Yes Master!
Conservative blogs are under attack. In my previous post, A Good Mob is Hard to Find, Paul decided to make a comment. Now I don’t know Paul, and I don’t want to deter people from commenting on my blog, but Paul has some explaining to do. Here is his comment, so we are all on the same page. Notice how his comment does nothing to engage with the point I was making in my post:
It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people. And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait, Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.
How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a lynch mob advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.
As a former writing instructor, I know that Google can be an invaluable tool for exposing intellectual dishonesty. In Paul’s case you can google search any random part of his comment, and you will find a screen that looks like this:
comment spam
You will see that I am not the only blog where Paul has copied and pasted his brainless ideas. You might say comment spam is part of blogging, so why make a big deal out of this. Well, this is more than a simple case of comment spam.
For another example of this kind of comment spam, you can check out the post, Congress won’t take the medicine they prescribe, on Harrison Price’s blog. Check out the comments on this post and you will find another comment spammer named Jacksmith. I called jacksmith on his bluff in my own comments – I am Burro by the way. Once again you might justifiably say, “So what.” Ultimately, Paul’s comment is evidence that a claim I have been making since May of last year is correct. Read Obama’s Biggest Weapon for some context and a great quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson. My claim is that Obama’s biggest weapon is an army of witless supporters who will do whatever their master tells them.
Obama’s army of Storm Troopers is called Organizing for America, and he recently sent an email to this army of 13 million clones to engage in activities that support his healthcare proposal. I imagine that Paul and jacksmith are members of this mindless herd. Liberals are whining (redundant I know) that the massive protests by angry Americans are “astroturf” protests as opposed to authentic “grassroots” movements. This is a stupid claim on their part that is backfiring dramatically. On the other hand, I remember watching a documentary about the development of CGI technology in movies. One of the defining moments of CGI was when they were able to develop programming that was sophisticated enough to create an image of a grass field where every blade of grass was moving independently. Grass generated by CGI programming is a good metaphor for describing this new form of activism pioneered by Obama and Howard Dean where you can just send an email to your 13 million shills and they will go spam websites with manufactured comments. We can call this form of protest “technoturf.” Nancy Pelosi has said that the protesters of the healthcare bill are un-American, I would have to say that it is hard to argue that Obama’s army of mindless supporters are even human. Just as a marionette without strings, or Obama without a teleprompter, Paul, wouldn’t be able to debate if he didn’t have a message from his master that he could copy and paste all over the internet. While I am opposed to the shouting matches going on at town hall meetings, I am at a loss at how else you might get someone like Paul to acknowledge their humanity.
Paul was quick to disparage faceless bureaucrats in his comment, but I would take an army of faceless bureaucrats over an army of faceless apparatchiks any day.
Paul, if you want to debate, come to my blog and make a real comment. I predict that he doesn’t.
on 
on 
Mindless robots indeed!
You need to out jacksmith too. Anytime any conservative blogger gets this kind of comment spam, they need to expose it to the world.
I’ve have seen this kind of tactic pulled on some blogs I frequently visit–always obvious.
The latest thing I’ve seen on liberal blogs is the deletion of conservative posts.
In my opinion, this is a blog’s equivalent of a shouting match. I agree that these comments are always obvious. We need to publicly humiliate those who are making them. Especially since it is likely that they are being told to do so by their master. Notice how the rhetoric is always the same broken-record drivel that we have to keep hearing in Obama’s speeches.
this is not the first time i have seen this.
i saw it happen on a few college football blogs in the last election. funny thing was, i caught him the same way as mentioned above.
I was wondering where those comments were coming from since I got the same ones on my blog..and I was seeing the exact same things on others as well.
They are indeed mindless robots as Harrison stated.
This stuff is so weird to me. I don’t understand this whole “comment spamming” stuff, along with people who show up at townhall meetings who are being paid by left wing nonprofits just to be activists, and people who fake being doctors at townhall meetings. I suspect that the left accuses us of being paid astroturfers and brainless drones because, well, it takes one to know one, right?
Not sure how the Homeslice forged Comment Luv.
Remember in Star Wars when Han Solo dresses up as a Storm Trooper to get behind enemy lines?
haha well in my own personal experience I’ve had comments that I made as part of a high school debate project removed from the myspace page of a punk band called Anti-Flag. To see liberal blogs pull the same thing, and not only that but spew out their mass spammings, really doesn’t surprise me, but sets an all new low.
Han dressed as a Storm Trooper, yes, but so did Luke, too.
Hey!
I’m one of those 13 million mindless too. So are my beyond-educated associates (Masters and Ph. D’s from the best universities, readers of all relevant literature, and on that mailing list).
I’m loathe to admit that Bill Mahr wrote a decent piece in the HuffPo, but we really do live in a stupid country. For some of optimists among us (e.g. me), this is truly sad news. Since Jr. High civics I’ve had faith in “the people”, Jeffersonianism, etc. But I’m coming to realise I have been wrong.
Then there are the cynical who have always known that. These are the neo-cons like Bill Krystal. You can see it in his reactions that he thinks Americans are sheep to be corralled into pens labled “Sarah Palin” and “Joe the Plumber”
Conservative proposals just leave me in stitches. “I know what will solve this crisis, let these insurance companies compete across state lines!” That’ll get rid of all the abuses of denied coverage, the pre-existing conditions fiasco, the mountains of forms and paperwork in order to treat a simple ailment.
I could go on for ages about this. But I love how every group feels trodden on in this process. Bush ruled with a billy-club with a 50.1% majority and a sliver majority in Congress. Obama’s got a 60/40 split, and Republicans are screaming that they’re being steamrollered. No, you haven’t been. Yet. And their concerns are being considered a little TOO much, given their trouncing in the last couple elections. If people liked their ideas, they would have given them a majority. No?
et cetera,
chuckles
Hard to see how allowing insurance companies to compete against one another in different states the way the founder of Whole Foods suggested in the WSJ will lead to higher prices. Surely if you are so highly educated you “realise” that this has nothing to do with paperwork or pre-existing conditions.
