Universal Health Coverage

[OperaTenor]

...and once the Right Wing Noise Machine latches onto something like this, it doesn't matter what the source does to correct it, people will believe what they want to believe. And the media doesn't help. Do you think the NYT would run a correction to a Weekly Standard "article" on their front page?

[Shapley]

...sort of like the fake racist 'quotes' attributed to Rush Limbaugh and used to derail his bid to buy the Rams...

The Left-Wing Noise Machine is every bit as noisy as the Right-Wing one.

[Haggis@wk]

...and once the Right Wing Noise Machine latches onto something like this, it doesn't matter what the source does to correct it, people will believe what they want to believe. And the media doesn't help. Do you think the NYT would run a correction to a Weekly Standard "article" on their front page?

Just out of curiousity what is your personal standard by which you determine the truthfulness of what you read'/hear? Obviously from previous utterances you seem to consider that Fox (excuse me "Faux") news is never truthful and I guess we can now include the Standard in that line up. So, where do you get your news?

[OperaTenor]

I try not to cite any messengers with big red targets painted on their backs.

I try to get my news from as many sources with as little known bias as possible. If it comes from both sides of the aisle and can be cross-checked for accuracy, then I'll consider it factual information. We've beat this particular horse before, so I'm repeating myself.

And here's Wiki on the Weekly Standard:

The Weekly Standard is a American neoconservative opinion magazine published 48 times per year. It was founded by News Corporation and made its debut on September 18, 1995. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes. The Weekly Standard produces The Daily Standard with commentary and articles written for the magazine's website. Other frequent contributors include Christopher Hitchens, P.J. O'Rourke, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Stephen Schwartz, Matt Labash, and Stephen F. Hayes.

Although the publication has never been profitable and "loses more than a million dollars a year", Rupert Murdoch, the head of the News Corporation, had previously dismissed the idea of selling it.[1] In June, 2009, a report circulated that a sale of the publication was imminent to Philip Anschutz, with Murdoch's rationale being that, having purchased The Wall Street Journal in 2007, his interest in the smaller publication had been less forceful.[2][3] Anschutz, for his part, has been an active patron of a number of religious and conservative causes. The Washington Examiner reports that the Examiner's parent company Clarity Media Group has purchased the Standard. [4]

The Weekly Standard has been described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible".[5] [6]

So, you still want to contend it's an unbiased source?

[Shapley]

We're not saying it's not biased. We're just wondering where you find one that isn't.

You seem to dismiss all reporting by 'right-wing biased' sources, but I haven't seen you complain if we use a left-wing biased one. I've posted from CNN (notably pro-Democrat) and NPR (decidely left-wing), as well as other sources. I also use government web sites, when possible.

You often complain that Fox News ignores Republican wrongdoing, but you dont' seem to complain that CNN et. al. ignore Democrat wrongdoing.

Most sources carry at least a little bias, which is why I look at a variety of sources. However, shooting the messenger doesn't kill the message. as Haggis points out, we are having to look to the foreign news services now for factual data. How long before the Obama Administration begins to attempt to marginalize them, because they are not 'news networks in the manner that CNN is a news network'.

[OperaTenor]

Your reading comprehension seems to be failing. Reread my post.

Additionally, how many times have I complained about the corporate MSM as a whole?

[Shapley]

Your reading comprehension seems to be failing. Reread my post.

Additionally, how many times have I complained about the corporate MSM as a whole?

Not at all. I've browsed your most recent posts, and found few, if any citations that weren't YouTube videos. You posted a link to Senator Feinstein's comments on the insurance industry (now there is an unbiased source ). You spend a lot of effort picking at the sources for other's data while providing few of your own. As I've said, you keep shooting the messengers and ignoring the message.

As an example, you cited this link to back up your discussion on balanced billing. It was authored by "insure.com", according to the by-line. You've also linked to blogs and opinion pages to back up prior assertions. You demand a much higher standard of others than that to which you are willing to adhere.

[Haggis@wk]

The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

It's never been about health care, it's always been about power.

[Shapley]

Yep. And the 'Repbublicans want to take away your Social Security" will become "Republicans want to take away your health care", allowing them to scare all age groups, not just senior citizens.

As he says, once enacted, it'll be nearly impossible to undo. I think I've said that before. I'm glad somebody is honest about what is happening. I suspect he now believes it is inevitable, and his honesty will not stop the momentum.

[OperaTenor]

As an example, you cited this link to back up your discussion on balanced billing. It was authored by "insure.com", according to the by-line. You've also linked to blogs and opinion pages to back up prior assertions. You demand a much higher standard of others than that to which you are willing to adhere.

Heh. You're telling me an explanation of an insurance-related process on an insurance-related site isn't authoritative. If anything, it was a source that should have biased against the point I was making, which was an additional point.

As for the rest of your assertion, let's see some examples.

