The Glade 4.0

There you go again. There is no way you can extrapolate that argument from what I have stated. You are claiming I have drawn a causal connection that I have not drawn.

1) Fox News is better and more effective at spreading misinformation to it's viewers.

2) Fox News viewers are more likely to maintain those false notions given by Fox News.

It *does* indicate they believe it. How can you reasonably conclude otherwise? The poll questioned them on what they believed about the health care issues like Death Panels and the like, and they answered it.




Nothing in the plan states that it would and there is no evidence to support that it would. The Administration has clearly stated that a government health care takeover is not what they want, not what they are seeking, and is in no way their goal.

It's a lie, spread by Fox News in order to rile up opposition to the plan. And fox viewers were 30% more likely to believe the lie.



Or in the president's stated intentions. Or in any plan in congress. There is no evidence to support that belief. None. They have been told by Fox News that not only are those things on the way, but that the bills specifically authorize those things.

You are not providing any evidence to contradict my argument, only your own thoughts on polling and opinion. That's not compelling.




So, are you contending that these opinion polls were nefariously designed to create the impression that Fox News was misinforming it's viewers? If so, do you have any evidence of that?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No, there you go again. That's not a strawman at all. I didn't say it was YOUR position that there was a causal relationship, I was stating MY position that there ISN'T a causal relationship, and further, that if you can't show a causal relationship it doesn't matter what Fox is saying. I'm perfectly within my rights to formulate my own positions, even regarding your positions. Stop slinging the strawman accusation around. It is not a strawman for me to state my own position on the matter.

Straw Man

You should also note:

In other words, if I point out that something follows from something you said, that isn't a strawman attack even though you didn't state that conclusion yourself. That's for future refernce though, not for this particular issue. Just keep that in mind since you seem to be slinging this fallacy around a lot.



I didn't say that they didn't believe it; I said they believe it because they think it will be the eventual result of the plan even if it isn't what's written in it now. The plan opens the door for these things. The poll questions you cited are designed carefully to trick people into appearing uninformed because they only address what's in the plan as written right now, not what people think it will actually lead to.



There's plenty of reason to think it would. Khross has already pointed out the difficulty of competing with the government, which will lead to private insurance being forced out of buisness regardless of what the administration intends to happen. As for illegal aliens, if they come have children here, those children will be covered. That's coverage for illegals, because the expense is the parents' responsibility, even if the care actually goes to a child.



It's not a lie except in a very narrow sense of "What does the exact wording of the plan say"? Furthermore, unless you can show that Fox is actually the cause of this, and it isn't a case of people who already believe this anyhow just preferring Fox news, then it's irrelevant. (See? Not a strawman. That's MY position, not a distortion of yours.)

In any case, saying the plan will "lead to" something can't be a lie because what will happen in the future isn't known yet. A lie is a misstatement of fact.



You're not making an argument at all. Since you deny claiming a causal connection, all you're saying is that a poll said FOX viewers believe certain things. So?

I also am pointing out that just because the President and Congress are saying the plan right now doesn't have these things in it, that doesn't mean they won't happen in the future on the basis of the plan or as an unintended consequence. The President cannot predict the future, so really it's just a matter of what he thinks will happen.



The evidence is in the questions themselves. One was already specifically pointed out: The question asked if people think the plan will "lead to" a government takeover of healthcare. That's asking people to make a prediction. Even if they believe that because FOX made the same prediction, it's a prediction. Calling it a lie is disingenuous because you can't lie about a prediction; the event hasn't occured yet to be lied about.

This calls the entire poll into question. The question asks for predictions in one instance, but specifically about the plan in others. This can be confusing to those polled. Since it was conducted by a competing organization with its own agenda, and poll makers know about these effects well, there is good reason to think the poll was constructed to give the appearance that Fox news watchers thought these things were in the plan, when in fact the difference is because they think the plan will eventually lead to those things while watchers of other news organiztions do not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Actually, all of those things are factually accurate.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So, in your opinion, DFK, the health care proposal will 1) Give coverage to Illegal Immigrants, 2) will lead to a government takeover of the health care industry, 3) will pay for abortions, and 4) will create death panels?

