Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 261 To 270 Of 657 Comments
THE LOGICAL FALLACY OF SOME SLIPPERY SLOPE REFORM ARGUMENTS
@John:
I truly appreciate the response.
you said in comment #24:
"The issue that I believe Sarah Palin is concerned about is a genuine issue. If you are on Medicare, per this bill, you are required to have an 'advance care planning consultation' every 5 years to ensure you understand advanced care planning."As I said above, I don't think the word "required" is correct.
In comment #29, you said:
"If the added material is intended to be understood as you both understand it, then this becomes a limitation, since the 5 year limit is a change to current practices."No I'm confused. In the first example, the tone of your comment implied to me that "requiring" the meeting was a negative. Now it seems like you are implying its a negative that those same doctor-patient meetings would only be reimbursed once every five years. What is the issue with this aspect of the bill that concerns you?
In Comment #24, you said:
"There are some nuances here that concern people that they may be forced to refuse health-care that could sustain their life simply because their 'quality of life' is less than that of a healthier person and thereby they should not have access to limited resources that a healthier person 'should have'. This is not a new debate, but putting it in a major healthcare bill has raised concerns.Imagine if Christoper Reeves was still alive and this provision was law? Would he get the same level of health care that he got?"
To answer your question . . . would Christopher Reeves be on public insurance instead of private insurance? If he was on private insurance . . . then the provisions of the bill would be totally irrevelant.
There have been many comments against the bill that have been in the vein that government insurance might not cover some treatment. As somebody who has experience in the healthcare industry, do you know of any insurance that unilaterally covers any and all procedures regardless of circumstances or cost?Again, this bill is attempting to provide insurance for the uninsured. How can limited healthcare coverage be worse than no healthcare coverage? As far as I can see, "some" is better than "none".
"[T]hey want real changes that makes health-care better. I personally do not believe this bill reaches that standard."
A fair opinion . . . but again, from my perspective the strength of the current healthcare reform movement is in providing insurance to uninsured, not in re-vamping existing healthcare insurance. Does this bill accomplish that? In some way, yes.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.08.2009 @ 01:43
I would be more open to other ideas if I saw a real desire to reform healthcare from other venues. However, instead I see only a desire to kill reform. As I have said in other threads, if my two choices are this reform and no reform, then supporting the reform movement is a no-brainer.
@John:
I've also read most of it (since its freely available on the web). Just read it again.
Section 1233 doesn't have any mandated meetings that I can see. I'll echo KenMcCloud . . . care to give a sub-section # where the meetings are required?
The meeting is between the doctor and the citizen . . . where is the "death panel" involved in it? The issue in the bill is to pay the physician for their time for the meeting, no more often than once every 5 years. You are perfectly free to meet with your doctor more often than that, as often as you like -- the plan just won't pay for those extra meetings.
The plan doesn't require a result from the meetings. You are free to decide that your living will and DNR directives should be "keep my ass plugged in no matter what, up to and including if I get decapitated", that's fine and the doctor still gets paid for the meeting. It is your decision.
That's what I see. Please . . . educate me. Where or what have I missed?
Have you read the bill?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.08.2009 @ 22:37
@SJ:
The problem is, that argument can be made against anything.
Propose fixing bridges? In 40 years the government might force you to get a barcode tatooed on your arm to use it.
Funding schools? In 40 years the government might try to force implants into students heads.
Support the police? In 40 years the government might burn the Constitutuion and send armed thugs into your house to kill you.
All these things COULD happen. Are you against bridges, education, the military, and the police? Probably not.
What on earth does late-term abortion have to do with insuring the uninsured? Whether late-term abortions should be illegal or not is totally, completely, and utterly irrevelant to the debate.
. . . but it does make a great emotional grenade. In my experience, people only resort to emotion in a debate when they have nothing substantial to argue.
Are you saying that providing healthcare to the uninsured is immoral? Jesus would be so proud of you. What moral(s) is under attack here? Remeber, we're talking about health insurance . . . not abortion. If your argument is that abortion is immoral, therefore health insurance that pays for abortion is immoral, are you for banning private health insurance as well? It would certainly seem to fall into your definition of morality.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.08.2009 @ 15:07
Doesn't Graham's analysis prove him wrong?
As I read it, he's claiming that if the private insurance sompanies have to compete with the public insurance, they'll get undercut and be forced to fold. As an example of public insurance, he cites Medicare.
But private insurance companies compete with Medicare to insure elderly Americans. They haven't gone out of buisness, and Medicare has been around long enough that if its pricing was undercutting private insurance the financial impact would have already been felt by the private companies.
