This point is a major issue of contention amongst Constitutional scholars. You should be wary of stating it as fact.

My god, stop being a douche with thoughtful discussions. The AMA opposed government run healthcare for the vast majority of the 20th century. They even opposed Medicare right along side Ronald Reagan.

So not only are you retracting from the discussion while claiming a source is bad while not really backing it up, you're actually being an idiot about which source you're attacking.

you should start all of your posts with: "WARNING: I only skimmed your post. This is the part I felt most comfortable attacking"

I said "essentially exists to interpret the constitution." That means that that's their MAIN FUNCTION, not all that they do.

But hey, whatever gets you by with another unsupported, unrelated post.

It's all in the details and how interpretation can suddenly open up an illconceived perception of "some reality"... sounds familiar? Law, as in civilian and criminal affairs.

False logic can only lead to overly complex perfection (still an ongoing quest for optimal results, AFAIC) both in its implications and moral values (be it abortion controversy or anything else such as the silly "Death Panels" freakshow of fallicy); the principle remains -- if they need to reform, there's something wrong.

Thing is, they may figure out what's already right too late to correct some contradictions CREATED by badly defined issues based on **current** facts & situations.

In a word; risk. In a blink of an eye; costs.

( ... and now, it's the other thread which has somehow "vanished"! I think moderators or site staff are really fooling around with us.  )

This sums up my opinion on the matter of American Health Care.

Keeping in mind I'm Australian, I can't help but feel fear mongering is the one and only tactic politicians use in the US of A in an attempt to discredit the opposition or drown them threw the cries of unintelligent people who believe their nonsense. And, unfortunately, stupid people are more plentiful these days and are becoming increasingly vocal.

Fear is always used, by politicians of both the left and the right. For every "death panel" comment on the right, there is a left winger telling us (incorrectly) that "47 million are uninsured". Both parties are outrageous in their claims and distortions, including the President himself.

And that is a large part of the point for the oppostion. Many people (and I do mean *many*) simply do not trust the government, period. It has little to do with republican or democratic, a pox on both their houses. The government run programs that have started in the past have always:

(1) become MUCH more expensive over time, with widening entitlements and ever-escalating costs. This is pretty simple..it is much easier to get re-elected if you promise to give more stuff away to people than if you are trying to limit or stop such give-aways. Virtually every major government program is now facing insolvency (Medicare, Social Security) because of this political tampering.  What makes us think a national health care system won't simply drive costs out of control when EVERY other government program has followed this same pattern?

(2) The promises at the beginning have NOTHING to do with how they evolve. Social security started out as a limited entitlement and the income from it was tax exempt. Now the income from social security is taxed, and the eligibility has broadened considerably.  When the constitutional amendment to allow an income tax was passed nearly 100 years ago, the maximum tax rate was 1%.  This whole thing is about the nose of the camel peeking into the tent, and tons of Americans saying "no", that they do not trust the politicians (of either party) and that they do not want the camel to wind up sleeping in the tent.

I think that proponents of the plan are motivated in a few simple ways. Some (at the grass roots level) just see it as something for nothing, which as we all know always garners tons of support (see "Cash for Clunkers"). This is not a function of class or income level directly, whether rich or poor, if you offer folks something for nothing, many will jump at it. And that is what this is seen as by many. And, by the way, if you see those who oppose national health care as "greedy" (I don't want to pay for their operation), why don't you see the people who want to take money from others for their own benefit as greedy also? I fail to see how one can morally judge one group over the other unless you have predispositions outside of this debate. Both are merely human, imho, looking out for their own self-interests.

The politicians seriously see it as power and control. Like every other big government program, they view its introduction as a way to develop a give-away that can carry them in power for the next 20 years.

And then, there are the poor folks who think this is about helping their fellow human beings. Unfortunately, it is not about that. If it were, there would be alot more discussion about fixes that *reduce* government controls that would make the system better than it is today, such as allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines (which government dfoes not allow today) or allowing insurance companies or offer more kinds of policies (which government will not allow today).

So, like much of politics, it is all about power, control and ultimately money.

It's all apart of his master plan, you see. Obama is a very clevar and devious devil he is...i'm glad he's president...

His overall plan:

This healthcare bill has a bunch of regulations and policies made to benefit the people of the United States, policies that may likely either bankrupt the private insurers, or force them to do what the governmet wants them to do. The public option was just a diversion for everyone, he doesn't care if there is one or not. As long as that is the main issue. His motive is to control the private insurers one way or another, and he will succeed, thanks to everyone's attention fixed on the public option.Tere are many possible outcomes that will result from these rules and regulations. These regulations may force insurance companies to pay for people with whom they will loose their money to (poor people, old people, dying people, paople who they know they won't make money off of). Coupled with the forced decrease in insurance costs and the inability to deny almost no one, they will eventually end up becoming bankrupt, asking for governmet bailouts. The Government will take over the insurance companies and either do one of two things:

1: Eliminate the PICs and instill universal healthcare.

