Some lies about health care Obama clearly DID tell

[Christopher]

I'm not Obama's personal spokesperson…I don't know what he proposed...

So, you are for his plan and you don’t know what he has proposed. Explains why can not come up with credible evidence to support your view of his plans.

But the government isn't PROPOSING a single payer system. At all. Your paranoia seems to know no bounds. If such a system is proposed in the future, by all means shoot it down. But until you actually provide solutions as to how it can help (no, the ones you previously provided don't accomplish that goal), you are doing nothing but complaining about change.

It is the plan to get there. Obama himself admits that is the plan. Do you not believe what Obama has said? The person who crafted the public option in the first place admits that is the plan. Do believe that this person is just lying? Just because you refuse to listen to the people that have created and are pushing this plan does not make their actual intentions false. What you are saying here is like saying “I’m not giving you a frog, I’m giving you a tadpole”. When something grows into the other, it is still the same thing.

You do realize the link you just provided completely rejects the premise of your point, right? It shows how that service in MA was able to provide people with more comprehensive plans for smaller deductibles. MA failed, exactly as your article pointed out, but not because the exchange existed. You need to read each sentence on its own:

No, it doesn’t refute it. Read the sentence you are using to say it refutes it: That sentence uses the word “could”. It fits with your word “imagine”. Of course many things “could” work in theory. It is reality I am concerned about.

No, I wouldn't. If such a system is ever proposed, I'll let you flip out hardcore. Until then, calm down and stop being so paranoid about super secret evil conspiracy theories.

It is being proposed in a phased way, in “tadpole” form. There is no difference for me. Again, you just refuse to listen to the people who are for the government/public option saying that it will lead to a single payer system.

You're the type of person who can't go to those timeshare presentations because "they will make me buy something I don't want!". Sit through the presentation, take home the free gift that they're offering, and LEAVE!

More presumptions about me, nice. I’m just going off of what those creating and pushing the plan are telling me. You can cover your ears about it all you want. I suggest you listen to everything they are saying and not filter only the parts you want to hear.

And how does the government providing a public option preclude you from doing just that? And how do you plan to address the problems at their source? You have yet to provide them. You say you are providing them, but... I have yet to see it. Perhaps a bullet format would help you?

Nobody can address the problems at the source if too many are just going along with Obama’s phased plan for single payer.

I, see when I was looking for a source, I tend to completely ignore... other posts in a forum. So, I went back and looked at this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ainst-the-current-healthcare-reform-bill.html

First: link to the original article, cuz it looks like you got this from wikipedia...

"In 2006, the United States accounted for the three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. "
medical advancements does NOT comprise all of biotech. You should probably go look up what biotech is.

OK so that brings us to this gem:
"About half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology"
Are you joking? This is the basis of your claim? In the past "several decades", we have discovered DNA, discovered and expanded antibiotics, created new innovative surgical techniques, and increased the American life span by about a decade.

Again, opponents to this bill seem to forget the goal is HEALTH. Not cost. HEALTH. If you want to save cost, letting everyone die young will accomplish that.

You still never provided a source in this thread while hammering me for them even though I asked you for sources. That is still hypocritical.

What I have provided does not change the fact that half of the increases in health care spending is from medical advancements, which is something you were unaware of. Have we slowed down in the last decade or last five years in medical advancements? How is the government going to better our health?

That's actually false. Straight from the Obama website: "Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine."

So, please explain to me in detail how he is going about his malpractice reform. You can’t, because he has been very hazy. The source you provided is even hazy. What I do know is this, and here is a source washingtonpost.com

When President Obama broached medical malpractice laws in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, it was one of the few times that Republican lawmakers stood to applaud. But the ideas the president embraced stopped considerably short of the federal limits on awards in malpractice lawsuits that the GOP and the nation's physicians have sought for years.

I know he is not looking at seeking limits on malpractice lawsuits. How else is he going to decrease costs on this? The AMA booed him at a conference this year because he said he would not implement caps on jury awards, as Canada has done.

As I said: already part of the plan. You want malpractice reform, he does. What's the problem here? Oh right... you don't believe him.

Tell me, why is he not going with the method of capping risks as Canada has done? That has actually been shown to work, as it has been shown to work in other States. Again, I am concerned about reality, not imagination or theory.

Ah you're right. What you *did* do was provide 4 useless solutions. Well done. Now, where are the ones that will "attack the source of the problem", cut costs, and improve health? You're zero for four thusfar.

No, you set up a straw man argument with those “4 useless solutions”. Do you even know what a “straw man” argument is? Go back and read my posts, then try to prove your statements here.

do I really need to keep calling you on it? Maybe just this to signify: P

What have you called me on, again, with no sources?

Why is it that you think some of the most highly educated and trained medical professionals in the country, who are closest to this issue support a public option?

Finally, you have provided a source of your own in this thread. Perhaps they do support some public option, but do they support the public option Obama proposed? Was that the question that was asked in the poll? I have another poll which contradicts your poll. It actually asks whether they agree with the current proposals for the public option, not just whether they are for a public option or not. Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

Major findings included:
Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.

It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."

Now, let’s put both polls aside and consider one thing. Who is actually closest to understanding the public option proposed by Obama: Obama, and the person who created the public option plan or the doctors and physicians? I’m going to stick with the person who was the intellectual architect behind the plan and Obama. They have both said that the public option plan will lead to a single payer system.

