Krugman Poll on Canadian Healthcare

[Jay Canuck]

Ooh. USA Today and the LA Times. I'll get RIGHT on panicking about THAT unimpeachable source.

do you have any links that directly contradict the story or are we just to take you on your word that this story is bunk ..... maybe you know somebody that knows something

The problem is that that would require me to waste my time reading a story by someone I know for a fact presents only the information that supports the conclusion he wants drawn (I'm referring here to anyone who writes for the LA Times, not one specific "reporter"). I see no more point in doing that than I would in reading a leftwing blog and then refuting it.

Tell you what. YOU find a reputable source to back up your assertion, and perhaps THEN I will treat your post as though it's deserving of serious response. Until then, you're just another Internet wackjob hollering about the CIA beaming messages through the fillings in your teeth as far as I'm concerned.

so in other words you have nothing but your worthless opinion. thanks for playing - you lose again.

 

[mskafka]

Ooh. USA Today and the LA Times. I'll get RIGHT on panicking about THAT unimpeachable source.

do you have any links that directly contradict the story or are we just to take you on your word that this story is bunk ..... maybe you know somebody that knows something

The problem is that that would require me to waste my time reading a story by someone I know for a fact presents only the information that supports the conclusion he wants drawn (I'm referring here to anyone who writes for the LA Times, not one specific "reporter"). I see no more point in doing that than I would in reading a leftwing blog and then refuting it.

Tell you what. YOU find a reputable source to back up your assertion, and perhaps THEN I will treat your post as though it's deserving of serious response. Until then, you're just another Internet wackjob hollering about the CIA beaming messages through the fillings in your teeth as far as I'm concerned.

Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:

FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

 

[Cecilie1200]

do you have any links that directly contradict the story or are we just to take you on your word that this story is bunk ..... maybe you know somebody that knows something

The problem is that that would require me to waste my time reading a story by someone I know for a fact presents only the information that supports the conclusion he wants drawn (I'm referring here to anyone who writes for the LA Times, not one specific "reporter"). I see no more point in doing that than I would in reading a leftwing blog and then refuting it.

Tell you what. YOU find a reputable source to back up your assertion, and perhaps THEN I will treat your post as though it's deserving of serious response. Until then, you're just another Internet wackjob hollering about the CIA beaming messages through the fillings in your teeth as far as I'm concerned.

so in other words you have nothing but your worthless opinion. thanks for playing - you lose again.

Still not even a good try.

 

[Cecilie1200]

do you have any links that directly contradict the story or are we just to take you on your word that this story is bunk ..... maybe you know somebody that knows something

The problem is that that would require me to waste my time reading a story by someone I know for a fact presents only the information that supports the conclusion he wants drawn (I'm referring here to anyone who writes for the LA Times, not one specific "reporter"). I see no more point in doing that than I would in reading a leftwing blog and then refuting it.

Tell you what. YOU find a reputable source to back up your assertion, and perhaps THEN I will treat your post as though it's deserving of serious response. Until then, you're just another Internet wackjob hollering about the CIA beaming messages through the fillings in your teeth as far as I'm concerned.

Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:

FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

So what I'm seeing here is that being cancelled for pre-existing conditions is exactly what I said it was - something that pretty much only happens right after you sign the contract - and that Blue Cross is doing nothing more than asking doctors to report attempts at insurance fraud. Oh, I'm sorry, did you all not know that that's what you're doing when you fill out the paperwork and lie about whether or not you have a pre-existing condition?

The fact that I'm somehow supposed to be impressed that Fox News picked up on the attempt to portray this as some heinous, underhanded attack on the part of "evil" Big Insurance is just laughable. Despite all the leftist talking points, Fox News is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party or the conservative movement, nor are they viewed as gospel carved in stone by the finger of God by everyone on the right. At most, they're viewed as not as bad as the MSM, which isn't a high bar to clear.

Call me when you have something real to be outraged by.

 

[Jay Canuck]

so did you read the Fox News story that was so graciously provided above by mskafka?

it should do for any drooling Hannity bot.