I’m sure you’re only remembering the “bully-club” Bush of the first few years. I seem to recall him being mocked and put down for the remainder of his second term and yet, so oddly, Democratic leaders never really tried to lead on their own. Hmmm.
I think we should give Obama all the room in the world to run with his “mandate” as he has managed to lower his approval rating to a whopping 47%.
Aww Harrison,
Thank you for that. That gave me the giggles.
*****Hard to see how allowing insurance companies to compete against one another in different states the way the founder of Whole Foods suggested in the WSJ will lead to higher prices.*****
Yes, it is hard to see how they would raise prices. But it’s equally hard to see how they would LOWER prices. And again, lowering prices marginally is not the issue. Help me out here. Farbeit from me to discourage conservatives when they offer a proposal (that doesn’t involve greater access to firearms or chasing gays outside the city limits), but I don’t understand how that even ADDRESSES the problem. It’s like pulling up to your mechanic with a faulty engine and him saying “weel, here’s yer problem, these winda’s is FILTHY”. And your mechanic might even be right! It’s just not addressing the problem.
*****Surely if you are so highly educated you “realise” that this has nothing to do with paperwork or pre-existing conditions.*****
Perhaps you could work on your reading comprehension, as I never said I was so very educated. Just informed. I spoke for my friends in my circle. We are all baffled by people who think like you. So this is my own form of opposition research.
*****I’m sure you’re only remembering the “bully-club” Bush of the first few years.*****
You mean the 6 of 8 years he held a majority in congress? Yeah, the first few years, comprising 75% of his time. And just because he lost his popularity doesn’t mean he didn’t try to pass his policy. He just spent all his political capital on the war and the rest sank in Katrina. For voters it was no longer the Incompetent (dem) party versus the Evil (rep) party. The Republican party was now both incompetent and evil. They did that to themselves.
*****I seem to recall him being mocked and put down for the remainder of his second term and yet, so oddly, Democratic leaders never really tried to lead on their own.*****
The only things I’m sure you recall accurately are your own recollections. I have been in DC for Bush’s whole 2nd term. I’ve met Karl Rove. I’ve been in the room with Dick Cheney. I’ve heard Bush speak at a number of conservative Think Tanks. I’ve even been to Grover Nordquist’s Wed. Morning Meetings. These Bushies are bullies. You need to read The Angler.
*****I think we should give Obama all the room in the world to run with his “mandate” as he has managed to lower his approval rating to a whopping 47%.*****
Keep following Rasmussen polling. I love it. It makes me happy in my heart when conservatives quote Rasmussen. Fox follows it, everybody else discards it as an outlier. Curse those liberal media elites!
That’s not to say his numbers aren’t tanking. It’s just no indication of anything. And if Obama can get such a bill through congress and into law that really reforms Health Care, I think he’d be able to accept that.
I keep inviting Conservatives into the modern world. Come, Friends, let us reason together: forget that whole “Christ told us to look after the poor” rubbish. That was never a reason to do anything, unless you believe in the whole “heaven” thing. The truth is, if poor people are not being fed, they will be stealing food. If the destitute are dying from no access to health care, they will take it violently.
These safety nets are not just Bleeding Hearts who get that good christian feeling from helping their brother. Woven in there is a huge number of rich people looking to pacify the poor to keep down a revolution. And you BET there would have been in the 30s without all the FDR reforms conservatives hate.
I’m going to stop because if not, I would just keep going. But again, I finish typing with this incredible wonderment at how all y’all think. It’s fun to step outside myself and try to think like other people. And when they’re so committed, and so wrong-headed, it makes me smile.
Cheers,
Chuckles
If you recall (perhaps you don’t) that the Whole Foods op-ed from which you quote inter-state competition of insurance companies was part of a multi-point presentation. You can pick and choose one point over another but each point is not meant to address the others, hence it being multi-point.
Since you disparage Rasmussen yet offer no evidence as to how his polls are somehow more un-scientific than any other poll I guess we can ignore that comment.
And you never said you were informed either (clearly you are not) however you certainly did imply you were well educated. Maybe they are letting the GED set hang with Cheney and your other VIPs however I doubt it.
You may disparage Bush for trying to pass his agenda (as Obama is doing now) and thus lowering his popularity but Bush himself said he was not interested in his popularity because he believed what he was doing was the right thing. Even if I disagree with that statement I can respect it. From Obama we have seen none of this resolve… he bends and sways with the wind. Disagree or not with his policy a waffle is not to be respected unless it’s whole grain and comes with some OJ.
And the Democrats, when things in Iraq turned badly, grew a backbone yet surprisingly never really came up with any policy decisions that made sense and instead like to compare Bush to Hitler or anybody else they knew about.
You may wonder how I think but I am wondering if you are thinking at all.
*****If you recall (perhaps you don’t) that the Whole Foods op-ed from which you quote inter-state competition of insurance companies was part of a multi-point presentation. You can pick and choose one point over another but each point is not meant to address the others, hence it being multi-point.*****
Yes I read it. The whole thing was crap. His other points, (just doing this from memory) aside from interstate insurance sales, building up Bush’s HSA’s with low premiums and super-high deductibles (as high as 3k per person, which is an impossibility for most people). And making it easier for those who wish to voluntarily contribute to the health care of the poor to do so. The CEO is certifiable, going on websites and trashing Wild Oats and commenting favourably on Whole Foods to manipulate share prices before a buyout—and then getting caught. His whole editorial is utter crap; boycotts of Whole Foods are currently underway everywhere organic food is popular.
*****Since you disparage Rasmussen yet offer no evidence as to how his polls are somehow more un-scientific than any other poll I guess we can ignore that comment.*****
It’s funny that they’re just as scientific, yet they always seem to slant in a, shall we say, “fox-positive” direction. And often by several percentage points. You can take the st. dev. of all the other major polls, and they’ll be pretty close, and Rasmussen is always an outlier. Happenstance, or coincidence, or perhaps leprechauns. I don’t care, and it doesn’t really matter. It’s just interesting, is all.