Since you have still provided no sources which would show the costs and effects of Obama’s plan, I will give you some more to digest. Go ahead and try to refute this information or these sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

Note they are saying “would likely lead”, which is much more definitive than “could” or “might”.

Here are the results of the CBO’s analysis of HR32000: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf
Some interesting parts:

According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a
net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

In addition, the CBO stated this on the effect of mandating health insurance:

In total, CBO estimates that enacting those provisions would raise deficits by $1,042 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

Obama already knows they are going to increase the deficit substantially with their health care plan. Yet, he is saying that he will not increase it. I think that is another lie.

Here is the CBO’s long term outlook on Medicare and Medicaid from July of this year http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10455/Long-TermOutlook_Testimony.1.1.shtm:

By CBO’s estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid as a share of GDP will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three entitlement programs between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for federal fiscal policy.

From the same link, here is the economic outlook if deficits continue to rise:

CBO’s long-term budget projections raise fundamental questions about economic sustainability. If outlays grew as projected and revenues did not rise at a corresponding rate, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress income growth in the United States. Over time, the accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy. Alternatively, if spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. High tax rates would slow the growth of the economy, making the spending burden harder to bear. Policymakers could mitigate the economic damage from rapidly rising debt by putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course, which would require some combination of lower spending and higher revenues than the amounts now projected. Making such changes sooner rather than later would lessen the risks that current fiscal policy poses to the economy.

So, if Obama is going to raise taxes, the CBO says it will only slow the growth of the economy. The best way they suggest to mitigate this is to lower spending, which Obama has no plans to do. Either that or “hope” that more revenues than projected come in.

Here is more bad news about the effects of the Massachusetts health care system since it was started. Until you can refute that the Massachusetts system is not considered as the proving ground for Obama’s you still have to accept that the negative effects occurring in Massachusetts will be seen if Obama’s plan is implemented. These effects are based upon facts and reality.

At one year, Mass. healthcare plan falls short - The Boston Globe

Mass. Health Care Reform Reveals Doctor Shortage : NPR

Mass Health Care Plan Proves Costly to Individual Citizens | Progressive States Network

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16hospital.html

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So, you are for his plan and you don’t know what he has proposed. Explains why can not come up with credible evidence to support your view of his plans.

OK try to follow me here. We've been talking about specific aspects of his plan. Everything I've said I agree with and like, I agree with and like. Unlike you and most other people who need to completely dismiss every single aspect of something even if the smallest fraction of it isn't perfect, I have a good habit of thinking about things on an individual basis. If someone tells me they are going to combat obesity, just about anything logical that they do will be fine with me - details are unneeded - I'll worry about the larger issues. So, as I said, go do your own homework, and realize some people not as extremist all-or-none as you are.

It is the plan to get there. Obama himself admits that is the plan. Do you not believe what Obama has said?

Give me a quote from him in the last month stating exactly that. And even IF you can find such a thing, I will respond in the exact same way: you are paranoid, and dismissing one good thing because of the bad thing you fear MAY come after it, instead of just dismissing the bad thing after it.

No, it doesn’t refute it. Read the sentence you are using to say it refutes it: That sentence uses the word “could”. It fits with your word “imagine”. Of course many things “could” work in theory. It is reality I am concerned about.

So your own source still doesn't help your point. Congratulations.

It is being proposed in a phased way, in “tadpole” form. There is no difference for me.

Wait let me get this one straight now. There is absolutely no difference for you between a public option in conjunction with private insurance companies, and a single payer system? No difference at all? Did any state grant you a drivers license with that much blindness? No difference? None?

I can't tell whether the paranoia or the blind ignorance is more dominant now...

More presumptions about me, nice. I’m just going off of what those creating and pushing the plan are telling me. You can cover your ears about it all you want. I suggest you listen to everything they are saying and not filter only the parts you want to hear.

You keep saying that and yet you can't propose a single method that the people of this country, doctors included, who have so drastically disliked a single payer system, would somehow allow it. Apparently the president alone can single handedly ignore a nation and get things done, throwing checks and balances out the window. Oh but wait! If he could do that, he wouldn't be proposing a public option instead. Quote him in the last month, please.

Nobody can address the problems at the source if too many are just going along with Obama’s phased plan for single payer.

I ask you to address the problems and you inform me how you can't address the problems. Well done. Remind me again why you can't use your own brain to come up with own ideas if other people agree with the president? I didn't realize I had that kind of telepathic mind control over people.

You still never provided a source in this thread while hammering me for them even though I asked you for sources. That is still hypocritical.

What would you like a source on? That we discovered DNA and antibiotics? New surgical techniques? Or that the average lifespan has increased by a decade. Just ask specifically (as I do for you), and I'll provide. Responding to large blocks of text that have multiple points with "SOURCE" doesn't do you much good. Generalized blanket statements such as "where's your source that says Obama's plan will save the universe" will similarly be met with little attention.

What I have provided does not change the fact that half of the increases in health care spending is from medical advancements, which is something you were unaware of. Have we slowed down in the last decade or last five years in medical advancements? How is the government going to better our health?

Sorry, what is your point? Are you for or against medical advancements that better and lengthen our lives?