 

[veritas]

Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:

FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

ooooh!!! body slam from mskafka!!!

himi kitty goes down!!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

so did you read the Fox News story that was so graciously provided above by mskafka?

it should do for any drooling Hannity bot.

Swing and a miss! Might wanna keep your eye on the ball a little closer next time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Veritas <------- delusions of adequacy and relevance.

 

[Jay Canuck]

The problem is that that would require me to waste my time reading a story by someone I know for a fact presents only the information that supports the conclusion he wants drawn (I'm referring here to anyone who writes for the LA Times, not one specific "reporter"). I see no more point in doing that than I would in reading a leftwing blog and then refuting it.

Tell you what. YOU find a reputable source to back up your assertion, and perhaps THEN I will treat your post as though it's deserving of serious response. Until then, you're just another Internet wackjob hollering about the CIA beaming messages through the fillings in your teeth as far as I'm concerned.

Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:

FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

So what I'm seeing here is that being cancelled for pre-existing conditions is exactly what I said it was - something that pretty much only happens right after you sign the contract - and that Blue Cross is doing nothing more than asking doctors to report attempts at insurance fraud. Oh, I'm sorry, did you all not know that that's what you're doing when you fill out the paperwork and lie about whether or not you have a pre-existing condition?

The fact that I'm somehow supposed to be impressed that Fox News picked up on the attempt to portray this as some heinous, underhanded attack on the part of "evil" Big Insurance is just laughable. Despite all the leftist talking points, Fox News is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party or the conservative movement, nor are they viewed as gospel carved in stone by the finger of God by everyone on the right. At most, they're viewed as not as bad as the MSM, which isn't a high bar to clear.

Call me when you have something real to be outraged by.

so I take it you didn't read it then because the story is about new patients not new insurance customers....another lose for you.

 

[Vast LWC]

Ahh, where to begin...

You call this a response?? A response would try to refute the facts

That was a conversation she was having with another poster.

I was having another conversation with her entirely. One where she insulted liberals with some "liberal libretto", and I responded, and she responded back, etc, etc.

As far as this is concerned:

the CBO is closer to reality and we all know there estimate says this will add $1.8 trillion to our deficit over 10 years, can you refute that?

So what if it is? The Iraq war didn't save one American life, but the total cost of the war is expected to add 3 Trillion Dollars to our debt. I'm willing to bet that you didn't complain about that.

Now Mr Obama wants to spend about half that on potentially saving millions of American lives, and you pick now to start watching the country's wallet?

Besides, according to classic Reagan theory, deficits don't matter if they promote growth, right?

Well, saving on health insurance and health costs will surely promote growth, and so will preventive medicine, right?

Are you saying Mr Reagan was wrong, and Reaganomics was a crock?

 

[Vast LWC]

But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly

So, let me see if I have this straight.

The US beats Canada in ONE disease (cancer) by 3-4%? Wow, that sure proves your point that American health care is way better than Canadian...

And what's the reason for that? Early Detection! And what would help save even more lives through early detection? That's right, everyone having health insurance!

But aside from that, there is no good point to your entire argument, as no-one is currently suggesting full universal health-care in our government right now.

The current plan is to provide a public option as far as health insurance is concerned, to drive down prices, which have been steadily increasing over the past few decades, contrary to what free-market theory dictates should have happened.

Insofar as cancer is one of the top killers among diseases, I'd say it's saying a lot that we have a much higher survival rate. And no, detection is NOT the only reason for that. Although I'll admit it helps a lot that we don't have to wait in line for months just to get diagnostic tests the way Canadians do.

We also have better survival rates when it comes to premature babies, children with spina bifida and people with heart disease and chronic renal failure. This would be according to the Commonwealth Fund and Health Statistics Quarterly.

Though cancer is indeed one of the top killers, a 3-4% advantage in that one disease does not put us over the top in total health care. In fact we are well behind Canada in the world ratings, and our life span is shorter than theirs as was pointed out earlier.

In total, our care is just not as good.

The people who come to the US to get "better" health care are people who have a lot of MONEY. You can get great health care in the US, as long as you are rich. Therein lies the issue.

And the cost of health care continues to rise continuously. Which means that as time goes on, fewer and fewer people will be rich enough to afford it.