*****And you never said you were informed either (clearly you are not) however you certainly did imply you were well educated.*****
I’m sorry, I never did say that I was informed. Allow me to say so now: I am informed. I have worked policy for 3 years, 2 of those exclusively in health policy. I am part of groups right now that are fighting this out in the various committees, and that’s just in my spare time.
*****Maybe they are letting the GED set hang with Cheney and your other VIPs however I doubt it.*****
Ahh, that brings me back to the Monica Goodling days. The days where everybody in policy circles close to the white house were white and blonde and graduated from Regent University, a Christian school barely with accreditation, but was so perfectly encapsulated into the Bush White House world vision, that they took just about anybody from there who applied. Yes, they do let plenty of dullards into those circles. I like to think I wasn’t one of them. At least not for long.
*****You may disparage Bush for trying to pass his agenda (as Obama is doing now) and thus lowering his popularity but Bush himself said he was not interested in his popularity because he believed what he was doing was the right thing.*****
Another lie republicans tell themselves about Bush. That he was a willing martyr for his cause. The truth is he cares a great deal for his popularity and his reputation, and is actively trying to reconstruct it in a positive light. If he didn’t care, he’d just let it be. But he does care, and image repair is being done massively and behind the scenes. And I would never disparage Bush for pushing his agenda. I disparage him for lying about the intelligence that got us into war and not having the backbone to stand up to Cheney. Those seem like a good reason to me.
Which brings me to why Bush is the real Darth Vader, not Cheney. Vader was a young, energetic aspiring individual who was taken in and deceived by an elder politician. Cheney is the Emperor. Bush is the real Darth Vader. But happily, there is redemption and sympathy for Vader. I don’t hate him, I just see him as a hugely missed opportunity.
***** Even if I disagree with that statement I can respect it. From Obama we have seen none of this resolve… he bends and sways with the wind. Disagree or not with his policy a waffle is not to be respected unless it’s whole grain and comes with some OJ.*****
Okay, a couple things here: you’re comparing 8 years to 6 months. But we all remember the saying, “all’s fair when Republicans are out of power.” Second, are you kidding me? The resolve to pass a stimulus that was wildly unpopular but because a critical mass of the best economists in the country felt it was the right thing to do? The resolve to change health care even though the easy thing would be to walk away? You’ll have to lend me your selective-vision goggles. The world must look so very bleak right now to you.
*****And the Democrats, when things in Iraq turned badly, grew a backbone yet surprisingly never really came up with any policy decisions that made sense and instead like to compare Bush to Hitler or anybody else they knew about.*****
I’m going to have to take a pass on that one, because I can’t really figure out what you’re saying. I just read “ME ANGRY”. That’s how I can make sense of that last paragraph. I recognise you are angry. And I’m sorry for that.
*****You may wonder how I think but I am wondering if you are thinking at all.*****
Again, I am left to guess what you are meaning, but your intent (to insult, to offend) are both clear, so I guess I can respond to that. What about my posts have you found unthoughtful? What have you found to be unreasonable? I do nothing BUT reason. I have stated my opinions, I have offered supporting analysis and evidence, and have concluded with what I am arguing. It’s a High School teacher’s 5 paragraph dream essay. Bloghorn as my English 110 teacher would probably even be proud of me.
Best,
Chuckles
Chuckles,
You said, “Conservative proposals just leave me in stitches. ‘I know what will solve this crisis, let these insurance companies compete across state lines!’ That’ll get rid of all the abuses of denied coverage, the pre-existing conditions fiasco, the mountains of forms and paperwork in order to treat a simple ailment.”
First off, I’d love to hear how having interstate insurances hurts.
Secondly, my wife is pregnant, and we are on MediCal – the largest government sponsored health care system next to Medical and Medicaid. Being pregnant is a pretty simple “ailment.” It happens fairly routinely. You wouldn’t believe the literal folders of paperwork, phone calls, time on hold, inter-office verification and approval, traveling to different offices across the largest county in the country, etc., just to get an ultrasound.
My point is that if we look at the government’s 3 largest health care programs, their track record of efficiency and quality is grim. I would love to hear talk about a health-based health care system, where everyone is eligible so long as they are making efforts to live healthy. I’m all for limited government assistance in emergency and truly transitional situations. But until a plan comes from either side that completely and truly revamps the government’s current role in America’s health, we’re all screwed.
*****First off, I’d love to hear how having interstate insurances hurts. *****
I never said it would hurt. I only said it doesn’t address the problem. Like the mechanic who says the windshield is dirty when you complain about engine problems. Washing the windshield will actually make the care better! It’s just not addressing the fundamental problem.
*****Secondly, my wife is pregnant, and we are on MediCal – the largest government sponsored health care system next to Medical and Medicaid. Being pregnant is a pretty simple “ailment.” It happens fairly routinely. You wouldn’t believe the literal folders of paperwork, phone calls, time on hold, inter-office verification and approval, traveling to different offices across the largest county in the country, etc., just to get an ultrasound.*****
That’s hugely inefficient. I’d love to see that reduced. I, on the other hand, am on private insurance. There are literally thousands of Dr.s in my area, but only a few that accept my particular insurance. And everywhere I go, I fill out massive amounts of paperwork, and I’m told when to go to remote places in the city (I’m subway bound) at obscure times of the day and told to wait for long periods of time. In my experience, medicine is inefficient, public or private.
