Re: Fabrications of Health Care Obstructionists And Their Easy Exposure!

In article
<ac6a5cde-e19d-48ec-b8dd-1c0d25ac1596@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Citizen Jimserac <jimserac@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 15, 11:45 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<92d371ac-9ccc-4308-8048-3ca6b9663...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 CitizenJimserac<jimse...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Neolibertarian wrote:
...

In the following link, a Leukemia survivor, who was well "insured"
explains his experience and financial consequences of his illness.  He
then mentions the health care system that protects his wife and her
family, who are from Europe, and how their system routinely provides
them with needed care, operations and meds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-handler/have-you-no-decency-sir-a_....
html

Happy reading Neolibertarian!

There's nothing happy in that reading, Kid.

Nor is there anything resembling a logical argument.

Perhaps that is indeed a problem - the disparity between the ivory
tower
"logical" constructs with which have painted yourself into a corner,
and the rest of reality.

Logic isn't an "Ivory Tower," Kid. It's your inheritance.

Dirt farmers, school teachers, auto mechanics, bankers, factory workers,
business owners, nurses, truck drivers, lab technicians, clerks,
waitresses, cops, beauty queens, doctors, janitors. All share the common
birthright of logic.

As a human, it's your weapon; sometimes your /only/ weapon in this
world. It's what makes your survival possible.

Logic isn't that difficult to learn, anyway--/because you're human/.
Formal logic is little more than learning logical fallacies so that you
can easily identify and avoid them.

Don't try to prove your assertions with anecdotes. Don't appeal to
emotion, or fear or popularity. Don't argue by analogy. Don't use ad
hominem. Don't poison the well. Don't use false dilemmas. Avoid
constructing a straw man argument. Don't draw from a biased sample. Etc.

Are these rules that hard to learn or follow?

No, not really--though it takes some care and practice to avoid them.

Now it is true that politicians paint themselves into corners all the
time. But they're not interested in using logic. They may be incapable
of using logic--there's some doubt that politicians are even human. It's
certainly never been conclusively proved one way or another.

At any rate, we find all the logical fallacies I've listed here in that
one single article you cited. That's remarkable by itself.


I realize that logical arguments are the last thing you want to become
embroiled in--perhaps because, to you, this isn't the realm of logic in
the first place. This position of yours is something you know
"emotionally"; deep down inside your soul; you KNOW that we /have/ to
have national full-coverage healthcare for everyone.

You got it. Check it out next time you see some young family
desperately
trying to save their child which somehow is NOT covered by the "plan"
that they
thought did.

Some or all of the best children's hospitals in the world are located
here in the United States.

Most are operated by churches and religious organizations.

"Children are never turned away from St. Jude Children?Äôs Research
Hospital because of their parents?Äô inability to pay. ALSAC, the
hospital?Äôs fund-raising arm, covers all authorized costs of treatment
and supportive care at St. Jude in Memphis beyond the costs that may be
paid by third-party payers."

http://www.stjude.org/SJFile/gen_info_finan_respons.pdf

From what I understand, all the Catholic, Jewish and Shriner's
children's hospitals have the same generous policies concerning payment.

All Catholic hospitals, not just their children's hospitals, have a
defined policy for forgiving some or all payment obligations for the
poor and destitute.

You knew that, right?

Ask yourself, in the greatest country on earth, the
country that sent men to the moon
with primitive computers and chemical rockets, and returned them
safely, how can this be happening.

Why would I conflate the two?

Was I supposed to believe that the US military sending some rockets to
the moon would also somehow alleviate all human suffering in the United
States?


The fact that there's Americans out there without it, that they risk
economic hardships should they have a stoke, a coronary, or be suddenly
in need of an operation. Or they're working hard at their jobs and
willing to take out health insurance, but they're turned down because of
pre-existing conditions.

It's just not right.

It's just NOT American, you mean.

This is the argument I assumed you to be making. It's not mine.

