Health care provisions in H.R. 1

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Democrats in Washington are lucky that their Republican opponents are so stupid.

H.R. 1 contains provisions having nothing whatsoever to do with economic stimulous, but involving rationing of treatment per Cost Effectivenesss according to standards to be set by a Federal Council.

It seems likely that those most likely to find their health care reduced by such rationing are the elderly, who have some of the highest rates of voting by age demographics.

If the elderly turn on the Democrats, boy, they can kiss the 2010 elections good-bye.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

[CARLHAYDEN]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

Just remembering how Rostenkowski was attacked a few years ago when he suggested reductions in ss.

If the Republicans had any brains (well, they wouldn't have nominated McCain), but they would send out a mailer to all registered voters who are over 55 telling them about this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

Just remembering how Rostenkowski was attacked a few years ago when he suggested reductions in ss.

If the Republicans had any brains (well, they wouldn't have nominated McCain), but they would send out a mailer to all registered voters who are over 55 telling them about this.

     Indeed. Though my mother hated Obama anyway, other people, some of whom will have been Obama supporters, will catch wind of this as well.

[Alcon]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

Alcon,

I will take this slow, so that there is a chance you might understand it.

First, can you comprehend no "(i)ncreased federal spending"? 

Second, why do you want government bureaucrats making health care decisions?

Third, yes I understand that you favor "universal" government controlled health care, but have you ever considered that there are people who don't share your belief?

[Alcon]

Alcon,

I will take this slow, so that there is a chance you might understand it.

First, can you comprehend no "(i)ncreased federal spending"? 

Second, why do you want government bureaucrats making health care decisions?

Third, yes I understand that you favor "universal" government controlled health care, but have you ever considered that there are people who don't share your belief?

First, I can comprehend no increased federal spending, but that would require zero-sum cuts, as implied by my question.

Second, PiT favors universal health care, which is why I was asking him if that was the extent of his objection, and why I asked how I did.

Third, you will note that the post was addressed to PiT, and not CARLHAYDEN.

Finally, your apology is accepted in advance.  But I expected it to be taken even more slowly, as seems to be your style of record.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

First, no increased federal spending doesn't require any "zero-sum cuts."  Can't you understand no increased federal spending?

Second, I notice you still didn't answer my question about why you want bureaucrats making health care decision.

Third, I understand you don't like having your biases illustrated, but I will continue to do so as long as you continue to try to deceive.

Finally, sorry you have such a lack of ethics. 

[Brittain33]

[Alcon]

Alcon,

First, no increased federal spending doesn't require any "zero-sum cuts."  Can't you understand no increased federal spending?

With the current increase in healthcare demand, of course it would.  Are you expecting Baby Boomers to vanish, or for us to be able to make up the Baby Boomer "health echo" with service optimization?  Again, if that is a false dichotomy, please explain why.

Second, I notice you still didn't answer my question about why you want bureaucrats making health care decision.

I did not say I did.  Strawman fallacy.

Third, I understand you don't like having your biases illustrated, but I will continue to do so as long as you continue to try to deceive.

I asked PiT a question under the context of his political views, not mine.  You assumed they were mine.  Your inference was unfounded.  Strawman fallacy.

[Person Man]

Bureaucrats making healthcare decisions... that's the biggest joke on the planet....if they aren't going to make decisions for you, your insurance company will...and unlike the government, they will make decisions trying to deter you from seeing a doctor to save money...then again, that's what the govenment does, right? Then again, arren't you glad that someone is out there making sure you don't see a doctor for a runny nose every month?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bureaucrats making healthcare decisions... that's the biggest joke on the planet....if they aren't going to make decisions for you, your insurance company will...and unlike the government, they will make decisions trying to deter you from seeing a doctor to save money...then again, that's what the govenment does, right? Then again, arren't you glad that someone is out there making sure you don't see a doctor for a runny nose every month?

We are not taling about people with runny noses. We are talking about people with cancer be denide experimental treatments because of costs for the benefit of society. We are talking about all the treatments some of which are very promising that will be sh**tcanned by the Democratic regulations and intrusions. If the people saw this dark side to national Heath care it would not have any support. Why must we sacrifice the old for the sake of the young on this but sacfrice the young for the sake of the old when it comes to Stem Cell Reasearch. Has anyone noticed this hypocrisy on the part of the Dems when it comes to health care. I have.

[War on Want]

Bureaucrats making healthcare decisions... that's the biggest joke on the planet....if they aren't going to make decisions for you, your insurance company will...and unlike the government, they will make decisions trying to deter you from seeing a doctor to save money...then again, that's what the govenment does, right? Then again, arren't you glad that someone is out there making sure you don't see a doctor for a runny nose every month?