*****My point is that if we look at the government’s 3 largest health care programs, their track record of efficiency and quality is grim. I would love to hear talk about a health-based health care system, where everyone is eligible so long as they are making efforts to live healthy. I’m all for limited government assistance in emergency and truly transitional situations. But until a plan comes from either side that completely and truly revamps the government’s current role in America’s health, we’re all screwed.*****
Well you said it at the end: we’re all screwed. No party will let the other come away with a win without a big fight. So if this plan were perfect for everybody involved, Republicans would be opposed, simply b/c dems would claim credit for it for a generation, and everybody would love them forever. Dems would do the same thing now if Reps were trying to revamp the system. My friend is the CIO of National Center for Quality Assurance, working on creating electronic medical health records. There is a LOT of good work being done, but until we stop allowing insurance overhead costs to claim HUGE percentages of dollars (multi-million dollar salaries) and revise the perverse incentive structure, we are all very screwed.
I back what is happening right now as a shake-up of the status quo. I’m wary, but optimistic that something will change. I have heard, and had myself, too many horror stories of insurance companies making life-and-death decisions, “DEATH PANELS” if you will, for those they don’t wish to pay for, that a revision of incentives is the 1st step, methinks.
Chuckles
“I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.” George Bernard Shaw
Oink!
Fascinating. You have addressed none of my points, and have resorted to name-calling. Your lack of articulation speaks volumes for your position.
Best,
Chuckles
Harrison,
Let’s be clear about things:
You engaged me. I did not engage you. I was responding to Bloghorn’s assertion of the 13 million mindless. Everybody I know on that list is anything but. That was my assertion. You’re welcome to say what you want to or about me. But I will respond. That seems fair enough. But be advised you well might make yourself look a fool by jumping in criticising somebody you don’t know over material you don’t understand and then calling names while backing out of a conversation. You just look like you’re punching above your weight.
Best,
Chuckles
Actually you just threw a bunch of stuff against the wall hoping something would stick, hence the mud comment.
Chuckles,
Unfortunately every major source of news, internet and other media outlet has misled everyone. The absolute core problem is that Americans are unhealthy. Our lifestyle is unhealthy. We are way too obese. We smoke and drink way too much. We eat far too unhealthfully. There isn’t an option on the table that I’ve seen in my readings and research that addresses that fundamental issue – the faulty engine as it were. Yes, it’s alluded to that a “preventative” system will cure American’s health. And then we read some great statistic from the UK, or Canada, or one of the Nordics while glossing over the contradictory statistics. But not much more is said of it. Either way every option on the table is a top down retooling. And even if Congress can pass a bill that ONLY costs 1.??? trillion, fine, we can live with it for now. But in 20 years, when all the now obese teenagers start outspending the octogenarian baby-boomers in health care dollars, there isn’t a health care system (or economic system for that matter) that can deal with that.
Anyway, let me redirect to what I want to say of the 13 million imperial soldiers. I would ask that before they start asking for reform, that they get on Medicare, Medicaid or their state component and try it for 6 months. If they don’t qualify, then follow someone who is getting treatment through one of those programs, from start to finish. Then compare a government run system to a private system. After that I would welcome a serious debate on government-run health care. Until then, we ought to discuss the best way to allow every one the opportunity to get private insurance.
Those are just my opinions, having been through equal experiences on both sides of the table.
*****Unfortunately every major source of news, internet and other media outlet has misled everyone. The absolute core problem is that Americans are unhealthy. Our lifestyle is unhealthy. We are way too obese. We smoke and drink way too much. We eat far too unhealthfully. There isn’t an option on the table that I’ve seen in my readings and research that addresses that fundamental issue – the faulty engine as it were. *****
There isn’t a word in there I disagree with. But here’s where I go all “liberal’ on you. Michael Pollan, Food Inc., King Corn, SuperSize Me, and thirty other liberal sources (of them, I’d highly recommend King Corn. Somewhat obscure, but very informative) have been saying how what we eat is a synthesised industrial products that drive our food prices WAY down, and our healthcare costs WAY up. I’m doing these numbers from memory, but I think they’re close:
In 1979 Americans spent 12% of household income on food, and 5% on health care. Today we spend 6% of income on food, and going on 20% of income on healthcare (treat those numbers as +/- 3%, as I’m not 100% confident in my memory).
And you sound like you’re on the liberal side of things right there. The Obamas have been criticised for every healthy step they’ve tried to make. I’ve watched Glenn Beck, our fellow Mormon say, “Obama says all we need to be healthy are bike trails and farmer’s markets. I live where there are more of those things than anywhere else [Connecticut], and you know what I’m eating when I get home? M&Ms.” Which sounds childish, but he holds sway with people who need a lot of converting to healthier living.
So… before I move on, I can say I agree completely about pushing preventative lifestyle measures, but that can be intrusive, there are still 45m uninsured Americans that don’t have access to health care. And that is the issue on the table. So, in summary, I completely agree with your above paragraph, but again, I’m not sure it’s getting to the heart of what we’re trying to fix.
*****Yes, it’s alluded to that a “preventative” system will cure American’s health. And then we read some great statistic from the UK, or Canada, or one of the Nordics while glossing over the contradictory statistics. But not much more is said of it. Either way every option on the table is a top down retooling. And even if Congress can pass a bill that ONLY costs 1.??? trillion, fine, we can live with it for now. But in 20 years, when all the now obese teenagers start outspending the octogenarian baby-boomers in health care dollars, there isn’t a health care system (or economic system for that matter) that can deal with that.*****
Huge problems here. You get complete agreement from me. But insurance profits are up over 1000% over the last 20 years. Yes hospital costs are surging, costs are rising generally, but I’d recommend an interview done by Wendall Potter on the Bill Moyers Journal. He was the former Director of Communications for Cigna Health who helped kill reform in ’94, who has turned whistle-blower. Very enlightening, Insurance practices. Helicopters and literal silver-platter lunch services with gold-plated silverware while allowing a young woman to die of liver failure b/c they decided that transplant surgery was “Experimental” and therefore not covered. Cigna reversed it’s position, but the woman died 2 hours later. I recommend his interview.
