Comments Posted By Ken.McLoud
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 28 Comments
THE LOGICAL FALLACY OF SOME SLIPPERY SLOPE REFORM ARGUMENTS
cranston-
I read Sandy's blog, and I have to agree with rick.
Horrible things could happen if there was a mandate, but there simply isn't one.
Sandy asserts that:
"It directs healthcare providers that they 'shall' ensure every Medicare patient receives such counseling every five years. 'Shall' means must."After reading the section 1233 several times and not finding the language she is referring to, I did a ctrl-f word search for "shall" and read every sentence in section containing the word.
not a single one says anything like:
Medicare shall ensure every patient receives such counseling every five years.
Not even close.If I'm just showing my lack of reading skills, please correct me. Quote the section of bill where it says what she claims it does. Its kind of curious that she doesn't quote the bill herself.
Please, don't take my word for it. Read the section yourself, or at least do the word search yourself.
She makes lots of great points, but her entire argument is based on a false assertion.
Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 12.08.2009 @ 08:53
John-
Your argument at first seemed to be:
end of life consultations are bad and the government is going to force them on everyone
then, when you couldn't find any language requiring them, it seems like you changed your argument to:
end of life consultations are good, people can have an unlimited number of them now, and this bill limits them to once every 5 years.
(fyi, the bill actually allows for the consultation to happen more than once every five years if the patients health condition significantly changes, or if they move into a nursing home)
So which is it? I'm confused as to what your argument is.
Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 12.08.2009 @ 08:41
John-
I have actually read section 1233 of HR3200. (for real, it hurt!)
The dreaded "death panel" section of bill.
This section of the bill allows medicare to pay doctors to consult their patients on end of life issues. Everyone seems to agree on this much.
The part that I do not see at all after reading the section several times is that these consultations are "required" or "mandated" every 5 years.
I see where it says these consultations cannot be paid for if they happen more than once in a five year period, unless there are dramatic changes to the patients health status. But nowhere do I see where it says anything even remotely implying that they are mandated.
can you please quote to me, the exact line of section 1233 where a term like "mandate" or "requirement" is used?
Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 11.08.2009 @ 18:46
c3, (-P0?)
your statement that:
"By and large “pre-existing condition” is only an issue with individual policies"
is not true.
I have a family friend that recently stated working for Wegmans (A grocery store here in the northeast that is ranked in the top 5 of FORBES "Best companies to work for" list with Google every year)
She found out she was pregnant, went to the doctor to start a prenatal regiment. She later got a letter from Wegmans' insurer that her prenatal care and the hospital stay for the baby's delivery would not be covered. They took the doctors "expected birth date", subtracted 9 months, declared that conception happened a week or two before her coverage had become active. So they didn't have to pay for anything involving the birth because the pregnancy was...
...wait for it!...
A pre-existing condition!
...food for thought
Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 11.08.2009 @ 15:55
Ml-
you said:"The free market has not produced affordable healthcare up to now."
How has the last 50 years of healthcare in this country in any way, shape or form resembled a free market?
Healthcare is orders of magnitude more regulated than any other industry. In free markets, multiple companies are allowed to compete for your business in a fair and transparent way. In our current healthcare system, the tax structure ensures that you have exactly one (1) choice, the one your employer offers you. Even if you want to endure the financial beating the tax code will deal you and shop for insurance on your own, you aren't allowed to shop over state lines!
Granted, its not socialism, but how is this a free market?
bussboy33-
How does medicare compete against private insurance in any way shape or form? seriously?
medicare premium = $0
(not counting a lifetime of payroll taxes, of course)The fact that your family members are lucky enough to have private insurance has everything to do with their financial status or their employment history, not with them CHOOSING it over medicare.
Comment Posted By ken.mcloud On 11.08.2009 @ 14:06
LEARNING NEW THINGS CAN BE FUN
Did I mention I am also firmly opposed to the idea that you must be anti-science in order to be conservative?
And yes, in my not-so-humble opinion, if you are anti-evolution, anti-climate-change, anti-Vaccine, or anti-round-earth then one of two things MUST be true:
#1) You are a researcher in a relevant field, about to publish findings in a peer reviewed journal based on rigorous empirical or theoretical work.
-or-
#2) You are anti-science
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 10.08.2009 @ 00:00
Chicagotrauma,
as for me telling you what Palin meant, I said "I don't think..." These words were specifically chosen to show that I am expressing an opinion, not declaring a fact.
If that didn't soften the statement enough for you then I'm sorry.