Even after last September, and a Congress gleefully spending itself deep
into the next generation...even after all that, we're still the richest
nation on earth. NO, we're not.

Actually, by far and away we're the richest nation on
earth--so it's just not right that Americans are suffering. That they're
being bankrupted--not because of anything these poor sods have done, but
because they were unlucky enough to contract a debilitating illness
that's extremely expensive to treat. And they didn't have insurance, or
enough insurance.

Nah, that's not it. Hey NOTHING guarantees that we'll be free from
some bad juju in life. *** happens. What bothers me is that
SOMEHOW, supposedly LESSER NATIONS, have COME UP WITH A SYSTEM
WHICH HANDLES THESE SITUATIONS, but we have not.

These other governments haven't come up with a system which "handles"
these situations any differently than in the United States. It's still
doctors treating illnesses and maladies.

What you seem to be saying is these other countries have invented a free
lunch.

If these other countries have "solved" anything, it's that individual
consumers aren't obligated to pay for the services they receive.

How this solves anything is quite beyond me.


Evan Handler abrogates his heritage in the article you linked to because
he makes his living that way.

When you abrogate your heritage, you haven't got the same excuse. Your
heritage is written in the name of your species. You're a clever, clever
man; a Homo Sapiens Sapien. Logical arguments aren't beyond you, it's
just that they're not as easy as relying on your emotions.

Ah, but, despite what it said, it's NOT just emotions.
Consider this, old NeoLib dude, you just got through saying that we
were the greatest,
richest nation, or something to that effect.

The United States is the richest nation on earth, hands down. No other
country's economy even comes close.

Then HOW IS IT POSSIBLE,
for the supposedly
lesser nations to have solved the health care problem so much better
than we have?

They haven't "solved the health care problem." They've "solved" the
payment problem.

But they haven't even done that.


You see.... It's not very logical is it.

Something's completely illogical here, and that's for sure.


You see, it's absolutely impossible to lose an emotional argument; it's
only possible to lose a logical one.

At any rate, enough about you.

A fan club membership will be sent out.

Heh.

Well, it was prolly inappropriate for me to speculate on your thinking
process--that's perilously close to ad hominem.

I only wish you'd proved me wrong.

Handler writes the horrible kind of "article" we'd expect to find on a
blog, whether at the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos; or even over at
Michelle Malkin's.

Ohhhhhh, that EVIL Huffington post... oh yes, I've seen that one
alright,
in fact I READ IT REGULARLY. Darn it neo-Lib, if ONLY you could
control
everyone's thoughts, but .... YOU CAN'T. (Darn it).

Controlling thoughts isn't a concern of mine at all. Where do you get
that?

If you want to get all your nourishment from cotton candy, that's your
business.

The point about blogs (btw, I previously included Malkin's blog as an
example; you may never have heard of it, but it's a fairly popular
conservative blog) is that they're rife with logical fallacies. This
prevalent use of fallacies at such cites is the rule rather than the
exception.

Poisoning the well, straw men, biased samples, proving assertions with
anecdote, etc. I rarely find blogs anywhere even pretending to avoid
such.

This may be due to the fact that logic isn't on the curriculum any more,
and hasn't been since the early part of the last century.

Somehow, he even manages to equate Joseph Wilson's outburst last week
with the tactics of Joseph McCarthy.

Nice.

He relates an intimate anecdote about his own illness, and how he and
his family had to commit fraud against the Federal Government in order
to just barely avoid bankruptcy.

Ooooooooooooooooooo The FEDERAL Government...!!!!!!!!!!

It's in the article you linked to; didn't you read it?

Without relating a single key background fact or circumstance, all while
SEEMING to, he paints the picture of a woefully inadequate insurance
policy, actually TWO policies, which didn't cover enough of his
$500,000.00 treatments to avoid a lasting economic hardship.

Happens a lot, you'd be AMAZED. Just, don't get sick, ever.