*****Anyway, let me redirect to what I want to say of the 13 million imperial soldiers. I would ask that before they start asking for reform, that they get on Medicare, Medicaid or their state component and try it for 6 months. If they don’t qualify, then follow someone who is getting treatment through one of those programs, from start to finish. Then compare a government run system to a private system. After that I would welcome a serious debate on government-run health care. Until then, we ought to discuss the best way to allow every one the opportunity to get private insurance.*****
When I was between jobs while switching careers, I was hit by a car on my bike and broke my wrist. I lost my employer-based health care the month before, and had not been offered health insurance by pro bono Fellowship. So, I can only give my experience, all I had to do to get an X-ray and treatment from a doctor was a note from my new employer saying how much I had been making during that period, and that was the end of it. I was treated first, signed the papers later, and had it covered retroactively. I was back on private insurance soon after, and was back to the same headaches I had before. So, to be honest, my two experiences lead me, anecdotally, to believe that public is MORE reliable and efficient than my private insurance. This is not proof. It is not statistically significant. It is just my experience.
How are the 45m who are uninsured going to afford it? The only way to do that would be for the govt to pay their premiums to the private insurance company, or to confiscate that percentage without the consent of these individuals, regardless of how close to the margins they live.
One thing I think both sides need to recognise: any action or inaction from this point is going to have huge consequences and very hard choices.
We’ll just see what happens from here. But I think we’re close to 80-90% agreement about the problem. We’ll see if anything happens. We’ll see…
Harrison Wrote:
*****Actually you just threw a bunch of stuff against the wall hoping something would stick, hence the mud comment*****
What did I throw against what now? How are relevant points made to your objections ‘mud’? I made salient points about topical issues. I stayed on point. I did insult your faulty argument, but I did not devolve into ad hominem attack (an attack on your person) the way you did. I think you’re happier in a world where you can post on your blog the silliest things liberals believe, mocking that, and pretending that they represent liberal thought, and finally, trashing them and mocking them endlessly.
This straw-man argumentation (constructing an easily knocked-down argument and then pretending it represents your opponent’s position) is the last refuge of the fantastically uninformed. Bit of free advice: don’t wade into issues you don’t understand, and stick to mocking things that can’t call your argumentation out as feeble. That’s not to say I’m against discussing issues with you. And even though I won’t meet you on your level of (dis)respect, I’m always willing to point out when you are name-calling.
Best,
Chuckles
Dear Mr. Bloghorn:
Would you care to clean up Harrison’s mess of an argument? I mean, if we’re flowing the debate, there are dozens of unaddressed points for which I’m sure there is an intelligent Conservative critique. If not, is cool. Conservatism 30 years ago was a laboratory of ideas. Buckley and Fuelner went back to Burke, and argued unintended consequences for all liberal policies. That stuff makes sense! Valid critiques rather than angry shouting. Have anything along those lines?
Hope you are well,
Chuckles
As I said, you are throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick. As for your “ad hominem attack” (thanks I know some Latin) I think you might want to re-read what you said:
Perhaps you could work on your reading comprehension, as I never said I was so very educated
The only things I’m sure you recall accurately are your own recollections.
But again, I finish typing with this incredible wonderment at how all y’all think.
Cheers!
I’m sure Bloghorn has a lot to say, but he has been working about 15-20 hours a day these past couple of weeks. He’ll be responding the first chance he gets.
~Mrs. Bloghorn
*****As I said, you are throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick. As for your “ad hominem attack” (thanks I know some Latin)*****
I don’t care if you know latin or not. It is my assessment from these posts that you are a not familiar with basic debate terms. Forgive me, but I feel the need to define my $10 words.
(and just an aside: I LOVE that you consider these personal attacks. I wonder if you feel under siege every day of your life.)
*****Perhaps you could work on your reading comprehension, as I never said I was so very educated*****
I was merely stating that you were assuming something that I had not written. Somebody with better reading comprehension would not have inferred such. That is not an ad hom attack. It is, if anything, a polite suggestion and a truism.
*****The only things I’m sure you recall accurately are your own recollections.*****
How can I be sure of more than the above sentence? We can argue our respective recollections of the events, but the only thing I know you are recollecting for sure are your own recollections. It’s tautological! This is neither an attack and I’m amazed you interpret it as such.
*****But again, I finish typing with this incredible wonderment at how all y’all think.*****
That is me explaining my reason for reading Bloghorn’s blog. I do it because I wonder about how y’all come to the conclusions you do. I love thought, and I love seeing how people think. And tie in there belligerence and no realistic solutions, and I’ll admit, I’m fascinated.
Is there a smoking gun in here I’m not seeing?
If that’s the list of ‘offenses’ I have committed against you and yours that pushes you to the point of not responding to answers you yourself requested, I’d hate to see how low one must bow to disagree with you and still have you reply. Go ahead and pretend it’s offense at what I said in the above sentences. Most people who read here will believe you. There will probably be very few who think that you’ve quit replying because you have no real rebuttal and don’t wish to appear so.
Best,
Chuckles
Okay – guess I’ll jump in on this one as it seems Chuckles’ memory has a lapse since there are no sources here.
First – let’s give the CV here so you know that I’m not just blowing smoke your way – I have been in health care for 19 years now on ALL sides of it. First as a claims processor for a health insurance company, then as a billing manager for a large clinical laboratory, then as a litigation consulting for what was one of the Big 5 firms – I specialized in qui tam false claim defense, then as a HIPAA consultant implementing the transaction and codesets to large hospital systems and insurance companies, and now I am a compliance officer for the largest primary care group practice in Florida. In addition to that, I am working on my Ph.D. dissertation in Public Health, Epidemiology at this moment.
With that being said – you, Chuckles, to use Harrison’s words, are indeed just throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks.
I’ve done the research on universal health care in Canada, England, Germany, and Cuba and they are all currently failing. They are absolutely a huge burden on their governments and have become unsustainable. In fact, Canada, England, and Germany are in the process of moving to private insurance. The British Health System is the 3d largest employer in the entire world. To move to a universal health care plan in the U.S. will absolutely crush our private insurance industry.