So, please explain to me in detail how he is going about his malpractice reform. You can’t, because he has been very hazy. The source you provided is even hazy. What I do know is this, and here is a source washingtonpost.com

Ah yes, your other favorite paranoid point: since he hasn't spelled out every letter of every possible thing he's going to do, his entire plan should be dismissed. Well, no, sorry. If people from both parties are working towards malpractice reform, there's really only one direction that can go in. Let me know if you disagree.

I know he is not looking at seeking limits on malpractice lawsuits. How else is he going to decrease costs on this? The AMA booed him at a conference this year because he said he would not implement caps on jury awards, as Canada has done.

How about, preventing frivolous lawsuits to begin with? Creating precedence that dictate what types of cases are immediately thrown out of court? It's not about how much total money gets paid per lawsuit. Only 2% of all medical lawsuits actually get to jury awards. It's about the fact that a patient can at any given time dip into their doctor's pocket and pull out $5000-$10,000 for absolutely nothing, when no negligence has occurred. The problem has nothing to do with the negligent doctor going bankrupt, but rather good doctors paying for any random unsubstantiated lawsuit that walks through their door.

Tell me, why is he not going with the method of capping risks as Canada has done? That has actually been shown to work, as it has been shown to work in other States. Again, I am concerned about reality, not imagination or theory.

Again, go do your own homework. I am not his spokesperson. Once again I can't help point out that you only seem to focus on other bad things that aren't being addressed as opposed to how the proposed plan will worsen people's health or increase the inflation.

I mean, that's pretty much the entirety of your argument:
1) Obama exaggerated something - that's lying!
2) Therefore we should dismiss everything he does now
3) Cuz he's not addressing these other bad things
4) and it might cost money to create an effective system

Hi. The point is and always has been improving healthcare and extending American lives.

No, you set up a straw man argument with those “4 useless solutions”. Do you even know what a “straw man” argument is? Go back and read my posts, then try to prove your statements here.

You did provide 4 "solutions", all of which I individually shot down. I did not misrepresent a single "solution" you provided when shooting them down. Crying "straw man" everytime I shoot you down does not make it so. Crying "straw man" everytime I give a related example of something and compare/contrast it to your debate methods similarly doesn't make it so.

I asked you for your own methods of bettering healthcare. You mentioned 4 things, all of which were bad or being proposed in Obama's bill. Me restating they are bad is not a straw man argument. Me asking you to try again and provide solutions to improve healthcare (even tho you now claim you can't because other people agree with Obama) instead of just whining about the efforts of others is similarly not a straw man argument. (And just to drive home this point: me mentioning you are whining in that last sentence is similarly not a straw man argument)

do I really need to keep calling you on it? Maybe just this to signify: P

What have you called me on, again, with no sources?

You want a source that shows you are paranoid? um...

ok.... here's your source.

Finally, you have provided a source of your own in this thread. Perhaps they do support some public option, but do they support the public option Obama proposed? Was that the question that was asked in the poll? I have another poll which contradicts your poll. It actually asks whether they agree with the current proposals for the public option, not just whether they are for a public option or not. Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OK let's break this down. Which of the two sources do you think has better working knowledge of unbiased scientific research? Perhaps we can look at the questions to find out.

My source, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, using highly trained/educated doctors, scientists, and hired survey experts, publishing their findings in The New England Journal of Medicine, the top medical journal in the country, asked:
"Respondents were asked to
indicate which of three options they would most strongly support:
1. Public and Private Options: Provide people under age 65 the choice of enrolling in
a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans.
2. Private Options Only: Provide people with tax credits or low-income subsidies to
buy private insurance coverage (without creating a public plan option).
3. Public Option Only: Eliminate private insurance and cover everyone in a single
public plan like Medicare."

Your source IBD/TIPP Poll, refused to release their methods or even the people who administered the poll (let alone their credentials), publishing it nowhere, but asking:
"Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?"
(yes, that was a yes/no run-on multi-part question they asked - oh and btw, the public option has no intention of insuring 47 million people)
"If congress passes it's healthcare plan will you consider leaving your practice or taking an early retirement?"

Now, which one of these two sources seems more credible? Which one is using blatantly biased questions with poorly defined meanings? Fox news, even though it ran with the story, stated flat out the IBD/TIPP poll was unscientific.

Your "source" has been debunked over and over and over again. The fact that you even brought it to me shows how you will blindly believe anything you find on the internet that matches your biased pre-conceived ignorance as fact.

Now, let’s put both polls aside and consider one thing. Who is actually closest to understanding the public option proposed by Obama: Obama, and the person who created the public option plan or the doctors and physicians? I’m going to stick with the person who was the intellectual architect behind the plan and Obama. They have both said that the public option plan will lead to a single payer system.

P!

OK lemme try this from a different angle: Your paranoia aside, is the plan that is currently being proposed at this very moment a single payer system? This is a yes or no question. Very simple. Very straight forward. No explanation needed past "yes" or "no". Responding with anything outside of those two words, or needing to use other words to defend which one you chose will mark you as back-pedaling and grasping at straws.