It is like saying that public transportation will drive auto makers out of buisness, because public transportation is cheaper. True, paying a buck for the bus is cheaper than getting a car . . . but having private transportation offers advantages that make it worth the cost to people that can afford it.
My elderly relatives all have private insurance. They are qualified for Medicare, but prefer to pay for better coverage. How is "middle-age Medicare" any different?
Perhaps public insurance will destroy the private companies . . . but the only example I see is Medicare, and the result hasn't been that dire.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.08.2009 @ 12:29
LEARNING NEW THINGS CAN BE FUN
@chicagotrauma:
"I do have a problem with people who look down on Palin or Palinistas (if you will) because they are 'commoners'. "
??? I'm curious where that comes from. Do you have any sources?
I've made no secret that I think Palin is an idiot, but it is completely unrelated to being "common" or "uncommon" . . . just as many common idiots as uncommon idiots. I've read many, many attacks on Palin, but none of them dismissed her because she was "a commoner".
In the same vein, the "Palinistas" (an oddly Socialist name for such an anti-Socialist club) get insulted for praising her, not for being "commoners". Bill Kristol supports her, and for it (as well as many other bad ideas) he gets called an idiot . . . but her certainly isn't a "commoner". Same for Rush.Maybe part of the confusion for me is that I'm not sure what a "commoner" is. Is it based on your level of education? Is it your job? Your income? Your criminal record? Family history? Hobbies? I honestly have no clue.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.08.2009 @ 03:36
@Ken.McCloud:
There are conservative proposals that Conservatives CAN get behind. There are conservative ideals to reform healthcare.
The problem is . . . Red Pols AREN'T getting behind them.
The Republicans havent's put the proposals together and said "this is the bill we want to pass". Instead, they mention that there are other ideas out there, ideas that might have merit. Maybe we should look at them . . . later. We'll totally get right on it in the future. Right now, let's kill health care reform. Once we totally destroy any momentum we'll do it.
There COULD BE alternatives. There could be good alternatives. But Reds aren't even trying to pretend that they are interested in them. They want the status quo, period. They don't appear to want to reform health care.
Unfortunately, people do.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.08.2009 @ 17:28
@Eddie:
Hell, if the Reds worked up a counter-proposal by themselves and ignored Blues entirely, they'd have something.
From my view, the big weakness in the Repub position (and why I'm in favor of Obamacare) is that I have two choices: Obamacare, or nothing. I want health care reform, so I don't have too much choice.
Of course the bill has (and will have) problems . . . it's a government bill, for God's sake! They could pass a resolution saying "cake is yummy" and it would probably run 200 pages and take 4 committees. Dems are especially pathetic in this regard.
But as someone that (a) doesn't currently have health care coverage and (b) thinks the current system is a verified train wreck, I'll take door #2. A likely train wreck beats a verified train wreck every time.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.08.2009 @ 15:19
PALIN'S OUTRAGEOUS DEMAGOGUERY: WHY NOT? EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT.
@Anonomaton:
So . . . your proof for that wild accusation is a FU@KING YOUTUBE VIDEO that starts with "O Fortuna" playing, opens with a comment about Comrade Obama, then fades to a picture of Obama wearing The Joker makeup from The Dark Night?
Out of curiosity . . . does this shit actually work on you? If I made a whackjob video of Rush or Palin, would you suddenly decide they were evil? All this time Blues were trying to discuss facts and the issues. I gues they just should have hired the director from the "Saw" movies to whip up some PSAs and cow you into submission.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.08.2009 @ 07:26
I am honestly at a loss at these comments.
All of the most hyperbolic, rediculous statements made against healthcare reform are. absolutely true. Well, no . . . but they could be. Granted, nothing in the bills or Democratic plans is remotely close to anything claimed here . . . but they could be. Someone could in the future impose death camps, which is the exact same thing as specifically mandating horrible things nobody even implied. That means the plan clearly imposes abominations, right?
Do any of you realize how utterly insane you sound?
It's like the Birthers, part 2. No concern for even the slightest shred of facts or reality. Make a wild false statement. When clear, unambiguous facts are presented completely invalidating it . . . just make another one. Continue three or four times, then go back to the first. For all the pomposity, you all sound like two year olds.
Actually, I take that back. My two year old nephew is more grounded in reality.
The Republican Party will not recover from this for a long, long time. If you all honestly thought the Democratic Party was the spawn of Satan, you wouldn't be giving them the next 10 elections gift wrapped like this.
Pathetic.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.08.2009 @ 20:32
welcome back Retire!
So . . . are you defending the veracity of Palin's comment, or does the fact that she's The Red Messiah mean it's wrong to criticize her regardless of how blindingly moronic her comment may be?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.08.2009 @ 17:17