Really? Because no bill currently before congress has any of that in it's language. You have no evidence to back up your conspiracy theory.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The existing bill has no provisions overriding the EMTALA requirement that effectively requires all emergency departments to treat all patients walking through the door. Since illegals using the emergency room for care is a major issue for the ED's of this country, and the bill does nothing to stop that, it is factually accurate to say that this bill will continue to allow coverage for illegal immigrants. Since the bill is supposed to be fixing our healthcare system, and could easily alter EMTALA, I have no problem extending the failing of the existing loophole to all bills on the table.



I do not believe that you have the economic, administrative, or technical expertise to properly fathom the fact that the existing proposed bill would in fact lead to a "takeover" of the healthcare industry. Nor do I believe that if you had the appropriate expertise you would refrain from allowing your bias to cloud your judgement. Therefore, I will only say that yes, this bill will, according to independent analysts of all three political backgrounds (Democratic, Republican, and Independent) lead to the "takeover" of the industry.

Now, the first part of that isn't your fault necessarily, as I view healthcare to be the most complex industry ever created by man.



Section 122 of HR 3200 includes a mandate that all Qualified Health Benefits Plans offer "Maternity Care." By its nature, "Maternity Care" requires medically-necessary abortions. Furthermore, the bill has not one provision excluding non-medically necessary abortions, which are often paid for under existing health plans. As such, it is logical to conclude that non-medically necessary abortions will continue to be paid for by this plan, including subsidized, exchange-participating plans. Either way, once medically-necessary abortions are included it is factually accurate to say that the bill will pay for abortions.



"Death panels," as I understand the term is being used, are a two-part entity. The first is mandatory end-of-life and advance-planning. This is included in Sec. 1233 of HR 3200. Not only is it included, but a physician or nurse practitioner/physician assistant is the one required to have the consultation. This will add costs and have individuals who are non-optimal conducting the conversation. Therefore, this part of the claim is factually accurate.

The other half has to do with the idea of a central board or organization making payment decisions based upon whether individuals are held to be worthwhile to society (essentially, a cost/benefit analysis would be run on individuals for certain treatments). While this exists under the National Health Service of the UK, there is in fact no such provision in HR 3200, nor in the Senate bill(s). This part of the claim is therefore factually inaccurate.

Something similar though not as egregious already occurs in both the private and public sector: "rationing" of care through determinations of coverage and payment for life-extension therapy(ies).

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Which is not the same thing.

This bill is not intended to prevent emergency services to Illegal immigrants. So when you make the argument that illegals will be covered by these policies, you are the one being factually inaccurate. This bill has nothing to do with the law you speak of. If you want to debate this particular policy, by all means, do so. But it's a stretch at best to try and lay this at the feet of Obama's proposal or the proposals before congress. This bill is about health insurance for American citizens.






An irrelevant Ad hom response. It doesn't matter what my expertise in the field is, and pointing this out, weather it is true or not, does not speak to the point.




Like any other medically necessary procedure.



That's not at all logical to conclude. You have no evidence or basis to draw that conclusion.



Funny how that can be so misleading, however., Opponents to the bill are claiming that federal tax dollars will directly pay for elective abortions, and that simply isn't the case. A late term, medically necessary abortion is *not* the same thing as an elective abortion. You know that, and I know that.



That's not true. It mandates that these insurance companies *cover* that type of service, it does not mandate that such services be utilized. That's a serious difference. No portion of any bill, suggested or submitted, requires this (very useful, intelligent, and helpful) service be undertaken by individuals.



Again, if they chose to have this counseling, this provision merely states that a medically qualified person be involved. So that is not a factually accurate claim.



And that's just total bunk. There are no death panels, and there is no mandate that all people will be required to have end of life counseling.




Indeed, which is why the opposition on that angle is totally baffling. Currently, a corporate bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor, and makes life and death decisions for you.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

And EMTALA deals directly with that issue.