2: Reform the insurance groups into a co-op, like blue cross/blue shield, in which everyone pays for insurance (everyone) and all their money goes into a pool of cash. Once they need money, they can take the money out of that pool. Not very efficient, but it will serve us well, and it is very simple, so adding regulation won't be a hassle.

Another , more universally accepted scenario is that the Private insurers will be forced into submission and follow the regulations that the government instill, however they are still able to make a profit, and we live hapilly ever after.

My point: Obama is planning to take over the insurance companies, public option or not. There is no stopping him at this point. We are all going to have government-run healthcare, so deal with it. And you'll know when he wins when an insurance company asks for a government bailout.

"That MAD Scientist! MHWAHAHAHAA!"

Yes that is the basis of politics, how much power, control, and money can you get.

Something to consider is a saying the George Washington had "Government is like fire, a usefull servant but a fearful master". For those who do not understand what he was saying I will try to explain it with a metaphor.

Your are camping in the woods without a camp stove, so you make a small fire to cook your food. The fire also gives you light at night and helps keep away the various creatures that prowl the night. What happens if you add a little more wood to the fire. It gets a little larger but still remains managable. What if you slowing keep adding more and more wood until you have a bonfire. Suddenly the fire is no longer really under your control, a bucket or two of water or dirt will not put it out or even really slow it down. Next thing you know, you may have started a forest fire.

That is what government is like. Over the years we have gradually given our's more and more power. Now, this bill is proposed that will make the government even larger and give it more power than it already has.We the people are superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.

Where are the watch dogs that were to keep the government from getting away with this, I am refering to the Free Media and the people of the US of A. Unfortunatly, most of the media is in someones pocket and the people are a drowsy watchdog just now becoming aware that something isn't right. That the the media, who is supposed to keep them informed, isn't doing its job like it is supposed to. Before you rail on me about the just stop and think about all the things that hasn't been reported by the major media and that you have only heard from the crazy conservatives.

Where was the media when Obama told the nation of Turkey that we are no longer a Judeo-Christian nation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o)? They weren't there. We have only heard it through sources that most people deem stupid or racist because they disagree with what Obama has been trying to do.

Before you say religion has nothing to do with government I will quote John Adams, first vice-president and second president of the United States. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." While skimming through the post I came across mentions of seperation bewteen church and state. As to whether or not there is actually a seperation of church and state I would recomend reading this article. To sum it up for those who won't read it, it discusses the origins of the "wall of seperation between seperation of church and state". It was a metaphor used to help clarify the words of the first admendment by Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunatly it has been twisted and used beyond what it was intended, if you don't believe me take the time to read the article. Basicly Jefferson explains the the Federal government is not allowed to make laws regarding religions. The words Jefferons quotes from the first admendment is "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

As to these death councils everyone brings up to either mock or make an example of, I don't believe that there will be councils set aside to kill people. But, I do believe that they would condem the old to death without health care. Oh, sure, they will have health care on paper but if they need a treatment of some kind  that will prolong their life by 10 or so years, they will just happen to be continually bumped down on the waiting list until they either die or some miracle happens and they finally recieve the life prolonging treatment. In the words of Batman Begins, "I'm not going to kill you, I just don't have to save you."

@Aroddo: From what I have read, you seem pretty closed minded. Please open your mind and accept the truths that are still out there, but defend the truth whether it hurts you or supports you. "To thine own self be true" (William Shakespear).

You know, I think that if we truly were a "judeo-christian" nation, we wouldn't go into any war.

Why? One of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not kill." You can't get any clearer than that.

Anyways, Rep. James Forbes (the guy who gave the speech talking about Obama saying America wasn't judeo-christian) actually supports the Iraq War. I would think that a deeply religious person who really believed in "though shalt not kill" would be against any form of war and instead would promote a peace effort.

voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=5146&type=category&category=22&go.x=13&go.y=20

Just food for thought.

Actually you can. I believe that if you go to the original Hebrew text it translates to more of a 'Thou shalt not murder' which makes even more since when you realize that the Lord did command the Israelites to destroy several very wicked nations.

Oops, somebody didn't take any theology courses in college. You must not be familiar with the concept of "Just War."

