An Easy Test: How to See the Real Motive Behind the Healthcare Opposition

Daniel, it's not fair to characterize all (or even most) of those who oppose health care reform as bigots. Your disclaimer seems added as an afterthought and doesn't excuse your earlier inflammatory rhetoric. What would your response be if a news organization aired an inciting broadcast that seemed to accuse a large group of being racist and then at the end gave a two line closing along the lines of “we didn't mean to paint with such a wide brush, the only ones we meant to demonize are those who deserve it.”

I'd agree that much of the BS surrounding the issue seems to be believed by the same sorts of people who believe that Obama is not a citizen. This is true by definition: Both groups are people who believe silly falsehoods, but though they almost certainly overlap, they aren't likely to be the same groups of people. In any case, as you say in your disclaimer, these are just the disruptive ones. There ARE legitimate reasons to debate the specifics of health care reform. I only wish that opponents of reform (those with legitimate concerns I mean) were working a bit harder to silence the BS so that real debate can happen.

“…there’s a room full of angry white people…”

I'm sensing a theme, a very prejudiced and discriminatory theme.

“'Who here thinks Obama’s really a Muslim!?!'”

Complete distraction. No merits on the actual issues of Healthcare Reform. A left field-to-Foul ball play/ploy.

If you can name the rational and credible issues being debated by the HealthScare opponents, you will regain the, um, respect you might have lost with this post.

Until then, good luck.

-=T=-

Key words, “rational” and “credible”.

Try again. You are hung up on the staple counter-responses that corral anyone who doesn't agree with you to an idiot status. Why debate at all if that's the case? It will only end up being one sided.

-=T=-

That's a fair point. I should have worded my title better.

“How about addressing my point instead of dismissing it because it's
provoking?”

Again, your point is more distracting and misdirecting that provoking. And it marginalizes those who disagree with you to be irrational and nonsensical.

That specifically addresses your point.

I'll give you three rational arguments against health care reform, since you seem hesitant to ask;

1. Congress won't take on the health care for themselves.

2. People who fail to acquire health care will be fined.

3. It broadens the government bureaucracy, when they fail to prove that they can maintain already present programs. (Social security, Medicare, and the Post Office are all shrinking shrinking or at a real risk of shrinking due to bureaucratic waste. This type of “government sprawl” is self destructive.)

4. Businesses right now are forced to be sure their employees are at least offered health care, making sure that everyone who works has the choice. Under the proposal, businesses can “opt out”, by having to pay a set fine or percentage based on some criteria, which is mathematically proven to be cheaper than to keep the employee on their health care plan. As it's often been said, and often been ignored, it's a win for companies that want to drop their employees health care plan to have this “public option”, which a broad sector of employees will be forced into, making it an ironic misnomer.

Finally, this, from http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obamacare/20…

“Senators Exclude End-of-Life Provision from Bill”

What are they reacting to, if not the reasonably deduced ethical problems inside the proposal, that promotion of the death of the ill will reduce the overhead costs? What kind of theme is this setting for the trust the public is supposed to invest into the President's health care reform?

If you want a real debate, stick to the matters that keep the discussion on topic and off of intangible tangents.

-=T=-

I have to disagree that these so called “ethical problems” are reasonably deduced. It is true that people have been yelling and screaming about death panels, but that's NOT what that clause was ever about.

An interview with a co-sponsor of the Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/200…

A JAMA article coauthored by Ezekial Emanuel that is the source of all the demonization of him (quite wrongly in my opinion) and that talks about the ethics of health care with limited resources:

http://www.fresh-thinking.org/publications/JAMA…

More info on the end of life stuff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy…

————-
I bring Emanuel into the story here because he has been pointed to by some who are against health care reform as an example of why. But in every case I've seen, his views have been misrepresented as somehow saying things like “no pacemakers for old people”. That's why I've posted a link to the full article.

I'm making a claim here; it's very clear. It's not distracting.

I'm claiming that most people who are emotionally opposed to this bill can't pass my three question test. How difficult is that to grasp or follow? And aren't you supposed to be difficult to offend? Why are you so damn skittish? Damn.

I use strong language sometimes; deal with it. I've made a claim; show me why you think it's wrong.

What are they reacting to, then? If it's a pure motive, then it should withstand the townhall discussion. Instead, they withdrew it because it's more convenient to let it go for the meantime, possibly only to institute it later, without debate.