Since you have still provided no sources which would show the costs and effects of Obama’s plan, I will give you some more to digest. Go ahead and try to refute this information or these sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

Oh good, an article from months before Obama gave his speech outlining his goals for reform. Hmm, well, ignoring the highly respected publication I cited above about what doctors think on the topic, let's revisit the AMA now (as opposed to months ago). Let's start on their home page. Hmmm, large banner stating they want reform. I wonder what kind? Let's take a look at the details:
AMA - Our Vision for Health System Reform
Wow! It appears as if almost every single point on that list perfectly parallel's the list on Obama's website (except for the point on Medicare). Well, that's not really agreeing with the claim you just made so far. Let's now take a look at their news section so we can see what they say after Obama gave his lil speech:
AMA - AMA committed to reform, will work to strengthen final bill
Hmmm, now this *really* isn't supporting what you just said...

Here is more bad news about the effects of the Massachusetts health care system since it was started. Until you can refute that the Massachusetts system is not considered as the proving ground for Obama’s you still have to accept that the negative effects occurring in Massachusetts will be seen if Obama’s plan is implemented. These effects are based upon facts and reality.

I don't think anyone is denying the MA was a failure. The question is: is it the same as what Obama is proposing now? Again, this is one of those yes or no questions.

See the mandate for Mass was that everyone had to have insurance. That's it. That was the *only* thing that really happened.

So if you want to complain that massachusetts was bad, no one is going to disagree. But you need to provide a lot stronger evidence to suggest the proposed national changes are equivalent to the Mass changes. I think what you'll find is it's a matter of opinion, and that the Public Option really takes center stage for this bill.

--------------------------------------

OK so what have we learned from this last post:

1. you are no longer willing to propose any other solutions to the health care problem
2. you are still paranoid about the proposed bill magically transforming into something very different
3. a respectable study showed that the large majority of doctors want a public option
4. the AMA, despite your best efforts in digging up contrary articles from months ago, wants to strengthen and pass this bill

 

[Missourian]

The posts in this thread are entirely too long.

 

[Christopher]

OK try to follow me here. We've been talking about specific aspects of his plan. Everything I've said I agree with and like, I agree with and like. Unlike you and most other people who need to completely dismiss every single aspect of something even if the smallest fraction of it isn't perfect, I have a good habit of thinking about things on an individual basis. If someone tells me they are going to combat obesity, just about anything logical that they do will be fine with me - details are unneeded - I'll worry about the larger issues. So, as I said, go do your own homework, and realize some people not as extremist all-or-none as you are.

I can follow you just fine. You do not know how he is going to accomplish the tasks, you do not seem to care how he does it as long as he does it. That you think if the HOW sounds logical enough, you will go with it. You realize lawyers are experts at making things sound logical that do not actually work in reality, right? No matter how much Obama’s good intentions seem, they will not always lead to a good result unless you consider the details. Go ahead, put the blinders on again.

Let me say this: there are parts of his plan I agree with too. I just want to know the details about all the other parts and want to know how he is going to accomplish his goals. Because I actually care how things are done, since the HOW affects the actual outcome. It is obvious that you do not care how for the sake of partisanship. Labeling me as an “extremist” does not make it so.

Give me a quote from him in the last month stating exactly that. And even IF you can find such a thing, I will respond in the exact same way: you are paranoid, and dismissing one good thing because of the bad thing you fear MAY come after it, instead of just dismissing the bad thing after it.

Oh, so you set the boundaries of when I can give you the quote. Then you do know that he has said it. You just proved my point, thanks. This is not a “MAY” situation, this is a WILL or WILL LIKELY situation. Unless, you are going to discredit Obama and Mr. Hacker on their statements about the public option, you have no point. You can’t have it both ways.

So your own source still doesn't help your point. Congratulations.

You are obviously just deflecting and dodging this. Again, I am not concerned about “could” or theories as the article states, I’m interested in things closer to reality. Try again.

Wait let me get this one straight now. There is absolutely no difference for you between a public option in conjunction with private insurance companies, and a single payer system? No difference at all? Did any state grant you a drivers license with that much blindness? No difference? None?

You have stated a few times now “let me get this straight’. You keep getting it wrong. The architect behind the plan said it is not a “Trojan horse for single payer”, that it IS single payer. So, either discredit him or stop attempting to discredit me.

I ask you to address the problems and you inform me how you can't address the problems. Well done. Remind me again why you can't use your own brain to come up with own ideas if other people agree with the president? I didn't realize I had that kind of telepathic mind control over people.

Why don’t you look at the number of proposals that have been rejected on health care reform? Like the proposal to cover everyone but to do it through private market methods. That was my point. How can we even get to the point of providing other solutions when Obama just rejects them? Pelosi herself set the ultimatum that they will not allow the bill to go through without a public option.

What would you like a source on? That we discovered DNA and antibiotics? New surgical techniques? Or that the average lifespan has increased by a decade. Just ask specifically (as I do for you), and I'll provide. Responding to large blocks of text that have multiple points with "SOURCE" doesn't do you much good. Generalized blanket statements such as "where's your source that says Obama's plan will save the universe" will similarly be met with little attention.

Are you serious? How about providing the source I have asked for several times, the source that shows the cost savings? I never asked for “where’s your source that says Obama’s plan will save the universe”, once again you are just showing that you are the master of straw man arguments. Perhaps you deserve a prize.

I actually had to provide a source to you in the last post from the CBO. From my source (the CBO), they have already shown that HR3200 will substantially increase the deficit and overall there will be no cost savings. The numbers from the CBO make your arguments about saving $10 million in obesity seem like less than a drop in a bucket. This source completely disproves your whole argument about cost savings and shows that Obama will not be able to make his plans deficit neutral. Yet, he promised again on Meet the Press this morning that anything he signs will be deficit neutral. Apparently, he does not listen to the CBO.