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/

http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

Because wikipedia is suddenly a viable source, let's look at the conditions for a "just war"

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

my responses:

1. iraq didn't have WMDs, the primary reason for going to war.  (I assume I dont have to give a  source for this)
   
2. we didn't really do very much diplomacy, and we didn't give the weapons inspectors a chance to finish.
   
3. "prospect of success"? we had no real plan for getting out!
4. "must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" -- this is debatable. some would say the iraq civil war was worse, and keep in mind that civilian death tolls from the war are staggering, while others would argue that not having a dictator is better.

Yeah, I really don't think the Iraq War was a "just war."

PS: Here's a definition of muder: "To kill (another human) unlawfully"

There were multiple international efforts to promote the fact that the war was unlawful under international law. But I guess since this is America we can ignore international law.

Derp, derp.

You said: "You know, I think that if we truly were a 'judeo-christian' nation, we wouldn't go into any war."

I said: No, see Just War Theory.

Try again.

um...what? you want me to go through every single war in the history of the US and claim that it's not a "just war"?

edit: nevermind. I was wrong. The only war I can think of that would be a just war (that was declared by congress) would be world war two.

see? it's not hard to say you're wrong. But it is pretty easy to attack someone for a specific wording choice in a sentence instead of debating the gist of the post. Oh well.

History has proven them right.  Who'da thunk?

How did this discussion drift to Iraq? I lost the thread somewhere ...

Posts #124 #126 #136

#218

You're avoiding the point. My point was that if, as you say, the government pursues its goals in pursuit of self interest, why isn't it actively pushing for a healthier public?

And by the way, we have more of most diseases than other Western countries. I don't have the statistics right next to me, I think it was from the BBC though.

EDIT: nevermind, it's from the Journal of the AMA: (emphasis mine)

"The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer." (See also Table 1 - for example, prevalence of diabetes among high-income Americans is 8.2 per thousand, while it's 7.3 among low-income Brits.) Banks, Marmot et al., "Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England," Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006;295:2037-2045.

#225

And finally, the point that McCaughey makes is completely unrelated.

Stewart (reading):IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

McCaughey: Putting pressure on doctors to require patients to go through a consultation that's prescribed by the government, and then penalizing them if the patient or family changes their mind about their living will in a moment of crisis, that's really wrong.

Stewart: That would be really wrong if that was in any way what this really said.

the reporting data is known as PQRI. A blogger who's a physician puts it best: (emphasis mine)

"Medicare has a program called PQRI in which they collect data on quality of care and reimburse physicians who track these measures (many physicians, myself included, believe this really means that we will only be given full payment for tracking PQRI). For example, if I track data on whether my diabetics are offered certain tests, have their blood pressure checked, etc., I get a bonus payment (supposedly). At this point, I don't get penalized for bad blood pressures, or rewarded for good ones. The only reward is in the tracking."

the blog entry: http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/08/stewart_v_mccaughey---more_to.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

Questions:

For 218, do you think that a US with a lower instance of cancer and other diseases will have to spend less money on medicare? If so, how should that be approached?

For 225, After reading/watching TDS interview and the clarifying comments, do you still believe in the "death panel" claim (if you did in the first place)? Why or why not?

@cuckaroucha

The conclusion of "Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England" is that Americans are unhealthier than the English and that there is some variables are causing this.

From the paper:

"Our list of comparably measured behavioral risk factors is incomplete and a fuller set may offer additional explanatory
power. Because the analysis has been cross-sectional, past differences in risk factors may be partially underlying observed differences in health conditions for the older adults in our samples."

While the paper controlled for smoking, alcohol consumption, overweight, and obesity. It did not control for other behavioral risk factors, such as stress, exercise, diet and family medical history.

The difference in diseases is mainly due to lifestyle factors rather than health care. If you want to look at the quality of a health care system it is better to look at survival rates.

As the table above shows the US has a higher cancer survival rate than European countries.

Life expectancy is also higher in the US if you remove the effect of non-health related deaths. (eg murder and car crashes) As the below table shows.

Here's the source. Which is a presentation of this book.

Yeah, I realize that we have higher survival rates for cancer (out of those diagnosed for cancer) and have a higher standardized life expectancy.

But in Britain, for example, doctors get a raise if they have their patients practice a healthier lifestyle. So how would you get the american people to practice a healthier lifestyle?

Personally, if a public option had over 50% of the public on it, I would give tax rebates based on how much a person excercised, and deny said tax rebate if they drank frequently, smoked, or had a vast amount of sugar on a regular basis. In addition, I would tighten food standards to make food healthier in general.