Whatever they fail to enact with this legislation, they will try to enforce in Medicare expansion. Don't be surprised if the main of it ends up being heaved on the American people, even without their notice, and most certainly without their consent or approval.

What do you think of the other four points I've enumerated?

-=T=-

The townhall discussions have been made worthless by those who have intentionally disrupted them (armed far too often with what I will charitably call misunderstandings based on false information fed to them by some who should know better). The disruptions have largely prevented the rational discussion of the issues.

Your other points.

1. Congress won't take on the health care for themselves.

The insurance is not designed to be a replacement for existing plans, and certainly isn't equivalent to the top-tier of existing coverage. If people are happy with their current health care (be they in Congress or anywhere else) they are free to keep it. We can't know if any members of Congress will opt for this coverage if and when it becomes available, but it wouldn't be appropriate to replace the current coverage with this. This is not intended to replace existing plans. Beyond that, think about the message that would send. “Look, even congressmen can't keep their existing coverage .. the claim that we can keep our existing coverage is a lie!”

I think that the use of the word “fine” in two of your other points is a loaded word as it implies a punishment for doing something wrong. Even calling it a “tax” or “fee” sounds less like a punishment than a “fine.” Let's just say “pay” and leave the loaded words out.

2. I don't have any problem with this. Let me lead with two examples.

Most states have helmet laws for motorcycle riders. Some think that this is an inappropriate intrusion of the government's nose where it doesn't belong. Let a motorcycle rider go without a helmet if they want. After all, it is THEIR head that we're talking about. What possible difference could this make to anyone else? One issue is that the cost of the treatment if they receive severe head injuries (that could have been prevented with a helmet) is not paid entirely by THEM. So their choice to go without a helmet does impact others.

Many states (I think it's most states) REQUIRE drivers to have some minimal level of insurance on the vehicles they drive. Nonetheless, there remains (in many states at least) the (option / requirement) of having “uninsured motorists coverage” which kicks in if you are in an accident caused by someone without their own insurance. This coverage is an extra cost paid by ME because other people have chosen not to have vehicle insurance.

The same is true with health insurance. PART of the money WE pay in our health insurance coverage supports those who have no insurance (whether by choice or circumstance). Fees that hospitals charge for their services are higher than actual costs for those services because the hospitals need to cover their expenses for the treatment they provide to those without insurance or with inadequate insurance (people like the hypothetical motorcycle rider with neither helmet nor insurance who gets into an accident and is treated for his injuries at a hospital that happens to be in the area). Requiring everyone to have vehicle insurance lowers the cost of uninsured motorist coverage (so it lowers MY costs). Requiring everyone to have health insurance coverage will do the same sort of thing. Hospitals won't have (as many) patients requiring services for which the hospital will not receive payment. This means that the hospital does not need to charge inflated fees for their services to cover the non-payments.

So, when someone opts-out of health insurance coverage, they add to MY costs and YOUR costs. I see no problem in requiring everyone to have health insurance (and see no problem in helping the very poor to obtain such coverage). If people opt-out, I see no problem taxing them (to cover the costs they are imparting to the system by opting out and to send a message to them that they are [knowingly or not] imparting such costs).

3. I don't accept your premise here. This will be the subject of a discussion at another time.

4. The “fine” in this case is really the employer being required to pay (at least some of) their share for the health care of their employees, but I don't think that's your point. I think that your point is that they're not being required to pay enough if they opt-out of providing coverage. I agree. They should be required to pay the costs for the government-option health insurance if they don't want to continue their existing plans. The House measure is better than at least one Senate version I could find information on. This Senate version (I don't think that A Senate version exists yet) would “fine” bigger companies that don't provide health insurance $750 per year per employee. The writer of the article (who apparently has NO clue what companies pay for the health care of their employees) called that a “scary” number. I'd say that it is scary LOW and lends evidence in support of your argument that companies will be delighted to cut their health care costs to $750 per employee.

Daniel, your method of gathering evidence would not prove (or disprove) your claim. The people at townhall meetings is not a representative sample of US citizens, so standing up at a town hall meeting and making an inciting comment in an effort to see how many people respond favorably would tell us NOTHING about the conjecture.

