myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
The obstructionist party, GOP, being flushed out? Healthcare
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 85, 86, 87 ... 89, 90, 91  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13998

PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
1. Unfortunately, the sensationalistic title of the article "Studies Show Medicaid Is Worse Than No Coverage At All" is misleading. Sort of like the title I read this morning on the Japanese tsunami "Japan Faces Unprecedented Disaster Nuclear Plant Explosion".

2. By cherry-picking one study that shows a population that performed better without insurance than with Medicaid the bias of this author is apparent. It is too bad, because he does make some very valid points.

3. By guaranteeing that any patient who walks into a practice has insurance

4. the new plan, when in place, will allow health care providers to open clinics that will be able to provide better basic care and preventative services. The new plan will provide better reimbursement for this type of care and allow development of alternative treatment (meaning clinics, education and wellness) to reduce costs. This should, ultimately reduce Medicaid costs and provide better treatment.


1. You're kidding, right? Are you not watching the news at all? This still has a real chance of matching the impact of Cherobyl. 200,000 have been evacuated, meltdown is still a very real prospect, and the radiation already released has a half life of decades; other materials still threatening release runs into half lives of hundreds of years. This is far from over.

2. One study? You must not even have looked at the article. I also get extremely clear indications, such as your repeated insistence that California had the authority to forbid you from driving to Kansas or Miami to find work -- that you aren't even aware how far left of center your thinking -- your bias -- is.

3. That violates the Constitution, rendering the entire law null and void until higher courts decide otherwise.

4. Where on earth are you getting this stuff? From buds? Sorry, but I believe the CBO and Obama's own statements of intent first, not to mention Sebelius's own LONG overdue confession under grilling from Congress recently that she and the administration double-booked half a TRILLION dollars in a shameless attempt to make Ocare look revenue-neutral. I can't comprehend how the left can even overlook, let alone defend, something like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1922

PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My reference was a headline combining a quote from the Prime Minister of Japan regarding the tsunami combined with comments from the author about the future of nuclear energy worldwide. My point is that often headlines confuse facts to the author's bias. The later developments today in the problems with the reactors had little to do with that article and perhaps the context of this example has been clouded.

The article provided headlined with an exaggeration intended to skew the readers reaction, even though the author makes valid points on the difficulties in administering Medicaid and the effectiveness of the program. I cannot defend the program, because I don't feel it is as effective as it should be. I can say though, that the author picks and chooses what examples make his point to sensationalize the story.

That is too bad, because an open dialogue regarding reforming of health care delivery is necessary to begin to reel in costs and provide better service.

The Supreme Court may find that an insurance mandate is unconstitional. Unfortunately, that will make it difficult to implement some of the reforms that I discussed.

The fear I have with the failure of this plan is that a single payer system may result. The potential growth of health care costs are ominuous. Status quo is not sustainable and will fall apart. The Fed so far has not shown it can really run a health care system (Medicaid for example). This plan is not perfect, but it does retain much of the current health care delivery system.

swchandler asks a real valid question, to which, I don't have a definite answer. What happens to the consumer in the middle, who now will have to pay insurance premiums, but cannot qualify for Medicaid? The theory is that cost savings from a larger pool of consumers and a reformed system intended to reduce costs will provide savings that will allow credits and aid for insurance premiums.

The data I have read indicate short term costs will likely continue to increase (remember health care cost growth significantly outpaces inflation) and cost shifting from health care providers to the government is likely. Long term, projections indicate that the savings realized will reduce global health care costs.

Fact check looked at the accusations of false cost claims by the Obama Administration. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13998

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
1. My reference was a headline

2. My point is that often headlines confuse facts to the author's bias. The article provided headlined with an exaggeration intended to skew the readers reaction ... the author picks and chooses what examples make his point to sensationalize the story.

3. an open dialogue regarding reforming of health care delivery is necessary to begin to reel in costs and provide better service.

4. The Supreme Court may find that an insurance mandate is unconstitional. Unfortunately, that will make it difficult to implement some of the reforms that I discussed.

5. The fear I have with the failure of this plan is that a single payer system may result.

6. The Fed so far has not shown it can really run a health care system (Medicaid for example).

7. What happens to the consumer in the middle, who now will have to pay insurance premiums, but cannot qualify for Medicaid?

