The Health Care Bill

[Ranger Genius]

There's an interesting phenomenon that happens when you tell people that everyone is opposed to something: more public opinion shifts towards that perspective. As an example, in the eighties, a very vocal minority convinced the population of Australia that the rest of the population of Australia was opposed to having any sort of nuclear powered ships dock at their ports. A referendum was held and the people voted overwhelmingly to ban nuclear ships in Australian harbors. After the referendum passed, polls showed that the overwhelming majority actually didn't care, they just voted with what they thought was the popular opinion, figuring everyone else knew something they didn't.

At the start of this health care debate, people favored healthcare reform 70-30, now they poll almost evenly split (ranging between 60-40 and 40-60 depending on the poll you read[1]). After months of Glenn Beck and his nefarious ilk telling everyone that it's so unpopular, it has become so; because most people are moderate, reasonable people who are aware of their own ignorance when it comes to things like this. Tell them that everyone else opposes it, they'll give them the benefit of the doubt and move towards agreeing with the prevailing (or perceived prevailing) opinion. It's like if you're going out to dinner with a group of ten friends, and six of you don't have a preference between burritos and sushi. If two people say they really, really don't want sushi, you're probably going for sushi, even though two people DID want sushi, and the vote would really have been tied with six abstentions. That analogy got stretched a little thin, I know.

My problem is that most of the people who are strongly opposed to health care reform are such for petty, partisan, cynical, selfish reasons; and these are the people we see most often and hear most loudly. This has probably caused me to be less than charitable to my fellow mushball moderates who are just worried, like me. So sorry if I've been inflammatory as well. I sometimes get caught up in the fighting fire with fire thing, forgetting that you guys are (mostly) rational, intelligent people, not the Fox News Zombies one sees at Sarah Palin rallies.

[1] Having worked as a public opinion survey taker, I can tell you first hand that the results of polls are not in any way an effective gauge of public opinion. The way a poll is worded, or the order of the questions, or even the way a pollster emphasizes the question (while reading it verbatim) make a HUGE difference in the outcome of the poll. For fun once, I decided to deliberately influence the outcome of a particularly badly-written local election poll. Despite ALWAYS reading the question verbatim, my respondents came out as having polar opposite opinions to those of the respondents of the poll in general (and we're talking a 70/30 split). Since I had such high completion rates compared to the other readers, too, it made the opinion seem pretty evenly split.[2] Public opinion polls aren't about gauging public opinion. They're about creating it.

[2] If you're ever in this sort of job, here's a tip (works for males only): if a woman answers the phone, pitch your voice down, sounding more masculine. If a man answers, pitch your voice up, thus sounding less threatening. It works.

[littleflower]

My problem is that most of the people who are strongly opposed to health care reform are such for petty, partisan, cynical, selfish reasons; and these are the people we see most often and hear most loudly. This has probably caused me to be less than charitable to my fellow mushball moderates who are just worried, like me. So sorry if I've been inflammatory as well. I sometimes get caught up in the fighting fire with fire thing, forgetting that you guys are (mostly) rational, intelligent people, not the Fox News Zombies one sees at Sarah Palin rallies.

i find this statement petty, partisan, and cynical.

the people i know who are against this legislation have some excellent reasons, which have barely been touched in these posts. the primary reason is this:

if you wait until you get sick to buy health insurance ... you probably aren't going to buy it unless the penalties are substantial enough to make you. but they aren't ... they aren't even close. the fear is that a lot of people will see this very obvious error and DROP their insurance. the other day i read that a person making $45K would have a penalty of $1200 or so. just now i read that the penalty is $695, with exceptions for low-income people. most uninsured are low-income, i believe. for the rest of us, $695/ year is far less than we are currently paying.

in other words .... fewer people will have insurance, not more, because it's more cost effective to pay the penalty, which goes to the government. since the insurance companies get nothing in their pool for those people, they will have to charge others more to cover the expenses that will hit when they are forced to accept the ill & uninsured people and pay for their illnesses.

i do not presume to know what will happen, and i am generally pretty skeptical of both sides, but this argument makes a lot of sense to me. in any case, i find it absurd to discard it as petty or partisan or selfish.

[ygmir]

There's an interesting phenomenon that happens when you tell people that everyone is opposed to something: more public opinion shifts towards that perspective. As an example, in the eighties, a very vocal minority convinced the population of Australia that the rest of the population of Australia was opposed to having any sort of nuclear powered ships dock at their ports. A referendum was held and the people voted overwhelmingly to ban nuclear ships in Australian harbors. After the referendum passed, polls showed that the overwhelming majority actually didn't care, they just voted with what they thought was the popular opinion, figuring everyone else knew something they didn't.