We are not taling about people with runny noses. We are talking about people with cancer be denide experimental treatments because of costs for the benefit of society. We are talking about all the treatments some of which are very promising that will be sh**tcanned by the Democratic regulations and intrusions. If the people saw this dark side to national Heath care it would not have any support. Why must we sacrifice the old for the sake of the young on this but sacfrice the young for the sake of the old when it comes to Stem Cell Reasearch. Has anyone noticed this hypocrisy on the part of the Dems when it comes to health care. I have.

Discarded embryos are not the young. Try again please.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bureaucrats making healthcare decisions... that's the biggest joke on the planet....if they aren't going to make decisions for you, your insurance company will...and unlike the government, they will make decisions trying to deter you from seeing a doctor to save money...then again, that's what the govenment does, right? Then again, arren't you glad that someone is out there making sure you don't see a doctor for a runny nose every month?

We are not taling about people with runny noses. We are talking about people with cancer be denide experimental treatments because of costs for the benefit of society. We are talking about all the treatments some of which are very promising that will be sh**tcanned by the Democratic regulations and intrusions. If the people saw this dark side to national Heath care it would not have any support. Why must we sacrifice the old for the sake of the young on this but sacfrice the young for the sake of the old when it comes to Stem Cell Reasearch. Has anyone noticed this hypocrisy on the part of the Dems when it comes to health care. I have.

Discarded embryos are not the young. Try again please.

They are the earliest form of Human life and are thus the youngest of us. They are the most discriminated against and yet they are all of us. Yet they don't make the strict standards of the left. You want to help the discrimanted against then join the side of life and help us fight them most widespread discrimination there is.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

     She would prefer more the former. She sees this as the equivalent of the Inuit putting their elderly out on an ice floe to die.

     FTR, I don't support universal health care (anymore) so much as I support a change to the system. By its nature, the health care industry seems useless if it cannot be trusted to serve its customers. Doesn't mean that I believe in getting rid of the system.

[CARLHAYDEN]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

     She would prefer more the former. She sees this as the equivalent of the Inuit putting their elderly out on an ice floe to die.

     FTR, I don't support universal health care (anymore) so much as I support a change to the system. By its nature, the health care industry seems useless if it cannot be trusted to serve its customers. Doesn't mean that I believe in getting rid of the system.

I thought you had more sense than Alcon. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

     She would prefer more the former. She sees this as the equivalent of the Inuit putting their elderly out on an ice floe to die.

     FTR, I don't support universal health care (anymore) so much as I support a change to the system. By its nature, the health care industry seems useless if it cannot be trusted to serve its customers. Doesn't mean that I believe in getting rid of the system.

I thought you had more sense than Alcon. 

     I used to be really pro-universal health care (due more to my personal issues with the industry than anything else, as immature as that is). Nowadays I realize that there are far less intrusive ways of dealing with health care costs. In that sense, I guess I'm getting somewhere, though I still need to do research into the full array of small-government alternatives to a government health insurance program.

[Alcon]

CARL, I haven't expressed my personal views in this topic at all.  Strawman #3.  Well-done.  In logical fallacy bowling, that's a turkey.

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

     She would prefer more the former. She sees this as the equivalent of the Inuit putting their elderly out on an ice floe to die.

     FTR, I don't support universal health care (anymore) so much as I support a change to the system. By its nature, the health care industry seems useless if it cannot be trusted to serve its customers. Doesn't mean that I believe in getting rid of the system.

But if funding is limited, you have to put someone else on the ice floe.  How is putting a 24-year-old with 60 years to live out to pasture better than cutting care to a 75-year-old?  Lower treatment efficacy, just to avoid "age discrimination"?  Morally, not in terms of who has higher VEP rates.

I'm not understanding what you're advocating in this situation.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Alcon,

First, no increased federal spending doesn't require any "zero-sum cuts."  Can't you understand no increased federal spending?

Second, I notice you still didn't answer my question about why you want bureaucrats making health care decision.

Third, I understand you don't like having your biases illustrated, but I will continue to do so as long as you continue to try to deceive.

Finally, sorry you have such a lack of ethics. 

I'd rather have a government bureaucrat that relies on my vote making those decisions than the profit seeking insurance companies.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

     She would prefer more the former. She sees this as the equivalent of the Inuit putting their elderly out on an ice floe to die.

     FTR, I don't support universal health care (anymore) so much as I support a change to the system. By its nature, the health care industry seems useless if it cannot be trusted to serve its customers. Doesn't mean that I believe in getting rid of the system.