It isn't an ad hom, and it explains why I won't repeat myself over and over to you. I've laid out several provisions that would lead to less competition and force out private industry. Several individuals have posted articles from independent sources that further indicate that choice, competition, and the ability to choose would be hampered. Furthermore, basic mathematics indicates that healthcare spending would go from a slight majority paid for by the government (aggregate across all levels) to a dominating majority and thus "take over" the industry. These things are factually accurate and are not in dispute, except by you, "takes them differently."



You therefore do not dispute that abortions will be paid for under the so-called "public option," should it be implemented as seen in HR 3200?



Sure I do. The bill requires maternity care. Abortions fall under that.



Except that, sometimes, "medically necessary" is subjective.



Hmm, perhaps you should read the section I cited, because you are wrong.

Failing to provide such consultations will be reflected in quality indicators. Failure to undertake the appropriate measures or to receive appropriate marks on quality measures results in CMS reducing your annual increase or even reducing your overall payments. As such, physicians would be punished monetarily for failure to comply, though technically they could "choose" not to do so.



Wrong. Read the section.





Physicians are required to do it monetarily, so they will.




I'm sure you meant to say that "a corporate or government bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor..." Since that is what it takes to make that statement 50% accurate. The other 50% comes from removing the last clause of the sentence, as that's against Federal law. Hence, "less egregious."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It's things like this that highlight how blinded by Obama the lib apologists are; they'll hold the line in the face of all that is obvious when even the most liberal pols are coming out asking questions, then again, Feingold has integrity where the apologists haven't shown an iota.

Democrats Join GOP Czar Wars

Way to go Russ:

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Russ is great. I miss having him as my senator. That being said, Bush had 47 different Czars in his administration. I think that's interesting given the reaction the right has to Obama's lower number. I mean, they didn't have a problem with it under Bush, at least that I can find.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I've always had respect for Feingold. I'm glad he doesn't follow DNC talking points as so many do. Heck, Russ even has a vested interest in following them, yet he doesn't - must be that pesky integrity he has. The fact that he has integrity and thinks for himself, I wonder if they go hand in hand?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

ehhh I can never forgive him for the McCain Feingold act. That bill was horrible.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

And has nothing to do with the question before us.



Actually, it's the classic definition. You are taking my qualifications and are using them to try and invalidate my arguments. You need to approach my argument on it's own merits, and bringing my qualifications in is illogical. My qualifications are irrelevant to the question before us.




I certainly don't dispute that medically necessary procedures are covered, and that could include a medically necessary abortion. However, the criticism that I am talking about is not that specific. In fact, it's downright...artful. The criticism levied against the bill is that it will provide direct federal funding for abortions, and it leaves out the critical "medically necessary" bit. That's an important qualifier in the debate. Many people that oppose abortion on moral grounds change their tune when you talk about the life of the mother (and rape, and incest, which are also covered). And so the initial criticism is misleading.



There is a difference between an elective abortion and a medically necessary abortion. That distinction is very important when discussing this issue.

[quote=]

Except that, sometimes, "medically necessary" is subjective.[/quote]

How so? It's determined by a qualified physician.




Quote it, in it's entirety, because I'm not.



But that has nothing to do with forcing patients to have this counseling, which is the criticism we are discussing. It has everything to do with requiring that such services be covered, and that doctors offer such services.




[/quote]

Are you referring to government regulation of what an insurance company must cover? Because that seems to be more of an effort to get the bureaucrat from the company out of the way so that doctors and patients can make decisions on their own.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I'll never understand why people opposed it, other than it being too weak. But that's a pretty big tangent.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

It has everything to do with the issue before us. Nobody cares if illegal aliens specifically are covered under this bill specifically. They don't want them cared for at all, and the failure of this bill to address that means, by inaction, it is allowing the coveage of aliens to continue.



No he's not. He's pointing out that your lack of knowledge and experience in the field renders you unable to understand other people's arguments as to why this bill will eventually lead to the objectionable things that it supposedly doesn't contain. It really would behoove you to read what terms like ad hom mean before using them.



No more misleading than claiming "It doesn't provide federal funding for abortions." Since that's the claim being responded to, it's actually not misleading at all.



It isn't important at all as long as people continue to deny that it funds abortions. Once it's openly acknowledged that some abortions are funded, it becomes relevant what kind they are.