Also, none of us runs in circles that are representative of the US population as a whole, so asking people that we happen to encounter who are vehemently opposed to the proposed health care reform will similarly tell us NOTHING about the nationwide picture (in particular, there are people who are against it but not vehemently opposed). You are simply wrong about how to gather meaningful evidence. (I'd suggest that many in the media are similarly confused about evidence gathering, but that's a discussion for another day.)

Oh. I didn't see that in your post.

I suspect that there are more non-racists, non-nutcases out there who have concerns about the proposed health-care reform than you think.

I'm not sure who “you guys” are. Are you trying to be subtly insulting?

What is to dispute here? Apparently it is clear to everyone but you how outrageous your claim is. It's in the exact same vein as those death panels, actually worse. Anyone with any real intelligence knows it is BS.

I think cooperati and CarlM have spent plenty of effort to dispute you but you brush them off. Maybe you are right that “mouth breathers” can't be educated with reason.

“By the way, had you reversed your claim, I would have had absolutely no doubts about its truth: Most of those who (claim to) believe that Obama is not a legitimate president (because they believe that he isn't a natural-born citizen or whatever) ALSO are opposed to the proposed health-care reform…”

I thought a similar thing last night, that most people who are racists most likely don't like Obama's plan. Though, the reverse that Daniel states is not as likely.

This does neglect to mention that it is, far more likely an actually race-neutral issue. Many blacks don't want it, right along beside me.

-=T=-

Items 1 and 2 are actually linked. I failed to mention that the simple fact that congressional members being able to opt out of the conditions being placed on every other American puts them at another class level with differing rights to the rest of the populace. Because the terms of the congressional option allows them to also forgo any required penalty that would otherwise be placed on anyone who decides to say no to a provision not fixed in the Constitution as a power of government, we are granting citizens as members of Congress more freedoms and liberties than I have, you have, or may be granted to my children. This, by itself, is illegal, unethical, and sets a precedence for further expansion of a gulf that differentiates the defined rights of members of the government and ordinary citizens.

Your position on #2 is an educated choice, I must admit, but it also follows a precedence that leads to another example. Would you tax someone for “opting-out” of a fishing license, (a hanging offense here in California)? Would you tax someone for not getting a driver's license? Would you tax someone for not sending mail? The position you take is that these people already do these things, or might, or will, and that we should have the event covered in terms of costs just in case they do.

It follows a logic, though, I propose an inferior logic, or at least a perspective that punishes on the premise that anyone can do something they can't pay for. (Ahem, “credit cards!)

Your reaction to item 3 is valid, as I did draw rather broad lines, though it represents my desire for a smaller government, something that the Obama health care proposal will hinder in it's of expansion of the bureaucracy. I gather from your perspective, this is either not a threat, or preferable.

Similar to item 4. I do not think the government amassing the profits of industry is a good thing. True, that I cannot trust corporations to follow the best virtues of maintaining either the citizenry or citizen's rights, but this must be balanced with a basic distrust of government involvement, as it serves corporate interests by way of lobbyists and campaign contributions, amongst other means. If you were afraid of Halliburton, you should be afraid of the giant health care conglomerate that will win the very coveted “blank check contract” that will not only serve the industry more than the people, but set a new standard for market interference in yet another field.

Doesn't anyone still worry that the combination of government and corporations as a malevolent force intruding ever onward deeper into our lives, to seek to use us like cattle for votes or taxes or media attention, or is the glaze of the new administration too opaque to penetrate?

Are people so convinced that everything's just wonderful now, and the powers we are handing government is it's just due?

-=T=-

My reply to cooperati: (Written in conversation form .. even to the point that I interrupt at times) :) Sorry this is so long.

Cooperati: “Items 1 and 2 are actually linked. I failed to mention that the simple fact that congressional members being able to opt out of the conditions being placed on every other American puts them at another class level with differing rights to the rest of the populace.”

CarlM: Wow. I think this is an extraordinary mischaracterization of the facts. I would suggest that members of congress will be able to opt for the government option health insurance in place of their existing coverage in EXACTLY the same way that much of the rest of the populace will be able to. I would expect that the government option plan will NOT be equivalent to the top-of-the-line plans (low deductable, low co-pay, high coverage) that are out there. Those people fortunate enough to be covered by such a plan (as I would guess members of Congress are .. but certainly not exclusively them) are less likely to select the government option health insurance, but I see nothing to suggest that (apart from their having what is apparently quite good health insurance NOW) gives members of Congress different rights than those afforded to everyone else. You'll have to explain what you mean by this and give evidence. I'm just not buying it at all.