Sorry, what is your point? Are you for or against medical advancements that better and lengthen our lives?

You like to keep changing the argument and you tend to forget many of my points. The point was that you said it was false when I stated half of the increases in health care spending were from medical advancements. I proved you incorrect. What I also showed was that it is not even something Obama is talking about as a major factor in the spiral. I’m not expecting him to solve this problem, so don’t follow that straw man. What I am expecting Obama to show he has looked at all the facts in context as to what is driving health insurance costs. Instead, he demonizes health insurance companies and panders to the left by portraying health insurance as the main cause of the problem. Do you get it yet? Do you understand my point yet?

Ah yes, your other favorite paranoid point: since he hasn't spelled out every letter of every possible thing he's going to do, his entire plan should be dismissed. Well, no, sorry. If people from both parties are working towards malpractice reform, there's really only one direction that can go in. Let me know if you disagree.

You didn’t read the source, once again. He is not listening to the other party on capping awards. Yes, both parties are working on it and they are doing good things. However, there is plenty of evidence from reality that capping awards reduces malpractice insurance costs substantially and it is not even something Obama will consider. He has even said so. You can keep saying I’m paranoid in an effort to ignore the facts I’m providing, but that does not make it so.

How about, preventing frivolous lawsuits to begin with? Creating precedence that dictate what types of cases are immediately thrown out of court? It's not about how much total money gets paid per lawsuit. Only 2% of all medical lawsuits actually get to jury awards. It's about the fact that a patient can at any given time dip into their doctor's pocket and pull out $5000-$10,000 for absolutely nothing, when no negligence has occurred. The problem has nothing to do with the negligent doctor going bankrupt, but rather good doctors paying for any random unsubstantiated lawsuit that walks through their door.

I agree, preventing frivolous lawsuits is a good thing. Capping awards saves substantial costs for doctors as well, it has proven to do so. Canada has done it, so should we, yet Obama will not do it. I say it is wrong not to even consider it, since many disagree that it should just be ignored

Again, go do your own homework. I am not his spokesperson. Once again I can't help point out that you only seem to focus on other bad things that aren't being addressed as opposed to how the proposed plan will worsen people's health or increase the inflation.

You just don't care about the details, I know.

I mean, that's pretty much the entirety of your argument:
1) Obama exaggerated something - that's lying!
2) Therefore we should dismiss everything he does now
3) Cuz he's not addressing these other bad things
4) and it might cost money to create an effective system

Hi. The point is and always has been improving healthcare and extending American lives.

Once again you keep changing the argument and setting up what you believe is my argument so you can shoot it down more easily. I’ve already shown how bad Obama’s proposals will be on the economy, from the CBO. You have completely ignored that evidence with your response. You’re forgetting that Obama said he would be deficit neutral. The evidence from the CBO shows otherwise as the result of his plan.

You did provide 4 "solutions", all of which I individually shot down. I did not misrepresent a single "solution" you provided when shooting them down. Crying "straw man" everytime I shoot you down does not make it so. Crying "straw man" everytime I give a related example of something and compare/contrast it to your debate methods similarly doesn't make it so.

I asked you for your own methods of bettering healthcare. You mentioned 4 things, all of which were bad or being proposed in Obama's bill. Me restating they are bad is not a straw man argument. Me asking you to try again and provide solutions to improve healthcare (even tho you now claim you can't because other people agree with Obama) instead of just whining about the efforts of others is similarly not a straw man argument. (And just to drive home this point: me mentioning you are whining in that last sentence is similarly not a straw man argument).

No, you set up four things and said that these are the only four things that I think will solve the health care problem. You are once again forgetting what you have even said. Perhaps you should stop digging yourself into a hole even further. I challenge you to prove that you did not set up any straw man arguments.

Just as a reminder here is your quote from post #33, in case you forgot again. “So you think those 4 things will "stop the spiral"? Weak.” Now, tell prove to me that is not a straw man argument. Also, you said one of the things I provided was already in Obama’s plan (tort reform). I have already pointed out to you that capping risk for malpractice insurers is not in there. I have been talking about capping the insurers risks all along as something Obama is not addressing. You also said I had “madeup economics’”, yet you have done nothing to show how it is “made up”. So, you have continually misrepresented what I have said. Do I really need to point out all the other times you’ve misrepresented my positions? I think people who actually read and understand our posts will see through yours.

You want a source that shows you are paranoid? um...

ok.... here's your source.

Another dodge and deflection. No surprise.

BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OK let's break this down. Which of the two sources do you think has better working knowledge of unbiased scientific research? Perhaps we can look at the questions to find out.

Of course, I agree. I knew there were problems with the IBD poll. Remember, I said “let’s put both polls aside”. My point was to show polls can be twisted to mean different things and that I don’t need polls when the evidence shows Obama’s plans will do two things: 1)lead us down further towards bankruptcy and will not do as he says and be deficit neutral. 2) the public option will lead to a single payer system. Those are my two main points.

OK lemme try this from a different angle: Your paranoia aside, is the plan that is currently being proposed at this very moment a single payer system? This is a yes or no question. Very simple. Very straight forward. No explanation needed past "yes" or "no". Responding with anything outside of those two words, or needing to use other words to defend which one you chose will mark you as back-pedaling and grasping at straws.