"I said “Governor”."
My mistake, but in my defense, she did choose to stop being Governor recently."Liberals cannot be bothered with facts. Critical thinking is something that only conservatives do. "
... might be doing just a little bit of generalizing here... and by a little bit... I mean a lot."Take Global Warming/Climate Change for example."
Okay, here's a big sticking point. I will fervently stand up for the scientific method. Without it I would not be able to make my living, and we would not be communicating right now.->The earth is ~4.5 Billion years old
->Co2 absorbs infrared wavelengths of radiation
->living beings mutate and selective pressure favors the more advantageous mutations
->Small changes in relative Co2 can be empirically shown to significantly change global temperatures
->Vaccines prevent millions of deaths and do not cause autism
->Human sources of Co2 emissions are significant compared to natural sources.All these things are provable scientific facts. I am sorry if they conflict with you religious beliefs or your political aspirations, but that does make them any less provable.
The scientific method is the best method known to mankind for determining empirical truth. Its far from perfect and I can guarantee there are a lot of things we are getting wrong right now. However, this does not mean that you can cherry pick which facts to "believe" based on political convenience and throw out years of analysis without having the scientific chops to back up such a claim.
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 23:38
Oh chicagotrauma,
"Have you read note on Palins Facebook page? "
Nope! and I don't Plan to.
"I hardly think that qualifies you to tell me what the Governor meant."
When did I tell you what the government meant? I said that there is no such proposal being debated in either house of congress, nor is it being supported by ANY politician. These are facts, and I don't see how they translate to me telling you "what the government meant"?
"Does “Facebook” lessen your precious “nuance”?"
In a word... yes
"Would it mean more to you if it was in the NY Times or on NPR?"
Again... Yes. Though neither organization is perfectly unbiased or factual, they both have editorial structures and fact-checking that at least nominally strive for real journalism and facts (though neither achieves perfect impartiality or accuracy)
Any source of information should be critically examined for bias and accuracy. That being said, I can say with a high degree of certainty that more accurate facts can be gleaned from even a poor news organization than from an unfiltered social networking website.
"You exude elitism in your posts and use the usual liberal tactics of"... "attacking sources"
Seriously? this is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Since when did critical thinking become the exclusive domain of the liberal elite? Shouldn't everyone examine and scrutinize all sources of information?
What you call liberal elitism, I call essential to being a well informed voter.
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 21:39
Both Linda in Whitter CA and Mark30339 linked to the same blog post.
The author is a skilled mental gymnist, as he contorted himself into an impressive position while bending over backwards to defend Palin.
"Palin's comments properly are viewed as a warning shot not to move to Dr. Emanuel's concept of health care rationing based on societal worth, rather than a critique of a specific bill ready for vote."
really? you rally think all those loyal die-hard Palin fans out there see that Facebook post (Emphasis on "Facebook post"!) as a nuanced critique of Dr. Emanual's academic journal paper?
Or is it more likely that they will take it as gospel truth that the current healthcare bill will kill her Down syndrome stricken child for not be "productive" enough?
I see the authors point, I'll even acknowledge that its a valid one, but I think we need to acknowledge how far backwards he had to bend to get there.
Similar to the Pelosi-swastika issue we discussed earlier, I'll admit that its a valid interpretation, but I don't think its what she meant when she said it, and I don't think its how most people would interpret it.
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 20:56
Eric,
You bring up a good point, a "public option" would be a pretty clear violation of the 10th amendment.
Not even the broadest definition of the interstate commerce clause could justify paying for people's healthcare.
But then again, the same could be said of social security and medicare. This is a great example of a "slippery slope".
Granted, social security and medicare didn't turn the country into a socialist state like some said they would, but they did set the precedent that the 10th amendment and the interstate commerce clause are essentially meaningless. The concept that the federal government's power is limited to a explicit list of powers enumerated in the constitution died with the opposition to those entitlement programs.
Think about it, the concept is so dead that no one is even talking about how unconstitutional these programs are! I'll even admit that I hadn't given it much thought until now.
Can anyone really say with a strait face that the government running a health insurance company qualifies as "regulating commerce among the several states"?
If it does , then the clause is meaningless because by that standard there is nothing that WOULDN'T qualify.
And if the clause is meaningless then why did the founders put it in? do you think they had nothing better to do and they were looking for filler?
Principles aren't principles if you only stick to them when its convenient. (or popular)
Comment Posted By Ken.McLoud On 9.08.2009 @ 20:05