Cooperati: “Because the terms of the congressional option allows them to also forgo any required penalty that would otherwise be placed on anyone who decides to say no to a provision not fixed in the Constitution as a power of government”

CarlM: I'll need you to show me these terms.

Cooperati: “This, by itself, is illegal, unethical, and sets a precedence for further expansion of a gulf that differentiates the defined rights of members of the government and ordinary citizens.”

CarlM: I don't agree that this by itself is either illegal or unethical. Unethical is in the eye of the beholder, but illegal isn't. Give me a reason that you believe it to be illegal.

Cooperati: “Your position on #2 is an educated choice, I must admit, but it also follows a precedence that leads to another example. Would you tax someone for “opting-out” of a fishing license, (a hanging offense here in California)? Would you tax someone for not getting a driver's license? Would you tax someone for not sending mail? The position you take is that these people already do these things, or might, or will, and that we should have the event covered in terms of costs just in case they do. “

CarlM: Daniel, I mean, um .. cooperati, you've missed my point entirely. A fishing license is for people who fish (and presumably the funds are used to stock lakes, and to pay the salaries of game wardens who check (for example) that people are not taking more than their permitted quota). Do I think that it's OK for states to fine people who are fishing without a license? Absolutely. A drivers license is for people who drive (and secondarily serves as a more general form of identification — though states have regular identification cards for those who cannot or choose not to get drivers licenses). The drivers license allows the driver of a vehicle to be identified in the case that they are stopped for having violated some law. Linking the violation to an individual allows for repeat offenders to be appropriately treated. Do I think that it's OK for states to fine people who are operating a motor vehicle without a license? Absolutely.

BUT neither of these cases bears ANY resemblance to the cases I offered of vehicle and health insurance. In THOSE cases, those who don't have insurance are adding to the costs born by everyone else. (This is NOT true in the examples you put forth.)

Another example .. and one that truly infuriates me. Flood insurance. In the early 1990's there were a couple of years in which there were floods along parts of the Mississippi River (there also happened to be floods in the city I lived in at the time). Anyway, the way flood insurance works is that regular insurance companies don't sell it. It comes from the federal government. (I'm not sure if regular insurance companies handle the transaction, but the insurance itself is issued by the government.) Along the Mississippi, some land/home owners had purchased flood insurance while others had not. Along came a flood and the government bailed out EVERYONE. Now it may be that those who had flood insurance got bailed out (hmmm … no pun intended) more quickly, but those without insurance got the same sorts of payment as those with insurance. The SAME thing happens with emergency care. Insurance or not, hospitals are required to treat the patients. Don't get me wrong. This is a good thing, but it's got to make people wonder why they got insurance if the guy without insurance got the same sort of emergency treatment. In my opinion, flood insurance should be much more aggressively advertised in flood prone regions so that nobody can say “I didn't realize that this wasn't covered by my homeowners policy”. Then if people who don't have flood insurance get flooded, they should not get paid for their flood-related losses. They rolled the dice and lost. It was their call. Their choice should NOT impact anyone else monetarily. (NOTE: The government HAS taken steps to implement the suggestions I made above [to greater or lesser degrees] — not because I made them.)

In my mind, this scenario is DIFFERENT from that of health-care. While I think we can respect someone's right to choose not to insure their property, and let them live with the consequences of that choice, I believe that we have a moral responsibility to give emergency care to all who need it. If someone chooses not to have health insurance (or can't afford health insurance) we SHOULD NOT simply look the other way and let them suffer the consequences of that choice if they are hit by some catastrophic illness or injury. So in the case of health insurance, those who are not part of the system PASS ALONG COSTS TO THOSE OF US WHO ARE. That's the key point. That's the difference.

cooperati: “It follows a logic, though, I propose an inferior logic, or at least a perspective that punishes on the premise that anyone can do something they can't pay for. (Ahem, “credit cards!)”