But if funding is limited, you have to put someone else on the ice floe.  Is putting a 24-year-old with 60 years to live out to pasture worse than cutting care to a 75-year-old?  Lower treatment efficacy, just to avoid "age discrimination"?

I'm not understanding what you're advocating in this situation.

     This is my mother, not me. I don't necessarily think that her position makes sense.

     Anyway, her approach to a situation like that would basically be that of triage. She thinks that survivability should be the major deciding factor.

[Alcon]

    This is my mother, not me. I don't necessarily think that her position makes sense.

     Anyway, her approach to a situation like that would basically be that of triage. She thinks that survivability should be the major deciding factor.

Does this calculation include age without including survivability?  I find that hard to believe.  Either way, why would she oppose a system based on survivability because it included age?  I don't get that.

I wasn't meaning to paint you in a corner, I was actually asking what you see the solution of this as.  As not a purist free-marketer, nor a universal healthcare advocate (apparently) I'm curious.  It's tough stuff to deal with from any ideology, especially one skeptical of both.  What do you make of it?  I'm not sure what I do, either, really.

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARL, I haven't expressed my personal views in this topic at all.  Strawman #3.  Well-done.

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

     She would prefer more the former. She sees this as the equivalent of the Inuit putting their elderly out on an ice floe to die.

     FTR, I don't support universal health care (anymore) so much as I support a change to the system. By its nature, the health care industry seems useless if it cannot be trusted to serve its customers. Doesn't mean that I believe in getting rid of the system.

But if funding is limited, you have to put someone else on the ice floe.  Is putting a 24-year-old with 60 years to live out to pasture worse than cutting care to a 75-year-old?  Lower treatment efficacy, just to avoid "age discrimination"?

I'm not understanding what you're advocating in this situation.

Alcon takes a central tenant of collectivism and uses it as his base for argument.

Collectivists assume the the supply of goods/services will not improve, nor will their efficiency or price.

All of those assumptions are wrong!

First, improved diagnostics have significantly increased the effectiveness of medical treatment.

Second, many medical conditions which were untreatable sixty years ago, are not largely resolved (can you imagine a President today with polio?)

Third, research is opening up new perspectives on the treatment of a variety of medical conditions.  They don't call it the "practice" of medicine without reason.

We need to increase the genius of free enterprise to improve medical care (quantity, quality, effectiveness and price) rather than ration existing medical care.

[Alcon]

CARL, for the fourth time, I have never expressed an opinion on this situation.

My assumptions weren't from a "collectivist" stance.  Here's the crux of my construct:

Do you have studies to support your contention that it is unreasonable to assume that increased demand for medical treatment (Baby Boomers, etc.) will be outpaced in every sphere by improvements in medical technology?  I find that contention improbable in, say, government-subsidized care for the demented elderly.  Stuff like that is not really affected by technology.  How would you maintain care without increasing federal funding, in a case like that?  Do you have evidence to show that medical improvements in treating other conditions will be enough to nullify the baby boomer "health boom" that is starting now?

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARL, for the fourth time, I have never expressed an opinion on this situation.

My assumptions weren't from a "collectivist" stance.  Here's the crux of my construct:

Do you have studies to support your contention that it is unreasonable to assume that increased demand for medical treatment (Baby Boomers, etc.) will be outpaced in every sphere by improvements in medical technology?  I find that contention improbable in, say, government-subsidized care for the demented elderly.  Stuff like that is not really affected by technology.  How would you maintain care without increasing federal funding, in a case like that?  Do you have evidence to show that medical improvements in treating other conditions will be enough to nullify the baby boomer "health boom" that is starting now?

Yes, you assume no significant changes in the treatment of a variety of medical conditions.

The simple truth is that treatment modalities have significantly changed over the past few decades.

Now, it is impossible to accurately prognosticate when/if a cost effective treatment for say, cancer may occur.

If you have your way, merely distributing existing levels (quantity, quality, effectiveness and cost) then there may never be improvements as you are committed to distributing existing resources rather than improving medical care resources.

When a collectivist looks at a pie, his first thought is how to distribute it (while insuring a disproportionate slice for himself) while an advocate of free enterprise thinks about how we really ought to bake more pies so that everyone will have a decent slice.

The provisions in the bill I cited at collectivist/distributionalist, as are its supporters, like you.

[Alcon]

Before I respond to the rest of that, would you mind pointing out where I advocated collectivism?  That does not include instances where I was addressing PiT's opinion, or his mother's.  Please provide quotes.  Thank you. 

Note:  From now on, I will be doing this whenever you posit an assertion I've labeled inaccurate three times, without responding to the accusation of inaccuracy.