1. When were these Kurds attacked by Saddam? When supporting Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam acquired WMDs, but during the weapons inspections, no WMDs were found. "A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document." -- http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm (later US reports concurred with the UN findings. Heck, even Bush admits that his biggest failure was the "intelligence failure in Iraq -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/02/george-bush-iraq-interview )

2. 13 years of diplomacy? Oh yeah, that diplomacy was intended to get rid of WMDs, which was successful at doing so.

3. So we stayed in Germany mostly because of the Cold War, not because of Nazi Germany, which I have admitted, was the reasoning for the "just war."

4. You're gonna have to give evidence for this in order for me to believe it. If by "civil war" you mean saddam's oppression, then okay, but it's clear that forces in Iraq played a definite role in creating an atmosphere for sectarian violence. A US report says "violence between Sunnis and Shias is being driven by increasing polarisation within Iraqi society, compounded by a weak government and security force." (paraphrased by http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/6324767.stm )

I really don't know where you read that there were still WMDs. Out of curiousity, where do you get your news?

It's still inconsequential because the WMD point was just ONE of may reasons to invade. (And note that it was the only reason that could be used at the UN because "Saddam murders his people" is not a crime according to the UN.)

No, it wasn't. During those years Saddam refused to allow the inspections to happen and fired at US and British aircraft protecting the Kurds and Shiites.

I guess Germany was lucky that Hitler murdered Jews and not Kurds. Or what was the reason invading Germany was "just" while invasing Iraq was "unjust"?

I cannot give evidence and neither can you.

I can only go by what Iraqis told me and what I saw. The difference is that my opinion is based on what I saw, and your opinion is based on that I cannot convince you.

I saw that pretty much every single building in north-eastern Iraq that was older than 2003 featured bullet holes the size of soda cans. This arguably means that there was some kind of war going on, which is incidentally what the locals remember happening.

I have heard stories of Saddam's armies attacking and people fleeing to the mountains, several times. It was better after 1990, of course, but only the airspace was protected by the coalition (what you called "diplomacy"), the ground was not.

The civil war was first between Saddam and the Kurds, then between two Kurdish factions, then between both Kurdish factions and Al-Qaeda (who as you recall the media claim had no presence in Iraq, but that's not what Iraqis remember). Al-Qaeda were finally beaten near Sulimeiniya by Kurdish forces with American air support in 2003 after the invasion.

If you want evidence, I suggest you go there and ask people. Reading articles written by journalists based in the Green Zone in Baghdad, who get paid for writing certain things won't do it. Or you can safe yourself some time and believe me. But am I as trustworthy as someone who is getting paid to write what his boss wants him to write? It's your choice.

When in doubt, I always think, it's safes to support whichever side wants to get rid of the dictator with the moustache who gasses people. Life's too short to help those.

And if helping them is the only way to avoid war, as some people think, one should take a good look at the world. Maybe there are other wars one can try to stop, wars that are NOT designed to get rid of an evil dictator.

It's a happy world where US forces violently removing a fascist dictator is the worst problem one can think of! I wish I lived in that world. But I don't. So I do what I can to help Sudanese refugees (I am mentioned here, name is Andrew Brehm) and explain to people that removing Arab nationalist dictators from power is not the problem, but the solution.

On location: http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/Blog/Entries/2008/10/9_Erbil.html

I talked to people who were attacked by Saddam's forces and who remember his WMDs. So I know they existed. Since Saddam was supposed to prove that he destroyed them and didn't, I figure they could still be somewhere. Or is that too easy?

Another possibility is that he did destroy them and lied about it in order to pretend to be strong. But in that case it's hardly George Bush's fault that the lie was told and it's an unfortunate detail, for Saddam, that America believed those Iraqi lies.

I also get some information from Kurdish separatists, but these days they don't have much to say on Iraq any more.

Some people believe that weapons just vanish. I don't. They were either destroyed or not. Saddam made sure that we never learned that they were destroyed. But it was a risk not worth taking.

Whenever you find yourself thinking something like "The fascist dictator who gasses people said he destroyed all his WMDs, why not trust him?" you should not that there is something wrong with your reasoning.

Only greedy insurance companies and the conservative politicians in bed with them are against health care reform. Simple as that.

Derp, derp, derp, I'm smart, look at my logic.

Try again, please.

You wish it were as simple as that. If you were right then all persons here ranting against the reform must be lobbyists for insurance companies or a terminally stupid.

While I'm surprised and a bit appalled by the vehemence (and occasional ruthlessness) of the opposition, I can't simply write them off as stupid or as paid cronies for greedy coorporations. For one, the posts are too coherent. And for the other, the posts usually look original and not copypasted.

Anyway, the motive of greed is suspected often enough on behalf of the opposers. What motives could the Obama administration have?