CarlM: I'm not sure what you're saying here. I don't think you're suggesting that emergency care should be denied to those who can't pay for it, but perhaps you are. Rather than trying to guess what you mean, please explain what you mean and I'll reply.

cooperati: “Your reaction to item 3 is valid,”

CarlM: Naturally.

cooperati: “as I did draw rather broad lines, though it represents my desire for a smaller government, something that the Obama health care proposal will hinder in it's of expansion of the bureaucracy. I gather from your perspective, this is either not a threat, or preferable.”

CarlM: In a nutshell, the problems with health care in this country are too serious to allow a delay in working toward a solution or even in implementing steps toward a solution. (This is true of some other looming problems too, but that'll have to wait.) I don't distrust government the way you seem to. Indeed, I've been offended by those (not you) who have said things like “this plan will put an administrator between you and your doctor”. I mean, what is there to say to people who say things like that? That's the situation NOW with insurance companies. THAT aspect will not change, so it's NOT an issue for this discussion. It's a distraction. (Again, I'm not accusing you of this … just needed to vent.)

cooperati: Similar to item 4. I do not think the government amassing the profits of industry is a good thing. True, that I cannot trust corporations to follow the best virtues of maintaining either the citizenry or citizen's rights, but this must be balanced with a basic distrust of government involvement, as it serves corporate interests by way of lobbyists and campaign contributions, amongst other means.

CarlM: Included in what you just wrote was: “I do not think the government amassing the profits of industry is a good thing” which I took to mean that if there are profits to be made in health insurance, then those profits ought to be in the public sector rather in government. Also contained in what you said was “… as it serves corporate interests by way of lobbyists and campaign contributions … “. Which is it? Is government-option health insurance hurting industry or helping industry? Which industries are being helped? Hurt? I think that a better way to look at the issue is this. Suppose we were designing a system from scratch to be the most efficient possible (so as to minimize costs). What would that system look like? What steps can we take to make the current system look more like that one without causing an enormous disruption?

cooperati: “If you were afraid of Halliburton, you should be afraid of the giant health care conglomerate that will win the very coveted “blank check contract” that will not only serve the industry more than the people, but set a new standard for market interference in yet another field. “

CarlM: To be clear, you've just stated an opinion (rather than fact). It's an opinion I don't share. I disagree with: (“blank check contract”, “serve the industry more than the people”) I don't have time to discuss “market interference”. There may be some truth to this, but this is not necessarily a bad thing.

cooperati: Doesn't anyone still worry that the combination of government and corporations as a malevolent force intruding ever onward deeper into our lives, to seek to use us like cattle for votes or taxes or media attention, or is the glaze of the new administration too opaque to penetrate?

CarlM: I do not believe that either government or corporations are a malevolent force. I believe that governments (and corporations) can do both great good and great evil. There is nothing inherently good or evil about either.

cooperati: “Are people so convinced that everything's just wonderful now, and the powers we are handing government is it's just due?”

CarlM: Specifically about the health care issue, I believe that we cannot afford to do nothing. Is the current set of proposals perfect? No. That's something that you and I can agree on. We probably differ about how to make it better. I believe that the proposals are a HUGE improvement over the status quo. This is the key.

I definitely don't think correlation implies causation; I am highly familiar with that issue and I'm cautious about avoiding the trap. This doesn't mean I always succeed, but I'm definitely aware of the issue.

As for my “nastiness”, I think you'd be very surprised if we ever met. I'm widely considered to be extremely NOT nasty. But I can see how one could perceive anger and hatred in my religion posts.

Some of that I'm comfortable with, as I'm ok with being aggressive toward false and dangerous ideas, but some of it is over-done, and I do listen when you and others criticize me in that respect.

Anyway, I know I piss you off a lot. And you piss me off, too at times. But I value your input, and I appreciate you trying to improve what I do here. Hopefully we can get a beer or a coffee one day.

Cheers,

-Daniel

Hmmm …

“I can offer no more than this: “

I'm disappointed. I asked for reasons that you made some assertions and your response gives none. (Examples of things I wrote that asked for a response: “Give me a reason that you believe it to be illegal.” There are people who assert that income tax is illegal and others who assert that other things are illegal because they are not explicitly contained in the Constitution. I don't consider that to be a valid arguments (nor do courts), so I'm hoping that you have a better chain of logic that convinces you that what you asserted is illegal actually is. I'd really like to know what your reasons are.