At the start of this health care debate, people favored healthcare reform 70-30, now they poll almost evenly split (ranging between 60-40 and 40-60 depending on the poll you read[1]). After months of Glenn Beck and his nefarious ilk telling everyone that it's so unpopular, it has become so; because most people are moderate, reasonable people who are aware of their own ignorance when it comes to things like this. Tell them that everyone else opposes it, they'll give them the benefit of the doubt and move towards agreeing with the prevailing (or perceived prevailing) opinion. It's like if you're going out to dinner with a group of ten friends, and six of you don't have a preference between burritos and sushi. If two people say they really, really don't want sushi, you're probably going for sushi, even though two people DID want sushi, and the vote would really have been tied with six abstentions. That analogy got stretched a little thin, I know.

My problem is that most of the people who are strongly opposed to health care reform are such for petty, partisan, cynical, selfish reasons; and these are the people we see most often and hear most loudly. This has probably caused me to be less than charitable to my fellow mushball moderates who are just worried, like me. So sorry if I've been inflammatory as well. I sometimes get caught up in the fighting fire with fire thing, forgetting that you guys are (mostly) rational, intelligent people, not the Fox News Zombies one sees at Sarah Palin rallies.

[1] Having worked as a public opinion survey taker, I can tell you first hand that the results of polls are not in any way an effective gauge of public opinion. The way a poll is worded, or the order of the questions, or even the way a pollster emphasizes the question (while reading it verbatim) make a HUGE difference in the outcome of the poll. For fun once, I decided to deliberately influence the outcome of a particularly badly-written local election poll. Despite ALWAYS reading the question verbatim, my respondents came out as having polar opposite opinions to those of the respondents of the poll in general (and we're talking a 70/30 split). Since I had such high completion rates compared to the other readers, too, it made the opinion seem pretty evenly split.[2] Public opinion polls aren't about gauging public opinion. They're about creating it.

[2] If you're ever in this sort of job, here's a tip (works for males only): if a woman answers the phone, pitch your voice down, sounding more masculine. If a man answers, pitch your voice up, thus sounding less threatening. It works.

yeah a lot of what you say may well be accurate.

but, (reference in red above)
could not the argument be made, that, when the debate began, folks liked the concept, but, as time went on, and, they realized what was in actual bill, and then they decided against it?
Would that not also speak to the rush to get it passed, and, backdoor stuff, before opinion against became to strong?
Isn't it also true, that, once passed, people will just become resigned to it's existence, and, make the best of it?

the tone I hear, here, is "reasonable" means anyone who agrees with the proponents, and, vice versa.

Is there not room, for dissent, and skepticism, related to anything that big, that, our gov. tells us is good for us?.........
Of course, that's the cynic in me talking, as relates to the feds and what they do, and, how they do it........

[Ranger Genius]

Go to a tea party rally and ask someone about their specific objections to the bill. They'll talk about rationing, and death panels, and how the government can't run a post office, so how can they run health care [1], and basically regurgitate all the lies they're being fed by propaganda mongers.

Rational people do not make death threats over legislation they don't like. Rational people do not call legislators they disagree with "nigger," "faggot," or "baby killer." Rational people can state their objections rationally, something we don't see a lot of from the most vocal objectors. There are certainly good reasons to worry about and object to the health care bill. So why are the most frequently-stated ones lies?

LF, I can see the possibility for people to abuse the system that way. I also think the increased competition will drive prices down, so the overall result will be a positive one. I'd prefer to see people abusing the system than the inverse.

[1] Seriously, lay off the postal service. For 47 cents you can send a letter anywhere in the country in about two days, and it almost never gets lost or damaged. Very few things in life are as reliable.

[littleflower]

well, i think the tea party has some reasonable points there about death panels, rationing, and the inability of the government to run any kind of business efficiently ... but i guess we'll have to wait and see on those.

there is no argument about the unreasonable behavior you mention - but again, i know a LOT of people on the right and they don't condone that sort of thing any more than you do. and they very much resent seeing "the right" so often lumped into that category. wackos are wackos, and the left has 'em, too.

but now ....... where do you expect to see increased competition come from? i see the exact opposite .... that a lot of people who currently pay, say, $2000+/year for health insurance will drop it, preferring to save money by paying the government $695. who wouldn't? that isn't abusing the system, it's what the system allows. and we aren't talking about pennies here.