Sure, I agree we have issues that need to be addressed. However, government subsidized health care is not the answer. If you are the D.C. insider that you say you are, you know that Medicare & Medicaid – while funded by the government, is actually administered by private health insurance companies. As this bill is currently written, private insurance companies would become government entities in order to administer the public option.
Next – I just love the way you guys keep throwing out that 45 million uninsured. 2 years ago when it was actually at 47 million I embarked on writing a paper on how to address this from a conservative view rather than push 47 million people on the taxpayer dole. What I found then was that really there were only about 8 – 10 million that were actually unable to obtain insurance. The remaining either made $75k or more a year and chose not to purchase insurance – they are paying out of pocket for health care access; or there are people that are eligible for medicaid and medicare and just have not enrolled; or they are not American citizens. The 8 – 10 million make too much to be eligible for medicaid and they don’t make enough to be able to purchase their own insurance.
What is left is 3 – 7% of the entire American population that does not have insurance and you want to overhaul the entire system just for them. Additionally, of those 45 million (revised in 2008) uninsured – 70% of them actually have access to health care and are receiving services (google Kaiser Survey on uninsured)
An overhaul of the health insurance industry does nothing to address the real problem – affordable access to health care. Insurance is a consumer product and is a personal choice and responsibility to purchase. It is not a right. Improving the cost of health insurance and providing it to everybody does absolutely nothing to address the cost of health care itself. This is a red herring.
The fact of the matter is this health insurance reform bill is a power grab by this administration. They see that almost all of England is employed by the government and their government controls everything just due to the sheer size of the BHS alone. This would be a dream come true for socialists like Obama and his administration. He has already taken over the financial industry, the auto industry, and if the cap and tax bill passes the senate, our energy industry. If the health care bill passes – the government will indeed take over the health care industry.
Socialized medicine absolutely requires rationing to even have a chance of possibly being sustainable. In order to ration, the government establishes rules as to who gets what care under certain circumstances. This will be how the Obama administration takes over everything else through behavior modification.
If you understand public health, you know one of the cornerstones is reducing risky behavior through various interventions and behavior modification – either through taxation, education, or denial. You talk about obesity and unhealthy lifestyles – taking over the healthcare industry will ensure that the government will be able to control the food supplies and what we can or cannot eat, what type of lifestyle we lead (exercising or not), smoking/not smoking, etc., by stating unless you change your behavior ____(fill in the blank) you don’t get services.
If you don’t think that is possible – think again – that is exactly how things work in Canada, England, Germany, and Cuba right now.
Granted, the private insurance industry makes a boatload of money – however, they are private for-profit businesses. As a Conservative, I believe that is a-okay for them to do and the government has no constitutional authority to intrude. However, I do recall the incident that you mentioned regarding the woman who died shortly before the reversal. One of the misnomers is that insurance companies create rules to find ways NOT to pay claims. That is not true. The rules are set by the policy holders. The claims are administered in accordance to the plan that was purchased. Sometimes, that means that certain procedures get denied. There are fully insured and self-insured policies. If it is a self-insured plan – only the employer can make the decision to overturn a provision in their plan. If it is a fully insured plan – then it goes through a medical director on appeal. The rules are all very clearly laid out in everyone’s policy. I recommend everyone read it.
I will say that one of the reasons I left the insurance industry is because of these rules. I saw a woman’s medically necessary breast reduction claims get denied because the surgeon took out 1 tsp of tissue more than he should have – and therefore that procedure now became “cosmetic.”
The other thing I hear regularly now is that what is the difference between having a government bureaucrat make the decisions instead of a private insurance bureaucrat. That too is misleading. All claims are paid, as I said above, based on the plans that are purchased. If a claim is denied a patient has the option to appeal. Those appeals are reviewed by a panel of RN Case Managers and Medical Directors. Clinicians make the decisions – not some faceless suited bureaucrat.
Now – with all that being said – as a Public Health scholar – I understand the need to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to affordable healthcare and the need to address risky behavior and lead a healthy lifestyle. Rather than attack the insurance companies, the focus needs to be on reducing the actual costs of health care. Physicians are paid based on a fee schedule set by the federal government. Private insurance sets their payment schedules at 150% above the Medicare rates. What will a health insurance reform bill do – force the insurance companies to pay at lower rates? That doesn’t reduce the cost of health care. If insurance companies do lower reimbursement rates – then physicians leave in droves because they can’t cover their costs.
The high costs are not in insurance – the high costs are in technology, administration, pharmaceuticals, and frivolous lawsuits.
Sorry – for taking up so much space here – I tried to address all of the above comments.
Dear Bobo,
Welcome to the conversation. The terms used by yourself and Harrison are a bit unclear. I’m not sure I follow the “mud” statement. While you failed to call me a pig (though there will still be opportunity for that in the future, I’m sure) Harrison failed to address any of my comments, and you talk in aggregate about some of them, I have responded to his/her questions and he/she failed to answer any of my points. All of this is fine, given the format, but his/her posts were often rambly and more often incomprehensible. I even had third parties look at them to try to get at what he/she was trying to say.
So, to have you enter and say, ‘yes you’re throwing mud’, forgive me, but that seems to add very little as well. I can get cheerleaders on here too to say “no, x person is” and we can devolve from there. It just occurs to me that there are better ways of having a conversation.
But onto your post. Impressive CV. Most notably due to your sheer tolerance for tedium. I worked with patient level data for over 2 years (HIPAA and whatnot) for a large child hospital advocacy group in DC, so I too am no stranger to the field. I get bored just thinking about it. But I recognise it is important work.
I wonder if this is really the venue for such a conversation, because I feel like going down your post and writing my comments next to sections such as “hyperbole”, “conflation of different ideas”, “opinion”, and “huh?”
I can’t help but yawn when I read these excessively conservative powerpoints like “socialised medicine”. A public option is NOT socialised medicine. Even Single Payer is not socialised medicine. Your Ph.D. is in public health? How much do you understand about macro economics? My guess is not much. And that’s no insult to you. Nobody does. We can follow micro pretty well, but when it gets to these large models, the best anybody does is guess. And I say this as somebody who works with macro data every day and is entering my own econ ph.d. program in the near future.