[OperaTenor]

Last night's Frontline should be required viewing for every American:

Sick: Around the World

T.R. Reid looked at five of the most prosperous nations and how they provide health care. All simply confirmation of virtually everything I contend. What we do in this country is inexcusable and foul. The coming corporate welfare for the health care industry is no solution.

There are three tenets to doing it right:

1. Cover *everyone*. No exceptions.
2. Provide universal, non-profit insurance.
3. Cut costs by dictating what can be charged for provision of service and doctor's salaries.

All of which will never happen here in the Corporate States of America.

PS. In the show, Reid visits a Buddhist shrine in Japan and ties a prayer that says just about verbatim what I have in my sig line on another forum regarding health care: No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.

PPS. That's the first time I'd seen Reid in action. It's too bad we don't have more journalists like him.

[Haggis@wk]

Krauthammer On the Stupak-Pitts amendment:

The liberal interpretation of the Stupak [amendment] is correct. It is Hyde squared. It is stronger and goes way beyond Hyde.



In the end, I think it [the Stupak amendment] will stay in a modified form because the threats on the left — the 40 members of the House who said they will oppose the bill — is not a credible threat.



They are within reach of a historic, once-in-a-century attempt to take over a sixth of the American economy. A liberal is not going to sacrifice it because of the Hyde amendment or Stupak.



I suspect a version of this will end up — Stupak or Hyde or something in between — in the [final] bill, and the House liberals will swallow it because taking over a sixth of the economy was much more important.

And people still think this is about health care, incredible.

[OperaTenor]

Haggis, I agree that this isn't about health care, but you and I may see differently as to who this power grab is benefiting, and I don't mean partisan.

Reid made a couple of eloquent points in the Frontline piece I cited earlier. There is an inordinate amount of money going to segments of the health care industry - not just for-profit insurance - that is totally unnecessary. We still outspend per capita, as a percentage of GDP(Shap's favorite economic indicator), by more than double, the next highest industrialized nation, Switzerland, whose system is more like ours than anyone else's. And, we have the worst coverage of *any* industrialized nation to top it off. In these other countries, there are no medical bankruptcies, no outrageous malpractice suits, no individual angst over physical well being.

Heck, we could follow Taiwan's example and simply analyze the other countries' systems, identify the flaws, and cobble our own system that would work. And Switzerland is a prime example that sweeping change can be affected without adversely affecting anyone, not even the insurance industry.

Just about to a person,the entire rest of the world sees access to health care as a basic individual right.

If we really wanted to fix it,we would have, long ago.

[Shapley]

There are three tenets to doing it right:

1. Cover *everyone*. No exceptions.
2. Provide universal, non-profit insurance.
3. Cut costs by dictating what can be charged for provision of service and doctor's salaries.

Items 2 & 3 are outside the authority of the federal government, IMHO. They should remain so.

[OperaTenor]

In your [and the CSA's] opinion. Others interpret the Constitution quite differently. Another dead horse-beating in the offing here.

[Shapley]

I"m merely pointing out where the opposition to such a proposal will be based. Many of us are not willing to roll over and let the federal government dictate (your word, there) commerce. There is a difference between a 'regulator' and a 'dicator'. The federal government is supposed to be a 'regulator' of commerce.

[OperaTenor]

Again, and I don't see health care as pork bellies, as you seem to, so in my estimation it doesn't fit your perception.

[Shapley]

Again, and I don't see health care as pork bellies, as you seem to, so in my estimation it doesn't fit your perception.

Constitutional objections have little to do with the profit or not-for-profit status of health insurance or of health care. The 10th Amendment very clearly delegates to the States and to the People those powers not specifically given to the federal government.

In fact, if you don't classify health care as a commercial venture, the Commerce Clause which is used by Congress to seize much of the power it has taken will be less apt to apply.

Your views of the Constitution and of freedom in general are troubling to me. You use phrases such as "what the Constitution mandates" in lieu of "what the Constitution authorizes". You indicate that the goverment should be "dictating what can be charged". You've referred to independence as a 'facade". You are willing to dispense with Constitutional restraint and subsidiarity solely to satisfy your view of fiscal security, wrapping it neatly in a 'moral imperative' to rob the rich and give to the poor. You seem perfectly willing to cede all power and authority to the government as long as it satisfies your objectives.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

The 10th Amendment very clearly delegates to the States and to the People those powers not specifically given to the federal government...

We already fought one civil war over this precise issue. "States Rights" lost to "Federalism".

[Shapley]

Actually, the term "Federalism" has always encompassed a strong support for States Rights. The Federalist Papers provide considerable support for the concept.

We did not rewrite the Constitution after the Civil War ended, we merely amended it. Our politicians continue to swear to uphold and defend all aspects of it, including the Bill of Rights. Too bad so many of them break that oath routinely.