Oh, good I am glad you asked this question. I will say “yes”, just as the person who crafted the plan did. Once again, here is a quote from Jacob Hacker, the person behind the architecture of the public option in a speech just last year: "Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for single payer,' and I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there,'" "I'm telling you, we're going to get there, over time, slowly."
If I’m paranoid, so is he. He basically said “yes” to the same question when he said “It’s just right there.” It is not a “Trojan horse”, it IS the single payer system. Perhaps you would like to question Mr. Hacker’s reputation and knowledge on the subject of the public option. Go right ahead and good luck.

What will it take for you to admit it will lead to a single payer system? When the economy “croaks”? Will you admit it is a “frog” then?

Oh good, an article from months before Obama gave his speech outlining his goals for reform. Hmm, well, ignoring the highly respected publication I cited above about what doctors think on the topic, let's revisit the AMA now (as opposed to months ago). Let's start on their home page. Hmmm, large banner stating they want reform. I wonder what kind? Let's take a look at the details:
AMA - Our Vision for Health System Reform
Wow! It appears as if almost every single point on that list perfectly parallel's the list on Obama's website (except for the point on Medicare). Well, that's not really agreeing with the claim you just made so far. Let's now take a look at their news section so we can see what they say after Obama gave his lil speech:
AMA - AMA committed to reform, will work to strengthen final bill
Hmmm, now this *really* isn't supporting what you just said...

They were always against the public option, not the other items on the list. Do you know the details why they flipped and began endorsing it? All that matters is that they are endorsing it, right? OK here is the reason they flipped on their endorsement. Physicians Divided on Healthcare Reform - www.healthleadersmedia.com

The AMA decided that eliminating the thorny Sustainable Growth Rate formula that keeps doctors on the brink of perpetual reimbursement cuts was worth the tradeoff. Not all physicians agree.

That puts things into perspective, once you look at the details. This happens all the time. The government held the carrot out that they will eliminate the Sustainable Growth Rate formula if the AMA would support the reform bill. All your links show is that the AMA caved in and compromised. Yet, you will probably ignore this detail. Also quoted from the article:

A group of 17 state medical societies and specialty groups has publicly dissented from the AMA's position, citing the creation of a public option as its main objection, and a few other physician groups have taken aim at the association as well.

Of course, you will not see that mentioned on the AMA website either. Again, are you sure details are not important?

I don't think anyone is denying the MA was a failure. The question is: is it the same as what Obama is proposing now? Again, this is one of those yes or no questions.

See the mandate for Mass was that everyone had to have insurance. That's it. That was the *only* thing that really happened.

So if you want to complain that massachusetts was bad, no one is going to disagree. But you need to provide a lot stronger evidence to suggest the proposed national changes are equivalent to the Mass changes. I think what you'll find is it's a matter of opinion, and that the Public Option really takes center stage for this bill.

Massachusetts has been a proving ground for two things: the health insurance exchange system and the health insurance mandate. Does Obama have a health insurance exchange system and a mandate? Are these two things not a big portion of his plan?

OK so what have we learned from this last post:

1. you are no longer willing to propose any other solutions to the health care problem.

1. 
   
   Once again, another straw man. Go ahead, quote me (without taking it out of context) and show when I have said this.
   

   you are still paranoid about the proposed bill magically transforming into something very different

   Unless you can discredit Mr. Hacker and say he is paranoid too, your point is another straw man.
   
   

   a respectable study showed that the large majority of doctors want a public option

   Yes, and I don’t need one poll to determine my position on health care. I care about the details.
   
   

   the AMA, despite your best efforts in digging up contrary articles from months ago, wants to strengthen and pass this bill

   Yes, as I said they compromised. Look at the details why they are now endorsing it. You have still yet to respond to the CBO evidence.
   ____________________________________________________
   
   What I have learned from your responses so far is that you continue to ignore, deflect and misrepresent many things that I am stating and have provided as evidence. It really is the only way you can attempt to form real arguments. I will no longer be responding to your posts in this thread because you continue to distort and misrepresent my position, and mainly because you have shown you don’t really care about the details of how we solve the problems. The problems are always in the details, yet you refuse to admit that. I will give you with one last thing, though.
   
   Since you are so fond of only “imagining” what will happen under Obama’s plan and you do not seem to care about the details of getting there, I have some imagination for you. How about you take your straw man “if I only had a brain” arguments and your tin man “if I only had a heart” arguments and skip down the path paved in gold to the wizard Obama, click your heels three times and everything will be fine somewhere over that rainbow. Good luck.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

OK I'ma break this down in a number key for my responses:

• (1) indicates you are being paranoid about something that isn't actually being proposed, but might be at some point in the future
• (2) indicates you are dismissing all efforts to reform healthcare because a politican exaggerated something, even tho the problem nor benefits of the solution are not contradicted
• (3) indicates you are pointing fingers at other bad things in the world as if their existence somehow dismisses the issues actually being addressed
• (4) indicates you are demanding sources that predict the future
• (5) indicates your inability to discern scientific information
• (7) indicates you are focusing on minutia of a several hundred page plan when no one cares about the details
• (8) indicates you are providing information from before plans were changed or Obama specifically addressed his current goals in his recent speech
• (9) indicates you claim we need new solution, but you yourself refuse to give any on this forum for unsubstantiated reasons
• (10) indicates you have once again lost track of the purpose of reform: keeping Americans healthy
• (11) indicates you are incapable of interpreting clear humor as anything other than straw man arguments, or otherwise just claiming anything you don't like is a straw man argument

Now, on with the responses

Let me say this: there are parts of his plan I agree with too. I just want to know the details about all the other parts and want to know how he is going to accomplish his goals. Because I actually care how things are done, since the HOW affects the actual outcome. It is obvious that you do not care how for the sake of partisanship. Labeling me as an “extremist” does not make it so.