It doesn't happen /that/ much, evidently:

"Eighty-three percent of the respondents consider the quality of their
healthcare to be "excellent" or "good," 12% - rated the quality as "only
fair" and 3% as "poor." Similarly, 70% of the respondents reported that
they have "excellent" or "good" healthcare coverage. Despite
considerable discussion in the media about problem of rising healthcare
costs, the majority of Americans, 57%, were reported to be satisfied
with the total cost they pay for healthcare, and 39% were dissatisfied.
The margin of error for the survey was ±3 percentage points."

http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22474

"Majority of Americans Satisfied With Their Healthcare Plans,
including costs, coverage, and quality of care they receive."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority-americans-satisfied-their-own-
healthcare.aspx



Not so in Italy, we're told; the government there makes sure that
everyone of its citizens can "visit the doctor, have surgeries, and take
care of their health, period."

"Nothing is rationed or withheld." even for 94 year olds, Handler
assures us.

What does he base this assurance on? Well, his wife is from Italy. She
and her family have never had a problem with getting anything they
needed from the Italian health service. Ever.

Case closed.

Except it's not yet quite closed.

On the Interscience site, we find this recent research paper titled,
"The Italian health-care system."

==begin quote==

ABSTRACT

Italy's national health service is statutorily required to guarantee the
uniform provision of comprehensive care throughout the country. However,
this is complicated by the fact that, constitutionally, responsibility
for healthcare is shared between the central government and the 20
regions. There are large and growing differences in regional health
service organisation and provision. Public health-care expenditure has
absorbed a relatively low share of gross domestic product, although in
the last 25 years it has consistently exceeded central government
forecasts. Changes in payment systems, particularly for hospital care,
have helped to encourage organisational appropriateness and may have
contributed to containing expenditure. Tax sources used to finance the
Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) have become somewhat more regressive.
The limited evidence on vertical equity suggests that the SSN ensures
equal access to primary care but lower income groups face barriers to
specialist care.

NOT TRUE. Even lower income people simply go to their Italian family
Doctor,

Kid, in a state operated system, there's really no such thing as a
"family doctor."

What you meant is "lower income people go to their regional clinic..."

and get a referral to a needed specialist - WITHOUT ANY COMPLICATIONS
AND
AS NEEDED. Even low income and unemployed Italian citiznes - as long
as you are
a resident Italian citizen.

The peer review study cited above concludes it's just not that easy for
lower income patients in lower income provinces.

It is true that their is some variation in the quality of service from
one district to another based
on infrastructure and density of populations. Same here. Try going
to a hospital in Tennessee or Mississippi and see if there is some
difference in quality of care with one in New York city.

You're right. The quality of care is bound to be much higher in a
Nashville hospital than in New York City.

The health status of Italians has improved and compares
favourably with that in other countries, although regional disparities
persist.


COMPARES FAVORABLY WITH THAT OF OTHER COUNTRIES....
Thank you very much.

Actually, Italy has one of the better systems in Europe, but it can't
afford it.

It indicates there's problems with and a disparity in the system between
districts. It indicates that poor people can't get in to see
specialists, whereas the more affluent, or those living in more affluent
districts don't have the same problems.

FALSE. This is totally false and a person I know who is a citizen of
Italy confirms that it is simply not true.

Proving your point with anecdotal evidence isn't any way for a grown
adult to behave.


Believe it or not, what that's describing is rationing.

FALSE.

If the supply isn't distributed equally, you have rationing. Pretty much
by definition.

Something the article doesn't touch on is the fact that Italy's public
debt exceeds it's GDP. And the progressive income tax in Italy is paid
by all wage earners, unlike here in the US were the lowest 38% of
earners pay no income tax at all. We Americans put it ALL on the rich.

BULL*** ALERT.

1)
"Italy's public debt, the world's third-biggest, equivalent to over 104%
of GDP," reports the Economist, "is not so much the elephant in the
living room as the ogre in the attic. The fear has long been that it
could escape and wreak havoc, not only in Italy but also across the
entire euro area."