I'm more disappointed in your second paragraph which claims to assign motives to me (” 'true' reason”). The fact that I do not distrust “big government” in an of itself (just as I do not distrust big corporations in and of themselves) is NOT equivalent to a desire to turn to big government to solve all of our problems.

I'm a believer that the market can sort out a lot of things and take care of some problems, but I think that evidence shows that market forces do not always solve problems and in come cases can lead to wild and catastrophic swings that can cause severe problems (at least for a sizable chunk of the populace).

I'm also a believer in economies of scale. For example, small family farms have proportionally more overhead and have difficulty surviving in competition with large corporate farms. I don't see the same evils in this that some do. Efficiency is a good thing. (NOTE: I make no claims that corporate farms are perfect.)

I believe that we must do something about the health care problems in this country. ONE of those problems (perhaps the biggest) is that health care cost increases have (for years) far outpaced inflation and the rise in wages. These increases make health insurance more and more difficult to afford. The result is that typical policy has weakened (coverage has decreased, deductibles have increased) and the number of people without any health insurance continues to rise.

I do not claim that there is only one route to fixing this problem. I claim that we need to do SOMETHING. Imagine two people who want to drive from Chicago to LA. One wants to take a northern route while the other wants to take Route 66. Their goal is to get to LA, but they argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue (you get the idea) and after as many years as we've been arguing about how to fix health care in this country they can no longer afford to drive to LA. Not a perfect example, but my point is that we need to address the problems before they get even worse and even more expensive to fix. Is the set of proposals being put on the table (and still being fine tuned in committees) the only solution? No. A perfect solution? No. This is why I've said that there are legitimate reasons for debate. Is it a significant improvement over the status quo? I believe that the answer to THAT is YES. And, seeing no other options that are as good as this one (or with as much possibility to PASS … something that I think is rather important [think about the two idiots who can't just get in the damn car and drive]), I am in favor of this bill.

Carl

“opportunity makes the option, not the need.”

Right, but my point is that the need has existed for a LONG LONG time. The NEED is not new. But, you're right, the opportunity IS new and I believe that we should press forward to get some reform passed. Whatever reform is passed will not be THE reform for eternity, but it will be better than the status quo (significantly better in my mind). I believe that to have the opportunity to begin reforming health care and to do NOTHING would be an enormous sin.

I don't know when compromise became a dirty word. It's not just you who uses it with that overtone. It is GRIDLOCK that is the dirty word. That is what must be avoided in cases like this one. Compromise can at least move us forward. If we all wait for our own vision of a “perfect bill” (as if such a thing exists .. ALL policy has pluses and minuses), then we will wait forever. That's not acceptable to me. (This isn't to say that change is good just for the sake of change: “New Coke” is a good [though rather trivial in comparison to the current debate] example for those old enough to remember that idiocy.)

Now, about the need … it seems that when a looming threat is first noticed, too small a chunk of the populace is effected (yet) that most others don't care about (and in some cases don't even BELIEVE in) the threat. This applies to health care (in the US and elsewhere), it applies to energy consumption (globally), it applies to water consumption (globally), … It seems to apply to a wide range of issues for which scarcity and/or expense put sufficient resources out of reach of a percentage of the population. When that percentage is small, the perceived threat is small. As it grows, the perceived threat grows (but only if you're paying attention … slowly moving numbers can escape our notice). In any of these cases, EARLY action (conservation in the cases of energy and water) is the most efficient and in the long-term the least expensive solution. The problem is that doing NOTHING is cheaper in the short-term and people in general don't take a long-term view on these sorts of things (this seems to be changing, but there's plenty of evidence that most people do NOT take the long-term viewpoint). Doing nothing ADDS to the overall costs of a solution, makes the solution more difficult to obtain, AND causes a large amount of needless suffering in the meantime. That last one is often overlooked in the analysis (because it doesn't have an easily applied monetary value), but in my mind it is absolutely NOT a trivial piece.