[Rice]

Gee, a confused and curious Canadian asks a couple question and suddenly a digital fist-fight breaks out....

Are you guys sure you didn't invent hockey?? {hee hee}

Well, that gives me a little insight into what is happening...

Rice

[can't sit still]

Stretch,,, "Maxine" will explain it to you;

"Now, let me get this straight......we've now seen passing of a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke."

"What the hell could possibly go wrong???"
Maxine

[Rice]

Stretch,,, "Maxine" will explain it to you;

"Now, let me get this straight......we've now seen passing of a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke."

"What the hell could possibly go wrong???"
Maxine

Awesome!!! So much clearer now...

SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fucked Up

[can't sit still]

It's more or less accepted that the bankers control GOV. It's believed that GOV can never repay the national debt. The bankers don't like to hear that kind of talk. They hold all that treasury paper and they want their money.
The spokesman for the European cartel of banks that print the dollar has said that GOV needs to get rid of the safety net so that WE can repay them.
This article by Global Research claims that the health care bill will gut a half trillion $ from Medi-care. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18383

OK, so, for the moment, let's assume that it is accurate. GOV [bankers] want to gut Medicare before the boomers all retire. Medicare is underfunded by $ 30 trillion,,, more or less. Social security is underfunded by $ 17 trillion. The article claims that the next target is Social Security. If the bankers need to gut Medicare, one would assume that they want to gut SS also.

The article,,, and others, claim that the Dems are rushing to "do" SS real soon. One can imagine that the Dems may lose their majority in the next election.

The cartel that prints our dollars has said to get rid of the safety net. They have also said that they won't print any more money ,,, starting TODAY. It's possible that this threat was used as a club to get passage of the bill. Dunno.

Regardless of how one feels about health care, the fiscal realities will be the decider. The bankers will, of course, be the ones who decide what our fiscal realities will be.

SS could be solvent. It was running a surplus several years ago. Clinton, I believe, stole that surplus so that he could say that he had balanced the budget.

If one assumes that bankers run GOV and bankers want to get "their" money, one can expect big cuts to the non-producers,,,,, like retirees and sick people. I suppose that one could also expect the money to keep flowing to the producers,,, The military / industrial / banking complex.

One could easily imagine a "scene" played out a few years ago.
The politicos and the bankers are sitting in a room. Everybody knows that the safety net is going to be gutted. The bankers tell the Dems and Reps to flip a coin to see who gets elected and is going to destroy the system. The Dems lose the coin toss. The bankers agree to give them a half billion to elect whatever candidate they choose. Done Deal.

[Ranger Genius]

[quote]Drunk with success over their Health Care bill passing, the Democrats are now lusting after even greater conquests. With the celebratory hangover still aching, the Democrats lurch forward towards a hasty drive to “reformâ€

[can't sit still]

Here are some excerpts from the health care bill. I have not checked them out. Too busy.
"Witness the actual FDA (Food and Drug Administration) document dated December 10, 2004 entitled “Class II Special Guidance Document: Implantable Radiofrequency Transponder System for Patient Identification and Health Information. This ten page document may be read on the FDA website at
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDev ... 191.pdfNow

“The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that … is or has been used in or on a patient…â€

[Ranger Genius]

Wow. Just...wow. I don't see how someone could interpret those two documents (written six years apart, BTW) in that way, even on PURPOSE. I can't imagine any way to interpret that direct quote, EVEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND AS PRESENTED to imply that anyone will be forced to get a RFID chip implanted.

I read pages 1001-03 and it only talks about the Health Secretary setting up a system to monitor the effectiveness of implant devices (this would include artificial hearts, pacemakers, joint replacements, surgical pins, et cetera) and to make the information available in a clear format to consumers and consumer watchdog groups.

Again, this increases competition and decreases the need for governmental regulation. If patients and doctors can read the failure rates of all the different pacemakers in Consumer Reports, won't the best ones naturally rise to the top, without need for the FDA to set any standards for them? (And that's all the FDA document you cited does; set forth development guidance for companies designing Medical ID RFID chips).

This is the kind of bullshit we've gotten used to seeing from the opponents of the health care bill.

"Hey, we should keep track of what's being implanted in people, who's making it, and whether the implants are killing people" somehow equates to "They're gonna implant us all with microchips! It's the mark of the beast! We're all gonna die!"