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12780815

2)
Income tax rates in Italy:

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/italy/italy_tax.asp

3)
US income tax rates are the most progressive in the world:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html

What's not correct in the above paragraph you claim should be a
"bull*** alert?"

If I didn't know better, I'd start to think every fact you come across
which seems to challenge your preconceptions must necessarily be
considered "bull***."

Self-defense mechanism?


Which is prolly one reason we can't afford a National Health Service.

MAJOR BULL***. We need to start getting rid of world war ll era
giant submarines,

Point of order: We didn't have "giant submarines" in WWII. The Nautilus
Class, the first of the nuclear powered boats, didn't appear until 1954.
All of the fast-attacks and boomers in service today were designed and
built in the 1970's. They have completely different capabilities and
missions than their tiny predecessors from WWII.

giant carriers that won't last through the first 24 hours of the next
war,

I think you need to provide evidence and clarify.

A US Carrier group isn't completely impregnable, in theory, but there
are only a few ways of damaging or destroying one, and only a very, very
few militaries on earth have an ability to pull one of those off (at
great cost to themselves).

None could be thought to have a high probability of success.

The United States Navy has no peer. Sometimes it amazes me that only
Americans seem to be unaware of this.

and other wasteful
defense spending along with the massive waste in other areas of our
government.

Yawell, you seem to believe that military spending is a significant part
of the US federal budget.

If 1/4 is significant, then it is.

Here's a handy pie chart supplied by the authors of the Wikipedia
article dealing with the 2009 budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

Defense spending is completely dwarfed by Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid/SCHIP, Federal Unemployment and Welfare, and interest on the
public debt.

About twice as much money is spent servicing the public debt than what
we're spending on the War on Terror.

Here's a pop quiz:

Of all the money that the federal government is spending this year,
which of the categories are specifically mandated by the Constitution of
the United States?

Yes, very good! Only DOD and the War on Terror.


LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING NEOLIB, IF WE COULD AFFORD THAT BAILOUT THAT
BUSH AND OBAMA JUST DID, THEN WE CAN AFFORD A NATIONAL HEALTH
SERVICE.

I completely and wholeheartedly agree.

As it turns out, we COULDN'T afford those bailouts. I'm afraid that even
my children's generation will not be able to finish paying off what
Washington has been spending.

And that's not counting the BILLIONS that will be saved by
individuals who, quite wisely, will take one look at the fine print in
their health insurance "coverage" and opt for the federal plan.

The decision-making process is largely removed from individuals. In many
cases, individuals' plans are whatever is provided by their employers.
If the employers move to a federal plan because it's far cheaper, then
they will (fine print or no).

In reality, there's only ever been one monopoly in the United States,
and that's the US Government. Once it sets itself up to compete with the
private health insurance industry, that will spell the end of the
private health insurance industry.

All of which is well understood as an intended consequence of national
health insurance as it's being proposed.

Having a debt that exceeds the GDP is not really sustainable in theory.

And yet for DECADES the Italian system is still working. Maybe You've
got the WRONG THEORY!!!

You wouldn't want to live in Italy, silly. It's a mess, and has been for
many decades.

Privatization has helped to revive their economy somewhat since it's low
point of the 1990's--but that debt can still break their backs--they're
especially vulnerable during global economic downturns like the one
we're experiencing right now.

In America, our total public debt is only a little over half our GDP,
but it's growing at an alarming rate. I hate to imagine what our economy
would be like if it were already $14 trillion. We'd only be able to pay
the interest on that debt by devaluing the currency. If that were the
case, we'd prolly be demanding to switch to the Euro.

You've already had a lesson in the finances of Medicare, Medicaid and
Social Security in this thread. They are all broke, and it turns out
that their "surpluses" have already been spent by Congress.

That's TRUE, NeoLib but it DIDN'T AND DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.
REMEMBER WHAT I SAID ABOUT MAJOR REFORMS NEEDED.