The plan the current administration and congress is creating makes a Public Option. This means that all those high-quality, expensive-as-hell, insurance plans can stay in place, and people are free to pay for them if they want them. There will just be another option on the table.

 

[Vast LWC]

That means that if you don't have health insurance, you probably won't be seeing a doctor in the early stages of a illness, only in the last stages of an illness, when it's too late.

Wrong.

Wrong what? People without health insurance WILL go see a doctor at the early stages of an illness? Wow, that's interesting, and news to me.

Strange but I thought "emergency health care" meant emergency health care. I guess I'm just "wrong" though.

 

[Vast LWC]

Ooh. USA Today and the LA Times. I'll get RIGHT on panicking about THAT unimpeachable source.

Perhaps you might want to actually read the story before putting it down, as it is an actual piece of reporting, not an opinion piece.

Included in the story are references to sources, including:

A spokeswoman for WellPoint, the company that runs Blue Cross of California, tells the Times that the letter was designed to hold down costs by identifying policyholders who weren't upfront about their medical history when they applied for coverage.

But Byron Tucker, a spokesman for the Insurance Department, tells the Times that this letter is "extremely troubling on several fronts. It really obliterates the line between underwriting and medical care. It is the insurer's job to underwrite their policies, not the doctors'. Doctors deliver medical care. Their job is not to underwrite policies for insurers."

You see? Unlike Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck, they actually went and asked valid sources, instead of just making stuff up based on some vague talking point that was passed to them.

That's called "journalism".

Some people on the right have that in their actual stories too. The Wall Street Journal is a prime example. Aside from their opinion pages, they provide some quality information.

At least they did, up until now. Murdoch did just take them over after all. It seems that oftentimes, media sources taken over by Murdoch become ALL "opinion pages". Like the NY Post for instance, which is basically another "National Enquirer".

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, let me see if I have this straight.

The US beats Canada in ONE disease (cancer) by 3-4%? Wow, that sure proves your point that American health care is way better than Canadian...

And what's the reason for that? Early Detection! And what would help save even more lives through early detection? That's right, everyone having health insurance!

But aside from that, there is no good point to your entire argument, as no-one is currently suggesting full universal health-care in our government right now.

The current plan is to provide a public option as far as health insurance is concerned, to drive down prices, which have been steadily increasing over the past few decades, contrary to what free-market theory dictates should have happened.

Insofar as cancer is one of the top killers among diseases, I'd say it's saying a lot that we have a much higher survival rate. And no, detection is NOT the only reason for that. Although I'll admit it helps a lot that we don't have to wait in line for months just to get diagnostic tests the way Canadians do.

We also have better survival rates when it comes to premature babies, children with spina bifida and people with heart disease and chronic renal failure. This would be according to the Commonwealth Fund and Health Statistics Quarterly.

Though cancer is indeed one of the top killers, a 3-4% advantage in that one disease does not put us over the top in total health care. In fact we are well behind Canada in the world ratings, and our life span is shorter than theirs as was pointed out earlier.

Let me get this straight. You people have your panties all in a ruffle over differences in average life expectancy that amounts to only a few years one way or another, and an infant mortality rate difference of 2.2 deaths per 1,000 live births - neither of which is any indicator whatsoever of the value of an industrialized nation's health care system - but you want to airily dismiss a cancer survival rate difference of 3-4% as no big deal? Nice hypocrisy.

Unlike overall life expectancy and infant mortality, survival rates of life-threatening illnesses is a valid indicator of quality of healthcare. And when you consider that we not only have fewer deaths from - for example - prostate or breast cancer, but we do that while ALSO having a much higher incidence of both, those percentage points become VERY significant.

Also, as I said, it isn't just cancer in which we have higher survival rates.

In total, our care is just not as good.

No matter how many times you shout this canard while sticking your fingers in your ears so you won't hear any of the refutations, it still won't make it true.

The people who come to the US to get "better" health care are people who have a lot of MONEY. You can get great health care in the US, as long as you are rich. Therein lies the issue.

No, the issue lies in the fact that you can ALSO get great health care in the US if you DON'T have a lot of money, and lying twinks like you want to change that for the worse.