ETA: It took two minutes to follow those links and read the documents in question. I didn't even have to go to any outside sources. Apparently anti-healthcare folks are so easy to manipulate that you can show them any document, make up any inflammatory bullshit about what it says, and they'll just regurgitate it all over the net as though it were true, even if the headline blatantly contradicts the supporting documentation that you yourself provide.

[Elderberry]

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument.

JK

[can't sit still]

jkisha, very, very true. I can't argue with that at all. I was going to start a thread about the dangers of vaccination;
http://www.rense.com/general86/vacci.htm
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2009/ ... rrier.html
I'm sorry but, I just don't have the time to wind up RG any more.
He smokes the keyboard.
He takes the bait every time.

[Ranger Genius]

Uh, yeah. One of those sites endorses a crystal healing seminar.

Also, the fourth paragraph uses affect when it means effect. I'm going to assume both his editor and fact-checker had the day off.

It's easy to point at one or two kids who had serious side effects from inoculations[1]; much harder to point at the tens of thousands of kids who don't have polio because, well, they don't have polio.

And you're right; I can always be counted on to fight for the truth whenever I see it being thus abused by the forces of ignorance, whether it's religion or its sister pseudoscience making the attack. It's what I do.

Come, Sancho. Let us go.

[1]Incidentally, the word Vaccine refers only to the Polio Vaccine (Vaccinus virus). Neither of the cited crackpots seems to know this.

[can't sit still]

This is an interesting article that quantifies budget "over runs" http://theburningplatform.com/blog/2010 ... dy-sunday/
Example; "Medicare (entire program) – In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10."
"Republicans, on the other hand, tend to slightly underestimate the cost of their invasions (Rummy says $50 billion; taxi meter says $977 billion and counting)."

[Trishntek]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[motskyroonmatick]

Measles inoculation anyone?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/04 ... t_out.html

[can't sit still]

Trish, the clock says that personal debt per person is $ 58,802. I'm going to have to run right out and spend $ 58, 500 to catch up.

[Ranger Genius]

Measles inoculation anyone?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/04 ... t_out.html

Thanks, Motsky. That's why I tilt and windmills.

[can't sit still]

I have no problem with most vaccines. The part that I don't like is the mercury. They've always known that mercury is very bad. Abe Lincoln was taking "blue" pills that contained mercury and made him an asshole. How long did it take to finally recognize the link between mercury and autism?
"The use of mercury-containing preservatives in vaccines has declined markedly since 1999."
Yeah, about time.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccin ... 070430.htm
They had the evidence long ago from the observation of the general lack of autism in non-vaccinated groups.

[can't sit still]

Here's an interesting bit on flu vaccine;
"The researchers found that seasonal flu vaccination was associated with a 68 percent increased risk of getting swine flu."
http://www.usnews.com/health/managing-y ... 1-flu.html

[can't sit still]

I did already post that any effort at attaining health had to start with diet. Apparently, the insurance companies agree with me;
"Life and disability insurer Northwestern Mutual holds the most stock in fast food with $422.2 million invested in burger chains including McDonald's"
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/ma ... -food.html
They've got about $ 2 billion invested. I'm sure that they'll get a good return on their investment.

[can't sit still]

I got this in mail. Not sure yet if it's true;

Buried in the 1200-page Senate financial reregulation bill we found a sneaky provision that would undermine state-level insurance consumer protections if they conflict with trade agreements! Yup, the "Office of National Insurance" (ONI) proposal would empower the Treasury Department to unilaterally override existing state insurance regulations that it deems to be out of step with international agreements.

Urge your Senators to cosponsor TODAY the "Merkley amendment" which strikes these unfair trade provisions from the bill.

It is incomprehensible that, in the context of worldwide pledges to reregulate financial services and get destructive banks and insurance firms under control, any further deregulation would be considered by Congress - much less as part of Congress' priority financial reregulation package!

Yet tucked deep in the bill designed to clean up our financial mess is this sneaky provision that establishes a new ceiling on regulation. It would undermine existing insurance consumer protections in all 50 states. How? Treasury would be newly empowered to enter into international insurance agreements without Congress voting on the pacts and without any role for the 50 state insurance commissioners now responsible for regulating these firms. And, it would then allow Treasury to overrule existing state laws that provide greater consumer protections than these undemocratic international agreements.

[Trishntek]

I got this in mail. Not sure yet if it's true;

Buried in the 1200-page Senate financial reregulation bill we found a sneaky provision that would undermine state-level insurance consumer protections if they conflict with trade agreements! Yup, the "Office of National Insurance" (ONI) proposal would empower the Treasury Department to unilaterally override existing state insurance regulations that it deems to be out of step with international agreements.