“I believe our politicians can prepare much better, and provide accommodations more close to our mutual likings than what's being given to us by our current administration.” I'd love to think that this was true, but I suspect that it is not. Certainly there is no evidence to support this belief. Health care has been an issue for a LONG time and gridlock (which at times has seemed intentionally aimed at preserving the status quo) has been the response. I also suspect that my point about the two guys planning a road trip to California applies here too. Their PRIMARY goal is to get to California. One guy wants to travel Route 66 (as long as they're headed that way ANYWAY) and the other wants to take a northern route (to see some national parks as long as they're heading west ANYWAY). They can bicker about how to get there (and EITHER route will get them there), but the only commonality in their goals is getting to California. Thinking that there is a route that will be closer to their common goals than either of their proposed routes misses the point. The GOAL is to get to California. The solution is to get in the damn car and drive. Flip a coin to decide on a route. If you don't start moving, you'll never get there.

Perhaps this is what the ancient saying means: “A journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step.” I'm not saying that we should flip a coin to make decisions about health care reform. I'm saying that we should TAKE THAT FIRST STEP.

—-

PS I'm sorry if I seemed upset about your short reply. I was really getting into having a chance to debate with someone sensible on this debate and I invested a lot of time and energy in my posts. I checked the site (like a high school kid waiting for a phone call) hoping to see a similar sort of post from you and was honestly disappointed in the brief reply that you wrote. (I do know that we can't always take the time for longer replies. I'm about to start a new school year and my own posts will become scarcer and briefer.)

Side Note on the POST OFFICE:

People keep holding the Post Office up as a place with big price increases. Fox News did a story the other day claiming that the price of a stamp doubled from 1991 to 2009 (and included a graphic with the actual increases from .29 in 1991 to .44 in 2009 — a 51.72% increase).

So I did the calculations with a little help from http://www.akdart.com/postrate.html
and
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Ca…

Postage rates hit
0.22 on February 17, 1985
0.29 on February 3, 1991
and
0.44 on May 11, 2009

The increase in postage from February 17, 1985 to May 11, 2009 was 100%.
The rate of inflation during that same period was 101.75%.

The increase in postage from February 3, 1991 to May 11, 2009 (the period in which the Fox Commentator said it doubled) was 51.72%.
The rate of inflation during that same period was 58.65%.

I find it particularly ironic that people hold up this example in the context of a health care debate that is taking place largely because health care costs have risen FAR more than the general inflation rate.

“In 1991, the price was 22 cents from Jan. 1st to Feb. 2nd.”

That's factually incorrect. The price was 25 cents on those dates. (See the data on the link I provided.) (I didn't look at every rate increase .. only those in the years mentioned by Fox and the year in which rates rose to 22 cents (half of 44).) The folks on Fox were (deliberately or not) exaggerating the increase AND taking it out of the context of overall inflation … leaving the impression that the increase in postal rates was somehow absurdly high. If you'd like to defend Fox's statistics on this, you're welcome to try, but you're destined to fail.

Anyway, I'm well aware of the fact that you can mislead by looking at prices on arbitrary dates. Taking 1991 as an example, the price went up 4 cents (16 PERCENT) in one day! A 16% rise in one day!!!!!!!! That's just absurd alarmist crap, and NOBODY would stoop to quite that level. The only fair way to gauge the average slope of a step function during some period it to use data points AT THE STEPS. This is what I did. I deliberately DID NOT use arbitrary dates. I used the period from one rate increase to another rate increase. What I discovered (to my surprise actually) was that the postage increases mirrored general inflation remarkably well. It serves as a TERRIBLE example for people to hold up as a negative example in comparison to the rise in the costs of health care. An ABSURD example.

So people on Fox say that health care reform is necessary. WONDERFUL. I'd be happier if they stuck to the facts when discussing it rather than bring in irrelevant facts like the price of stamps. I'd be even happier if when they brought in irrelevant facts, they actually stuck to the facts and didn't misrepresent the facts in an apparent effort to discredit the notion that the federal government is competent at keeping costs reasonable. The argument seems to go like this (not necessarily explicitly stated, but implied through the choices of topics thrown into the mix):

You think that costs are going up too fast NOW? Wait until you see what happens when the same group that runs the Post Office gets their hands into this.

Then they give (false and) misleading information about postage rate increases and leave the impression that those increases are even worse than health care cost increases. This is dishonest debate.

—–

Thanks for sharing the link to the bill. I can't seem to find in the text anywhere anything to alter my previous comments about your assertions:

“1. Congress won't take on the health care for themselves. “

I see nothing that prevents members of Congress from opting for this coverage and nothing that forces those with other plans to switch to this coverage. That is, I see nowhere that this bill treats members of Congress any differently than members of the general public, so I'm not sure what your point was.