And the cost of health care continues to rise continuously. Which means that as time goes on, fewer and fewer people will be rich enough to afford it.

Yeah, and the way to lower costs is to give control to the government.

The plan the current administration and congress is creating makes a Public Option. This means that all those high-quality, expensive-as-hell, insurance plans can stay in place, and people are free to pay for them if they want them. There will just be another option on the table.

When I want you to jump up on a soapbox and give me a campaign speech, I'll ask. Unlike you, I've actually read the turkey plan the administration is peddling, and everything you just said is a baldfaced lie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That means that if you don't have health insurance, you probably won't be seeing a doctor in the early stages of a illness, only in the last stages of an illness, when it's too late.

Wrong.

Wrong what? People without health insurance WILL go see a doctor at the early stages of an illness? Wow, that's interesting, and news to me.

Strange but I thought "emergency health care" meant emergency health care. I guess I'm just "wrong" though.

What's strange is that you thought you were thinking at all.

I never said anything about "emergency care", and I'm not interested in you putting words in my mouth based on the assumption that your lying talking points are the truth.

Do people without health insurance go see doctors before they're terminal? Of course they do. It's ignorant and childish to assume that they don't, or that the only option for health care among the uninsured is the emergency room. Do they go as often as people who can get someone else to foot the bill? No, but that's okay, because overuse of services by people who don't strictly need them is actually a problem in US healthcare (and French healthcare, I'm told).

Maybe you should get out more and become acquainted with some people outside your own narrow little circle of friends. It's amazing what you can learn about the world.

 

[Oddball]

If it hasn't already been mentioned...

Krugman is a total neo-Marxist useful idiot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ooh. USA Today and the LA Times. I'll get RIGHT on panicking about THAT unimpeachable source.

Perhaps you might want to actually read the story before putting it down, as it is an actual piece of reporting, not an opinion piece.

No, I wouldn't. I am no more likely to credit the LA Times as a source than you are to read a piece on FreeRepublic and respond to it. An unreliable source is an unreliable source, and does not rate my time and attention, no matter how many times you dimwits inanely demand that I treat it with respect.

You see? Unlike Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck, they actually went and asked valid sources, instead of just making stuff up based on some vague talking point that was passed to them.

That's called "journalism".

You may include these snarky little "gotcha" attempts at the moment at which I actually reference Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck about something. Until then, I will thank you to debate ME, rather than projecting onto me the person you desperately WISH you were debating. If that's too scary for you, you are always welcome to go find someone more your own speed.

Some people on the right have that in their actual stories too. The Wall Street Journal is a prime example. Aside from their opinion pages, they provide some quality information.

Then perhaps you should try referencing the Wall Street Journal, rather than someone who's only discernible difference from an Internet blog is that they're also published on paper. As long as you insist on using sources I consider a joke, I will continue to treat them - and you - as jokes.

At least they did, up until now. Murdoch did just take them over after all. It seems that oftentimes, media sources taken over by Murdoch become ALL "opinion pages". Like the NY Post for instance, which is basically another "National Enquirer".

And the tinfoil hat comes out. I'm even less impressed by the invocation of Rupert Murdoch's name than I am by the LA Times as a source.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it hasn't already been mentioned...

Krugman is a total neo-Marxist useful idiot.

I would have shortened that to just the last word.

 

[Oddball]

If it hasn't already been mentioned...

Krugman is a total neo-Marxist useful idiot.

I would have shortened that to just the last word.

I can't do that and remain intellectually honest.

Krugman is a pretty smart guy, who is using his intelligence to be a willing neo-Marxist tool.

 

[veritas]

I can't do that and remain intellectually honest.

Krugman is a pretty smart guy, who is using his intelligence to be a willing neo-Marxist tool.

and a Nobel Prize winner.

You may include these snarky little "gotcha" attempts at the moment at which I actually reference Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck about something. Until then, I will thank you to debate ME, rather than projecting onto me the person you desperately WISH you were debating. If that's too scary for you, you are always welcome to go find someone more your own speed.

Quick, everybody check to see if your Dalmation puppies are safe!!!!