"Major reforms are needed."
-- Citizen Jimserac's Great Grandfather (1936)

"Major reforms are needed."
-- Citizen Jimserac's Grandfather (1956)

"Major reforms are needed."
-- Citizen Jimserac's father (1976)

"Major reforms are needed."
-- Citizen Jimserac (2009)

In the case
of Social Security, the only way it will continue to operate after 2011,
is if those loans taken out by Congress begin to be paid back.

The only way out is for MASSIVE REFORMS, cleaning up the immigration
and h1b visa problem,
seriously proscribing or closing the health care insurance parasites,
massive defense contract awarding
and spending overhaul, drastic reform of our educational system,
recall elections, strict term limits.

Agreeing that all those reforms need to take place is easy. You won't
find many arguments from me or most American citizens, even the moon
bats here at Usenet are likely to agree with you.

What's difficult is deciding exactly how these reforms need to be
implemented.

Which is why things just keep getting worse with no real relief in sight.

Neither party is interested in helping you out, none are likely to offer
plans or legislation.

WE'VE GOT TO PERIODICALLY START KICKING LONG TERM CONGRESS PEOPLE OUT,
LIKE BACCUS.

If you mean Max Baucus, I can't imagine why you'd single out a Senator
who has virtually no power or influence at all, and never really did.

???

What about the Democrat and Republican leadership?


Rules allowing us to have recall elections on congress people would be
a very wise thing too.

Look, I'm in favor of term limits, but not recalls.

How many Joe Montana's and Payton Mannings would've survived their
rookie seasons if the fans were allowed to vote them out?

I know football fans, and I can assure you the answer is none. Most fans
are ready to fire any quarterback for throwing one crucial interception.

A team hires coaches to make those decisions. For very good reasons,
none of the clubs take fan polls about which personnel to keep. No club
could ever make it to the playoffs if that were their system.

Besides, you seem to be using recalls and term limits as some sort of
sinecure for your franchise.

Nothing is gonna ever relieve you of your responsibilities. "The price
for freedom is eternal vigilance."

If your friends and neighbors need to be educated on the issues, then
the job of educating them is yours.


That's what's called a positive feedback loop.

You're in the middle of that loop, btw. So are your children.

Let's say you're out in the ocean in a leaky boat. Your bilge pumps are
working at their limit, and the boat is completely over crowded. You
haven't been doing anything at all to fix the leaks, increase the pumps'
capacity, or the overcrowding for about 50 years.

Now, you come upon several people floating in the water.

"Come on aboard!" you yell, "There's room for EVERYONE in here. It's
just not right that you should be floating out here where you might
drown."

"If I come up there," one of the castaways yells at you, "it'll capsize
that leaky old scow. We'd all drown for sure if we got on board."

IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, WE'RE ALREADY DROWNING.

Right.

So why are you attempting to capsize what's left of our leaky boat?

"Nah. It's fine. Plenty of room," you answer.

"Why don't you fix those leaks first. Repair those pumps. Or better yet,
just give us some wood and some tools. We could build our own boats."

Building your own boat, of course, is always the best answer. Bravo to
that castaway.

SORRY, THE TOOLS ARE IN ASIA, THE WORKERS IN INDIA, THE MATERIALS IN
EUROPE.
WE LOSE.

If you're referring to "outsourcing," you may be surprised to learn that
American exports of manufactured goods have more than doubled since
NAFTA and GATT were enacted.

America is the First Estate for a reason.

It might be gallant of you to offer to pick those people up, but it
would be FAR MORE GALANT to fix your damn boat, and address the EXISTING
problems before you take on more passengers and risk capsizing the whole
thing.

THERE IS NO FIX.... LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN SO EVERYONE WILL GET IT....
THERE IS NO FIX, JUST AS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, AS IN VIETNAM, THERE
IS NO WIN.

Speaking of football, I think it's telling that Americans still demand
their wars all be fought like a football game.

Those delusions had to come to an end after August 6, 1945.