“2. People who fail to acquire health care will be fined. “

I've already pointed out that those who fail to acquire health care add to the overall costs of MY health care. I'm all for charging them for those costs. Call it a fine if you wish. I've no problem with that at all.

Interestingly, the way this is phrased in THIS bill is that it is a tax in an amount not to exceed the cost of actually purchasing the government option plan. It doesn't say what the minimum level for the tax would be.

If in fact the tax was set at that maximum amount, it effectively removes the choice about having health insurance (there are exceptions in the bill). I've no problem with this, but I'd agree that if this is what the tax level will be, then this should be stated more openly.

“4. Businesses right now are forced to be sure their employees are at least offered health care, making sure that everyone who works has the choice. Under the proposal, businesses can “opt out”, by having to pay a set fine or percentage based on some criteria, which is mathematically proven to be cheaper than to keep the employee on their health care plan.”

There are some interesting components to the portion of the bill pertaining to employer responsibilities. For example, they are specifically forbidden from steering certain employees (like high-risk employees) to the public option plan. Without knowing more about what companies pay NOW for health care, I don't know that I can judge whether this bill provides incentives for employers ceasing their current health care plans. It's possible that there will be employers who will take that route, but I'm not sure that this is a bad thing. In any case, many employers have long used their (better than average) health care plans as ways to attract and retain good employees. I see no reason that this would change under this bill.

—

There may have been other points that you made in later parts of this conversation that I asked to see evidence about. If so, remind me and I'll take a look in the bill.

—

ONE MORE: You said “Because the terms of the congressional option allows them to also forgo any required penalty that would otherwise be placed on anyone who decides to say no …”

I'm not sure that this is true. Here's what the bill says about those who are exempt:

“(b) Treatment of Governmental Entities-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this subchapter–
‘(A) the term ‘person’ includes any governmental entity, and
‘(B) notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, governmental entities shall not be exempt from the fees imposed by this subchapter except as provided in paragraph (2).
‘(2) TREATMENT OF EXEMPT GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS- In the case of an exempt governmental program, no fee shall be imposed under section 4375 or section 4376 on any covered life under such program.
‘(3) EXEMPT GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM DEFINED- For purposes of this subchapter, the term ‘exempt governmental program’ means–
‘(A) any insurance program established under title XVIII of the Social Security Act,
‘(B) the medical assistance program established by title XIX or XXI of the Social Security Act,
‘(C) any program established by Federal law for providing medical care (other than through insurance policies) to individuals (or the spouses and dependents thereof) by reason of such individuals being–
‘(i) members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or
‘(ii) veterans, and
‘(D) any program established by Federal law for providing medical care (other than through insurance policies) to members of Indian tribes (as defined in section 4(d) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act).
“

This rather explicit list of those exempted doesn't seem to include members of Congress. You can look up the pieces of the Social Security act, but they are:
XVIII: HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE AGED AND DISABLED
XIX: GRANTS TO STATES FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
XXI: STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

.. so if you can show me where Congress is exempting itself somehow, please do so.

—–
Also while I'm asking for more from you, let me remind you of something you said and ask something again.

“I failed to mention that the simple fact that congressional members being able to opt out of the conditions being placed on every other American puts them at another class level with differing rights to the rest of the populace. Because the terms of the congressional option allows them to also forgo any required penalty that would otherwise be placed on anyone who decides to say no to a provision not fixed in the Constitution as a power of government, we are granting citizens as members of Congress more freedoms and liberties than I have, you have, or may be granted to my children. This, by itself, is illegal, unethical, and sets a precedence for further expansion of a gulf that differentiates the defined rights of members of the government and ordinary citizens.”

(1) As I've said above, I don't see any evidence that Congress is doing what you asserted.

(2) Even if they were doing it, I don't understand the logic that would make this ILLEGAL. I can think of unpleasant things to call it, but calling it illegal is a rather strong assertion and I'd like to know how you reach this conclusion.

Hmmm …

I guess that we can hope that they don't put in that sort of thing in an effort to get bipartisan support for what would be a poorer bill. I guess it'll come down to which is more important … a better bill or additional bipartisan support.