong because you found another cite with different numbers? And even if we went with those numbers, they're still a majority.

"If it makes you happy. I don't claim to be an authority on the finer points of the commerce clause, nor do I consider you one."

Unlike you, I don't have to be. I can read.

"The ones I pointed out the last time we discussed this. I won't insult your intelligence nor waste my time by copying them here. You can find the link in the earlier comments."

You didn't give any reasons to be suspicious of them, and certainly not evidence.

"whereas what you're now retreating to, based on this comment, would be:"

I'm not retreating, but if you think you've somehow masterfully boxed me into some "gotcha" game because I was referring to one individual than by all means, cradle it to your heart. But at the end, I still have yet to hear neither Chaos nor YOU for that matter come up with any more substantial reasoning for supporting this healthcare bill.

"If it makes you happy. I don't claim to be an authority on the finer points of the commerce clause"

Sorry, but it shows

"but it's not even true. You're referring to Chaos Engineer, and he (or she) has made far more informed comments on the healthcare bill in the comments than you have."

Other than making blatant and wild assumptions, clinging to unproven and unsupported theories and not offering a shred of verifiable evidence, you're right, his arguments were awesome.

"Argument from authority... always a winner, eh?"

It seems you need educated on logical fallacies and once again, reading comprehension. First, "argument from authority" is an appeal to an authority that has nothing to do with subject at hand. The authority YOU say I'm appealing to is actually quite relevant and more educated on any of these matters than you could ever hope to be. Second, by the next statement that I've made and you mocked "that doesn't make me an expert" clearly shows it wasn't an appeal to an authority to somehow prove my argument. It was merely to point out that your stupid assumption that the arguments I've read are from a biased blogroll was just that: stupid.

"Sorry, but it shows."

Interesting how in this entire debate you've offered a lot of sarcasm but haven't backed up any of those hard hitting arguments in support of Obamacare. Get back to me when you have some verifiable evidence.

"You mean while you're busy ignoring arguments just like that? Yeah, I'll make sure to get right on that."

Ignoring arguments just like what? You didn't offer any. All you've done was point out that the first study I cited didn't show the 49% I originally posted, did nothing to argue against the numbers in the study that show a staggering amount of doctors threatening to close up shop, and did nothing to refute that the vast majority of Americans don't want Obamacare. You plead ignorance on the Constitutional support for the bill. So what is it you're offering again?

"Curious. How do you feel about garbage from "verified liars" presented on this blog like AiG? Do they give you pause?

Not so much I'm guessing."

Except I'm not sure who AIG is, so your second stupid assumption is also irrelevant. We're talking about Obama here, a proven liar and clearly it doesn't give YOU pause.

highboy said...

"hardly comparable to a whopping 64%"

63%