You haven't noticed that different physicians have different opinions? "Judgement call" might be better than "Subjective", but it still is a matter of the physician's personal evaluation.



But that has nothing to do with forcing patients to have this counseling, which is the criticism we are discussing. It has everything to do with requiring that such services be covered, and that doctors offer such services.[/quote]

What are the quality measures? Do any of them relate to how many people utilize those services? If so, then it does mandate the services to patients; it just conceals that mandate by making the doctor enforce it himself in order to get paid. Do you know what the quality measures are? Can you provide a link to a complete list of them?



Again, if physician pay is being tied to utilization of the service by patients, it constitutes an attempt to force the services on the public, even if only in the form of "awareness". To many people, even receiving counselling on "end of life care" is abhorrent.


[/quote]

Exactly. Hence corporate bureaucrats do not make life and death decisions for people.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Seems to me just recently there was a nationally reported case of a doctor performing late stage abortions in which there was a lot of dispute about his determination that they were "medically necessary".

One example amongst say, a million: Should a child who has a 90% likelihood of being born with Down's be aborted, provided it was determined to be that within the proper first trimester timeframe?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Absolutely.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

So you'd deem it 'necessary.' Somebody else wouldn't.


There we go, folks.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I would deem it necessary because the resources that a child with downs requires would far outstrip the resources it would produce, realizing a net loss for society.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I think that's DFK!s point. Not everyone would agree with that rationale.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Care to back that up, because all the articles I have read put Obama's use of this position well above everyone elses, and no one reported Bush had such a high number.

It makes me think that someone is expanding the definition of "czar" more so than it already has, without equal application.

You are just flat out wrong. That law is a seperate bit of legislation, having nothing to do with this current bill and the proposals we are discussing. The argument is a red herring. If you want to have a different debate about the that law, fine, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand. This bill prevents payment for illegals under the terms of the bill. That's what we are discussing, and outside bills have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.




Which is, at best, a cop out. It still constitutes an ad hominem attack according to the definition of the fallacy.



And I simply disagree. It's misleading because of it's inflammatory nature, and it is not generally understood to mean "abortions in the case where the mother's life is in danger". It is generally understood to mean any and all abortions. The screaming would be significantly quieter if a more accurate picture was being painted by the Right.




Well, sure. However, legislation about this sort of thing exists in most, if not all states. There is a process that goes beyond "my doctor said it was necessary". In Kansas, for example, a second physician has to sign off on the first doctor's diagnosis.




1) A means by which to make sure that the quality of care is high.

2) Why would that be relevant?

3) ...

4) There is a link to the entire bill in this or another thread, IIRC. You can look it up.




How is that in any way the government forcing individual citizens to have their life or death chosen by a government panel?






How on earth did you come to that conclusion. Corporate bureaucrats make those decisions all the time. They get a big claim for a serious illness, and they send that case up for investigation. They do everything in their power to find some technicality to drop the insured, pretty much signing their death warrant.

The government forces insurance companies to cover certain illnesses, etc. This helps to prevent those corporate guys from doing this sort of thing more frequently. In this case, the government is acting on behalf of the insured, protecting them from the exploitation of their insurance company.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I believe the issue wouldn't be under so much criticism and disbelieved by so many if the all of the proposed amendments to the various flavors of the bill that would clearly define what is or is not allowed in regards to abortion payments were voted down by the Democrats and rejected.

Ok, you have said things like this a couple of times and I'm sorry, it's BS. You either need to qualify that statement or not make it at all. You are presenting this like it's standard practice when it isn't. Stop it.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I just want to point out that if calling an argument disingenuous is tantamount to calling the poster a liar, calling my argument BS would also qualify.

I have never argued that it's standard procedure. However, that doesn't mean it does not happen, and it does not mean it's not a matter of policy for insurance companies. For more information, you can read the transcripts of the grilling the Insurance CEOs got in front of congress for these practices. While a small percentage of their overall insureds are dropped using recission, it still amounts to thousands of people dropped by their insurance company because their high dollar claim tripped a flag and triggered an automatic investigation.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show