(7)

Oh, so you set the boundaries of when I can give you the quote. Then you do know that he has said it. You just proved my point, thanks. This is not a “MAY” situation, this is a WILL or WILL LIKELY situation. Unless, you are going to discredit Obama and Mr. Hacker on their statements about the public option, you have no point. You can’t have it both ways.

(1) and (8)

You have stated a few times now “let me get this straight’. You keep getting it wrong. The architect behind the plan said it is not a “Trojan horse for single payer”, that it IS single payer. So, either discredit him or stop attempting to discredit me.

(1)
just curious - can you cite any part of the bill that shows it to be a single payer system? again, one of those "yes" or "no" type questions.

Why don’t you look at the number of proposals that have been rejected on health care reform? Like the proposal to cover everyone but to do it through private market methods. That was my point. How can we even get to the point of providing other solutions when Obama just rejects them? Pelosi herself set the ultimatum that they will not allow the bill to go through without a public option.

(9) Oh I see, you are incapable of typing your wonderful solutions because someone who isn't even reading this forum might reject them. right. well, when you summon the courage to come up with ideas of your own, be sure to actually state them. Until then, stop claiming there are other solutions out there.

Are you serious? How about providing the source I have asked for several times, the source that shows the cost savings? I never asked for “where’s your source that says Obama’s plan will save the universe”, once again you are just showing that you are the master of straw man arguments. Perhaps you deserve a prize.

(11) and (4)

I actually had to provide a source to you in the last post from the CBO. From my source (the CBO), they have already shown that HR3200 will substantially increase the deficit and overall there will be no cost savings. The numbers from the CBO make your arguments about saving $10 million in obesity seem like less than a drop in a bucket. This source completely disproves your whole argument about cost savings and shows that Obama will not be able to make his plans deficit neutral. Yet, he promised again on Meet the Press this morning that anything he signs will be deficit neutral. Apparently, he does not listen to the CBO.

(10)

You like to keep changing the argument and you tend to forget many of my points. The point was that you said it was false when I stated half of the increases in health care spending were from medical advancements. I proved you incorrect. What I also showed was that it is not even something Obama is talking about as a major factor in the spiral. I’m not expecting him to solve this problem, so don’t follow that straw man. What I am expecting Obama to show he has looked at all the facts in context as to what is driving health insurance costs. Instead, he demonizes health insurance companies and panders to the left by portraying health insurance as the main cause of the problem. Do you get it yet? Do you understand my point yet?

(3)

You didn’t read the source, once again. He is not listening to the other party on capping awards. Yes, both parties are working on it and they are doing good things. However, there is plenty of evidence from reality that capping awards reduces malpractice insurance costs substantially and it is not even something Obama will consider. He has even said so. You can keep saying I’m paranoid in an effort to ignore the facts I’m providing, but that does not make it so.

(3) again

I agree, preventing frivolous lawsuits is a good thing. Capping awards saves substantial costs for doctors as well, it has proven to do so. Canada has done it, so should we, yet Obama will not do it. I say it is wrong not to even consider it, since many disagree that it should just be ignored

(3) and missing the point of legit malpractice lawsuits

No, you set up four things and said that these are the only four things that I think will solve the health care problem. You are once again forgetting what you have even said. Perhaps you should stop digging yourself into a hole even further. I challenge you to prove that you did not set up any straw man arguments.

(11)

As for those four things you seem insistent on pretending didn't exist:

I would be glad to discuss alternative solutions. I will give you a few of my thoughts below.

1) One thing that the government can do is provide incentive for people to open their own practice as a doctor/physician. 2) Provide incentives for people to become nurses, etc. They can do that in a number of ways, but I think one way would be through tort reform as Canada implemented.

3) Increasing the number of doctors would help to bring costs down. 4) Tort reform would also tend to increase the number of companies providing malpractice insurance, which would bring these insurance costs down for doctors/physicians as well.

It's amazing that you had no problem talking about your thoughts before, but now can't do so because Obama will reject them.
4 useless points, all individually shot down by me.

You complain that this plan won't stop the spiral, but you provide nothing that will. Useless.

Another dodge and deflection. No surprise.

(1) You asked me to provide a source as to your paranoia....

Of course, I agree. I knew there were problems with the IBD poll. Remember, I said “let’s put both polls aside”.

(5) oh I see. if I present a valid scientific study, and you present complete garbage, then both are invalid. somehow they cancel each other out? (no, that's not a straw man, learn some hyperbole)

OK so where do we stand? Let's put *your* garbage poll aside, rely on the one accepted by the most highly scrutinized and prestigious medical journal in the country, and find that the overwhelming majority of the most highly trained/educated people in the country believe a public option will be of tremendous benefit of society. Oh but wait! You provided a source that said this benefit might cost money! I refer you to (10) above.