I worked in the belly of the Conservative Beast for a while. I wrote talking points read by conservative congressmen. I sat through lectures on how wrong the Brits and Germans and French have healthcare. But I have to say my eyes have been opened by the results of people living longer and living more healthfully.
We love the idea of protesting gov’t control of our lives. But Facism, without the racial component (as Italy fashioned for itself) is called Corporatism.
I could go on with a very lengthy reply (I’ve deleted a fair bit b/c I feel like I can be concise here:
Coming down to it, I believe our fundamental disagreement to be this: that I trust disinterested and probably more incompetent government who have no profit motive more that I trust private corporations and conglomerates.
I think you would say that the corporations and conglomerates are more trustworthy. If I’m putting words in your mouth, please let me know, but this is how I understand it.
I KNOW the government has a role in saving the people from greed and exploitation, the excesses of capitalism. Teddy Roosevelt and other trust-busters and regulators agree with me. I just wish conservatives could have their own country to really experiment with these things. Because I believe they’d find the result of no regulation by government abhorrent. And from there, we just argue degrees, as I’ve said to the Bloghorn before. And tiny steps left people scream “SOCIALISM!”, and tiny steps right and people scream “FACISM”.
People are dying and living unhealthily. The system needs fixing. Republicans and conservatives have offered no plausible solution. That’s the bottom line we are all sitting on right now.
Getting Sleepy but will respond more later,
Chuckles
*****I can’t help but yawn when I read these excessively conservative powerpoints like “socialised medicine”. A public option is NOT socialised medicine. Even Single Payer is not socialised medicine. Your Ph.D. is in public health? How much do you understand about macro economics? My guess is not much. And that’s no insult to you. Nobody does. We can follow micro pretty well, but when it gets to these large models, the best anybody does is guess. And I say this as somebody who works with macro data every day and is entering my own econ ph.d. program in the near future.******
Clarification on that paragraph. My background was sitting in conservative think tanks and having them talk about the budget-busting nature of Medicare and Medicaid, how they will bankrupt the country in x years, and the US of A will cease to exist as we know it.
Leaving that situation, I’m just about all ‘fear mongered-out’. It doesn’t scare because there are so many other possibilities that I finally got tired of hearing the sky is falling.
So, no insult to you. I was just saying that there are far too many macro scenarios to even guess that x or y will happen.
Just a question for Chuckles. Can you tie a country’s healthful lifestyle directly to the healthcare system, or is it more cultural?
I live in Loma Linda, CA which has one of the highest centenarian populations in the world. It is also consistently on lists of cities with “healthiest populations.” There is a great health care system here. The Health Professions University is world-renowned. However I feel that Loma Linda’s health has little to do with the health care system, and much more to do with the dominant religion’s culture. That includes no smoking, very little alcohol, little or no red meat, lots of fruits, vegetables and other whole foods, and more exercise than most Americans can even fathom. So is the health of Loma Linda more culture or health care?
Can countries with better health than America contribute that more to culture or more to health care? I personally feel it is more cultural. And I know we’ve already touched on the lack of health in American’s readily available diet.
My point is that no matter what, all health care will do for 310 million Americans or 265 million Americans is prolong an unhealthy lifestyle. There isn’t a system out there that will be able to cope with the sequalae of our current cultural views on health.
In my mind I agree with BoBo. Health care isn’t a right. There is no precedent for the argument that it is. Every American has the right to live their life healthfully, but that’s it.
I don’t understand macroeconomics very much. But I do know that in the not too distant future, the number of macro-Americans will drastically handicap their country’s ability to participate in any macroeconomic community.
Sorry to ramble. I guess my question is to either Chuckles or BoBo. Does any legislation now actually help our country’s health on a large scale, or does something need to change culturally first?
In my opinion, when Chuckles said, “I’m not sure it’s getting to the heart of what we’re trying to fix,” well that’s the problem. The fact that we’re not even seriously discussing the left-sided congestive ‘heart’ failure of the problem leaves me wondering why anyone really cares at all. Unless it is just a political power grab. In which case we should all be against it because that is ultimately pointless.
Chuckles,
Actually, my undergrad degree is in Business Mgmt with a Minor in Economics. I never intended to get into health care – I just lucked into it I guess. So, yes – I do have an understanding of macroeconomics – I wouldn’t say I’m an expert, but I do have a better than average understanding of it than the regular person out there.
Since you state you trust a “disinterested” government with no profit motive over corporations, then you should understand that the public option does lead to socialized medicine and directly to a single payor system. I would have to disagree that the government is “disinterested” for they are absolutely interested in expanding government power and authority. A way to do that is to crush private industry through public options. Private business cannot compete with the government since private businesses have to make a profit to survive and have to answer to shareholders. Governments just take more money from taxpayers to continue to fund their interests. Government is a consumer, not a producer and therefore inherently wasteful.
Going back to your other statement regarding my tolerance for tedium – I guess that would make me a geek as I don’t find it tedious at all. In fact, I actually like reading the FR and CFR. I find it challenging and rewarding at the same time. I’m responsible for reading the new laws, interpreting, then implementing them in our organization. I’ve been in this position for 8 years now.
Having my lengthy experience in private health care, and recognizing we do have issues, I felt the best way to understand the entire health care situation in the U.S. was to learn about public health. I needed to have both sides of the story. While I have found myself more empathetic to the cause, I also recognize there is serious waste and inefficiencies in our public health system. In the three years I have been pursuing my Ph.D. I have not come across another classmate that has conservative views. I find my classmates absolutely agreeing 100% with everything that is being taught regarding health education, public policy administration, and the community organization aspects of public health without question. You can probably imagine some of the hearty discussions I’ve had then given I see things from a private industry side where profit, effectiveness, efficiency, and the requirement to come in at or under budget are key to survival. None of these exist in public health. Rather, our public health system depends on expanding human resources to manage the services on limited funding (with that funding changing year-to-year). Because public health officials have to work with what they are given, they are forced to prioritize to ensure the services are provided, which often times means that technology upgrades and other administrative efficiencies are overlooked.