Urge your Senators to cosponsor TODAY the "Merkley amendment" which strikes these unfair trade provisions from the bill.

It is incomprehensible that, in the context of worldwide pledges to reregulate financial services and get destructive banks and insurance firms under control, any further deregulation would be considered by Congress - much less as part of Congress' priority financial reregulation package!

Yet tucked deep in the bill designed to clean up our financial mess is this sneaky provision that establishes a new ceiling on regulation. It would undermine existing insurance consumer protections in all 50 states. How? Treasury would be newly empowered to enter into international insurance agreements without Congress voting on the pacts and without any role for the 50 state insurance commissioners now responsible for regulating these firms. And, it would then allow Treasury to overrule existing state laws that provide greater consumer protections than these undemocratic international agreements.

yOuR sTaRtIn' To ScArE mE mAn!

[can't sit still]

First I'll scare you and then I'll rob you. OK, so we know that almost all pensions are going to go away. Same with Medicare and social security. Well, how are we going to take care of all the old folks? Simple, we'll just bend over and shit out the bucks. The SS fund is gone but, not to worry. Pelosi and Obummer are going to squeeze it out of you.
"(CLASS Act), Americans will find between $150 and $250 taken out of their paychecks each month to cover this program nobody knew about. "
Ain't socialism wonderful??
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... alth-care/
When whatever bit of life is left in the economy meets this new tax, it will croak. All these wonderful green shoots will have to survive V.A.T., carbon, Tobin,, and now, CLASS.

[Trishntek]

So now there are new standards coming about for vaccine requirements for health care workers. Through a third-party contractor, a couple of hospitals I service require proof of chicken pox immunity or get the vaccine. I've never had it and had titers done back in the 90's which indicate I have zero antibodies to Varicella.

So now, at the age of 54 I'm expected to get the vaccine. As I looked further into this, I find out a person who receives this vaccine is not supposed to be in contact with anyone suffering any kind of immunodeficiency for FIVE WEEKS! We have such a situation in our home, and I have declined the required shots. It is up to them at this time to decide whether I continue servicing these facilities or not.

But it begs the question: Does this requirement for people who work with immunodeficient patients on a regular basis not place said patients at risk? And, if I had not done the research on my own, would I have given my loved one shingles for no reason?

The CDC compares the risk of shingles between adults who had chicken pox in their youth and adults who had no chicken pox and had the Varicella vaccine. They claim the person with the vaccine is less likely to get shingles than the person who had childhood chicken pox. I could find nowhere on the CDC website where the risk of adult disease is compared with someone in my situation. I can only conclude by their omission that an individual who has neither has even less chance of getting adult disease.

The CDC does NOT compare the risk with those who have neither the childhood disease or the vaccine. As a child, Mom made sure I had every opportunity for exposure. I simply never caught it. I've worked with people suffering from active shingles and never caught it.

So now it seems they want to put me, my family and certain patients at risk for no legitimate reason. WTF???

[can't sit still]

There are so many health care workers who are refusing vaccination that CDC and FDA are going to have to come up with a more reasonable policy. Reportedly, the Canadian court has backed refusal;
http://www.rense.com/general24/flu.htm Medicine has a long history of claiming "one size fits all" They need to come up with a more rational policy.

[can't sit still]

A bi-partisan group has come up with a plan to replace current health-care and retirement plans. I didn't read all the details.
"If you’re a Democrat, don’t worry. This system is more or less what’s in place in Germany, Holland, Switzerland and Israel -- hardly right-wing bastions. If you’re a Republican, don’t worry. This is a voucher system that’s fair to all and keeps government spending from exploding. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-0 ... ikoff.html

This is kinda interesting;
http://www.whas.com/cc-common/news/sect ... le=8374304

[can't sit still]

We know that any intelligence or military dept gets TONS of money. The SS administration gets very little. After all, the money is disbursed to non-producers. I found an interesting fact about SS disbursement and funding. There are 4 trust funds associated with SS and Medicare.
Hospital insurance,, disability insurance and old-age insurance. ALL of these are underfunded. They disburse money to the impoverished.
The SMI pays money for drugs and doctors. NO problem with money for doctors and drugs.
"are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year's expected costs."

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot ... other.html
Kill off the old farts but make sure that the doctors and Big Pharma get all they want.