Oh, good I am glad you asked this question. I will say “yes”, just as the person who crafted the plan did. Once again, here is a quote from Jacob Hacker, the person behind the architecture of the public option in a speech just last year: "Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for single payer,' and I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there,'" "I'm telling you, we're going to get there, over time, slowly."
If I’m paranoid, so is he. He basically said “yes” to the same question when he said “It’s just right there.” It is not a “Trojan horse”, it IS the single payer system. Perhaps you would like to question Mr. Hacker’s reputation and knowledge on the subject of the public option. Go right ahead and good luck.

What will it take for you to admit it will lead to a single payer system? When the economy “croaks”? Will you admit it is a “frog” then?

(1)

wait a minute, you just said "lead to a single payer system", which indicates that it isn't one now. But just above that point you said yes it is one now. Once again you seem incapable of discerning the facts about the system for yourself, relying solely on the remarks of people who had some involvement with the bill months ago. Let's ignore the fact that everyone from the AMA to the president has changed the bill since then, has purposely moved away from single payer, and instead stick to (1). You're ridiculous.

They were always against the public option, not the other items on the list. Do you know the details why they flipped and began endorsing it? All that matters is that they are endorsing it, right? OK here is the reason they flipped on their endorsement. Physicians Divided on Healthcare Reform - www.healthleadersmedia.com

Oh good, let's trust a random second hand source instead of the link of the AMAs desires I provided before. Cuz hey, if someone agrees with you, regardless of whether it jives with the source itself, it must be right. That seems to be your running theme.

> Bill currently states there will be a public option, not a single payer system
< Christopher only believes people who were involved with the initial discussions months ago

> Scientific study shows most doctors are for a public option
< Christopher finds a poll that Fox News even stated was unscientific and believes that

> The AMA website states its goals for healthcare reform (grossly unchanged for some time now)
< Christopher finds a second hand source which says otherwise

Are you noticing the trend at all? Disregarding the source and only believing/seeing what you want?

That puts things into perspective, once you look at the details. This happens all the time. The government held the carrot out that they will eliminate the Sustainable Growth Rate formula if the AMA would support the reform bill. All your links show is that the AMA caved in and compromised. Yet, you will probably ignore this detail. Also quoted from the article:
Of course, you will not see that mentioned on the AMA website either. Again, are you sure details are not important?

(5)

And what's the end result? Oh yes! The AMA supports the bill. But... that doesn't matter to you, for some reason. OK so 17 other tiny groups disagree, and somehow that means the world.

End result: largest representative group of doctors in the country supports the bill. Scientific studies show that most doctors across the country support the bill. But somehow none of that matters because.... why?

Massachusetts has been a proving ground for two things: the health insurance exchange system and the health insurance mandate. Does Obama have a health insurance exchange system and a mandate? Are these two things not a big portion of his plan?

So in your previous point, a small minority of docs agreeing with you is enough to somehow prove your point. Here, 2 of many things being put in place, with Mass as a learning ground, somehow proves your point too? Astounding.

Once again, another straw man. Go ahead, quote me (without taking it out of context) and show when I have said this.

(11)
Here you go:

how do you plan to address the problems at their source? You have yet to provide them. You say you are providing them, but... I have yet to see it.

Nobody can address the problems at the source if too many are just going along with Obama’s phased plan for single payer.

I ask you to address the problems and you inform me how you can't address the problems.

How can we even get to the point of providing other solutions when Obama just rejects them?

Looks like you're not willing to actually do anything past complain and give excuses.

Unless you can discredit Mr. Hacker and say he is paranoid too, your point is another straw man.

Ah yes, the entire basis for your argument. Someone at some point said something, even tho that something isn't in this bill, and so therefore that is the only thing I will believe. (1)

I don't need to discredit anyone. I merely need to insist his words were not strong enough to make it into the bill (let me guess, you want a source that shows something that is non-existent in the bill?) How bout you show me where it *is* in the bill, seeing as that seems to be the entirety of your point.

a respectable study showed that the large majority of doctors want a public option

Yes, and I don’t need one poll to determine my position on health care. I care about the details.

Cuz you, the average American, know better than the overwhelming majority of doctors when it comes to healthcare.

Right.


So let's just wrap this all up here:

• You don't trust any primary source.
• You can't find anything in any primary source that supports anything you say, relying on secondhand reporting and quotes from months ago that are not indicative of the primary source.
• You can't seem to address the root of the problem, nor provide solutions of your own, resorting only to complaining.
• You can't seem to understand the purpose of the reform is healthcare, not money.
• You believe yourself to be smarter than some of the most highly educated and trained doctors in this country, even though they have a better perspective on healthcare than you.
• Hyperbole defeats you.

Glad you're done.

 

[Christopher]

The posts in this thread are entirely too long.

Now that SmarterThanHick has proved he does not care about the details and much of his arguments are just a straw man we can make them much shorter.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

hey maybe if you complain to missourian now, you will somehow be able to magically correct our healthsystem.

 

[Christopher]

hey maybe if you complain to missourian now, you will somehow be able to magically correct our healthsystem.

If he misrepresents my position, sure I will complain. I could easily respond to your last post and show you again the misrepresentations and problems with your arguments. You've just proven that it will do no good.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

more complaints, no solutions...