You'll never get another Congressional Declaration of War, I'm afraid.
No more "unconditional surrenders," either.

You see, the World would never survive another Congressional Declaration
of War.

From now on, you have incremental states of war and slow de-escalations.

Frustrating, I know, but we needed to grow up sooner or later.
Especially since we are, in reality, the First Estate.

There was a win in Vietnam. There's wins in Iraq and Afghanistan
possible, and they're in the offing.

But there won't be any unconditional surrenders there of anywhere.


There can only be a drastic reform of our system, all of whose
institutions are suffering the dry rot
of influence peddling, blind acquiescence in the status quo, and the
paralysis encouraged by those who want to protect that very profitable
status quo (for the few). YOU NeoLib dude, exemplify that paralysis

Provide proof or retract.

- the impotence to act caused by an attempted adherence to theoretical
beliefs which....SUPRISE!!! inhibit and obstruct any significant
change.

You're a demagogue wanna be, aren't you?

Demagogue or not, I'll resist your assaults on my personal
liberties--you can count on that.


I told you before, and I'll tell you again, the reason we're all in a
hurry to nationalize the health care industry is because it's the only
thing that will keep you from noticing how they destroyed all the major
entitlements before this one.

YOU THINK WE DON"T KNOW? So did the Soviets before they vanished.
So did Ceacescu, so did many others. The assumption that the
sleeping giant will never wake and does not know, that always amuses
me.

You ever hear of Lord Acton?

The Soviets aren't different human beings than you. The Romanians are
just like Americans.

It isn't the people, it's not the individual--it's the power.

You give them power over your life first, and THEN you get Stalins and
Ceausescu's.

And Hitlers.

It's not really the other way around like you think.

Let's say Joseph Stalin grew up here instead of in Gori, Georgia. No
Communist Party to speak of, so he becomes a custom home builder instead.

If you met him at a party, no mustache and in a nice DKNY suit, you'd
think he was the nicest guy you'd ever met in your life.

Hitler's butler to his dying day used to say he knew that Hitler had
done all these horrible things--and he was sure all the stories about
what he'd done were absolutely true, but in his own experience with him,
Hitler was the nicest man he'd ever worked for in his life.

People have already begun to notice, of course. It may already be too
late for the political class in Washington. But they won't go down
without a fight.

Ah, NOW we are getting to the fun part.

What? The part where you shackle the remnants of the American economy
for the next generation and then cross you fingers and hope for "reform?"

The same people you're willing to turn over your healthcare to, are the....

Yeah but, and here's the trick.... THEY ARE ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS.
All we need do is change
a few rules, add some recall powers and they'll become obedient as
trained ducks.

Yeah.

I bet you've never even heard of "The Citizen-Legislature Act."

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/termlimd.txt

Here's the final roll call vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll277.xml

Why is it different now?

And hey, here's a novel idear: why don't you get the CLA passed FIRST,
attrit out all the career politicians in Washington DC in the next 12
years, and THEN you can ruin the economy and take away my liberties.

You see, they LIKE
their jobs in Washington, all the Perqs, the super good health care
plan and retirement plan that THEY gave themselves,
and I like for them to have those things but ONLY when they start
listening to U.S. ... the US!

Now NeoLib, you made a nice try of attacking the Italian Healthcare
system but I news for you - Germany, Austria, Italy, England, France,
Canada - they all have roughly similar public systems and THEY HAVE
HAD THEM IN PLACE FOR DECADES and they have been working. There has
been NO mass outcry to end those systems from which I will conclude,
that, despite occasional failures as would be EXPECTED IN ANY SYSTEM,
those systems work.

³The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that
it can bribe the public with the public's money²
  --Alexis de Tocqueville

You sure are interested in being bribed with your own money, aren't you?

Here's some more on the countries who've "solved health the care
problems."

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#canada

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1776719.stm

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/330/7496/864-b

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1382588/Worlds-be
st-health-service-in-chaos-as-doctors-strike.html

--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
.

Loading