Our public health system is as broken as our Medicare and Medicaid systems, if not more. To expect that the government can run health insurance effectively and efficiently is a stretch.
Blogdor – just wanted to answer one of your questions – Chuckles can chime in should he(?) choose to.
“Does any legislation now actually help our country’s health on a large scale, or does something need to change culturally first?”
One of the fundamental beliefs in public health is that behavior can be changed on a large scale through legislation. A prime example is mandatory seat belt laws. Mortality rates for motor vehicle accidents have steadily declined since this law was passed. Likewise, smoking related mortality rates have incrementally declined since the government began to heavily tax cigarettes and also passed the ban on smoking in all federal buildings. States began following suit and you will be hard pressed to find any public building these days where you can smoke. As a result of these laws behavior has been changed on a national level.
I recommend checking out the CDC website at http://www.cdc.gov and the NIH website at http://www.nih.gov. You can find stats and graphs on just about every social issue and the laws that were passed to change social behavior and the results of the changes.
The BoBo,
You bring up some good points. I am familiar with NIH and CDC. And you’re right, there are promising trends in some areas. The scale of comparison is a little off, however. Most laws of that nature are compulsory. You can’t smoke in certain places. Even if health care were mandated, that still doesn’t mean you MUST use it. If obesity was treated like smoking and seat belts, I think we’d make more progress. But you brought up how that would work, with mandated diets and exercise regiments, etc.
I would dare say that every country that is statistically healthier than America and has universal health care started out healthier before their health care policies were implemented.
My core question is this: removing confounding variables (culture, wealth distribution, scientific advancement) is there a statistically significant correlation between countries implementing universal health care followed by a substantial increase in health?
Blogdor – I’ll get back to you on that last question…I’ll do some research and see if I can find anything that is peer reviewed and published. I assume someone out there has done such a study.
If you are looking for a quick answer without have the statistical significance – if you just look at the overview data – Americans are far healthier than those in countries with socialized medicine and have a longer life span. Our prostate cancer survival rate here in the U.S. is 100%, Canada is 85% and England is 77%. Statistics for Breast Cancer and other cancers fall in the same area.
You can google those and find those stats just about anywhere since these have been so highly publicized in the media in recent days.
But – I’ll give you the more scientific response with supporting citations probably later this weekend.
*****Actually, my undergrad degree is in Business Mgmt with a Minor in Economics. I never intended to get into health care – I just lucked into it I guess. So, yes – I do have an understanding of macroeconomics – I wouldn’t say I’m an expert, but I do have a better than average understanding of it than the regular person out there.*****
No, I don’t think I was clear enough. It’s not that you don’t have an understanding of how macroeconomics is taught, it’s that the world’s best macroeconomists don’t understand how to shape macro policy. For every three that predict a major event, there are three that don’t. And then the three that got it right last time miss the most recent, etc.
*****Since you state you trust a “disinterested” government with no profit motive over corporations, then you should understand that the public option does lead to socialized medicine and directly to a single payor system.*****
I actually don’t concede that, but I’ll admit I wouldn’t lose sleep if it were to happen. If there is a public option, it all depends on how the gov’t plays it. If they wanted to crush the private sector, they could, by driving prices below market. But, it should be pointed out, government can do this at any time. But it is important to note that it is a priority to preserve the private sector, just rein it its worst abuses. You should hear Wendall Potter talk about his helicopter rides and gold plated silverware in suites on the top floor of the best buildings. If the reforms can get insurance company management to think ‘thrift’ when it comes to their own spending practices rather than lifesaving medication, I’d count it all a massive victory.
*****I would have to disagree that the government is “disinterested” for they are absolutely interested in expanding government power and authority. A way to do that is to crush private industry through public options.*****
See my above response. Additionally, I’d like to point out that these arguments made a lot more sense before 1989. It would make more sense in a world where good=capitalism and bad=collectivism.
*****Government is a consumer, not a producer and therefore inherently wasteful.*****
Well it sounds like it all comes down to the nature of the state, rather than the state of health care.
Things are far more complex than that today than they used to be. Every aspect of consumer society is regulated in one way or another. Thankfully. It’s been this way since TR at the turn of the century. And the only reason it happened is there were major abuses, people were dying in awful conditions, and a few men were becoming fantastically wealthy by causing these conditions. I have very little respect for “Free Marketers” because I see them as fundamentally missing the basics of modern living. The only place I’ve really seen the “Free Market” exist is Africa. And it is not pretty. But you’d be proud of all the competition you see there. It’s every man for himself. If somebody is caught stealing, or even doesn’t have bus fare, there are no police that care really take care of the problem, there are public stonings and beatings on suspicion. Thank goodness there is no “socialised security” that we call a police force to protect them or due process. Too much overhead with all of the ‘rights’ and ‘laws’ and judges. Also there are no roads out to a lot of villages. Thank goodness there is no “socialised transportation” in the form of roads paid for by the government. Government produces quite a bit for its citizens. These laws attract businesses and investment. People who argue that government doesn’t produce anything and is just wasteful are like people who close their eyes and then complain about the view.
*****Going back to your other statement regarding my tolerance for tedium – I guess that would make me a geek as I don’t find it tedious at all. In fact, I actually like reading the FR and CFR. I find it challenging and rewarding at the same time. I’m responsible for reading the new laws, interpreting, then implementing them in our organization. I’ve been in this position for 8 years now.*****
Nah, no shame in geekdom. I count myself among those ranks. We’re just on opposite sides is all.
*****Our public health system is as broken as our Medicare and Medicaid systems, if not more. To expect that the government can run health insurance effectively and efficiently is a stretch.*****
A fair concern. But do you recognise the need for something to change? What change would you propose?
Best,
Chuckles