8. The theory is that cost savings from a larger pool of consumers and a reformed system intended to reduce costs will provide savings that will allow credits and aid for insurance premiums.... Long term, projections indicate that the savings realized will reduce global health care costs. Fact check yada yada yada


1. "A headline"? Mine is from a constant stream of nuclear power global experts analyzing the reactors all day long in as much detail as data allows. Evacuations are now approaching half a million residents within a 12-mile radius as the threat of meltdown and massive, explosive, nuclear material atmospheric release from more and more reactors keeps increasing. The Japanese PM says this could exceed the aftermath of WWII even if the other earthquake geologists still fear doesn't happen. The only glimmer of reversal emerging this morning is that they are finally getting some seawater pumped into some reactors, but that’s a totally destructive last-ditch prayer to halt their KNOWN multi-reactor partial melt-downs before the radiation goes GLOBAL if melt-down proceeds from partial to full.

Even aside from the significant risk of nuclear disaster, there's already a town of 9,500 people simply gone, swept into the ocean.

You've said you get most of your news from friends and personal interviews; I'm not trying to be snide, Coboardhead, but it shows. You're too intelligent to constrain your information flow so severely.

Here's how a local op-ed piece put it after another local revealed his limited knowledge of the news by criticizing O'Reilly for interrupting the president:
"Michael Wolf’s criticism of Bill O’Reiley’s manners clearly demonstrates misunderstanding of the purpose of journalistic interviews, unfamiliarity with O’Reilly, and unfamiliarity with this president.

President Obama is well known for providing extremely long, often rambling, sometimes irrelevant responses to questions. Whether it’s just his nature or a tactic, it chews up the clock, limits the number of questions, and thus constrains the flow of information.

Contrast that with the purpose of an interview, which is to elicit information. That requires asking many questions, keeping the interviewee focused on them, and keeping the answers brief enough to cover several topics in a short time. This interview was constrained to 15 minutes, which at the President’s normal pace and focus is just two or three questions, making interruptions mandatory. O’Reilly and many talking heads have explained all this very often, at great length, many times, before and since the interview, so it was no surprise to the President.

Only people who get all their news from left wing sources don’t know this. I implore them to broaden their news exposure; it would shake them to their very cores to see both sides of what’s actually going on in the world."

2. That's why it's an op-ed piece, not a news article, and why its credibility or lack thereof hinges on the multiple studies offered.

3. That's why I like news and news analysis shows that show open debate all day between both sides of every issue. They are far more informative and revealing than the one-sided screed we see on most of TV's so-called "news" channels.

4. At present, the entire law IS officially unconstitutional, and ... fortunately ... each new week reveals more unintentional and very intentional
GOTCHAS in Obamacare leading it inexorably towards national and Supreme Court judicial condemnation.

5. One more time, caught on camera twice: THAT'S OBAMA'S OPENLY STATED INTENT, reinforced by leading Dems such as Frank.

6. What HAS the federal government done more efficiently than monitored private business could do? Medicare alone costs nine times its original estimates, and its fraud alone runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Why should Obamacare be any different?

7. That’s why the administration proposes to raise the Medicaid income qualification threshold; it’s how they PLAN to put 25% of the public on Medicaid whether they like/want it or not.

8. Forecasts, projections, data fog, smoke, mirrors, politics, FactCheck numbers (of COURSE both parties spin their numbers) and decimal points aside, we must step back and look at reality with common sense: How can we add $40M people to the insurance load and CUT COSTS? Even the CBO now admits that revenue neutrality is not going to happen. Consumers are already swamping ERs and doctors’ offices with demands for prescriptions for everything from aspirin to lip balm because that way they can use their HSPs to pay for it.

I don’t even read the endless masturbation I see here on education, health care, etc. for one simple reason: Unless it changes people’s votes, it achieves nothing. Even if you guys solved the world’s problems on paper, do ya think the administration is reading iWindsurf? Besides, all I see is pontification, usually based on local insights and personal opinions rather than large-scale facts or expertise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1922

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part of Isobars comment

Quote:
2. That's why it's an op-ed piece, not a news article, and why its credibility or lack thereof hinges on the multiple studies offered.


Exactly my point. These sort of op ed pieces often become fact. My response was to this post.

I have admitted my unfortunate comparison between the Medicaid title article and the misrepresentation of the Japanese PM initial interview statements with the problems with the nuclear plants. I did not intend in any way to diminish the tradegy; only to point out the how news or opinion summarys presented in headlines or titles are presented purposefully inaccurately. That particular headline was from a left-leaning source.

Those who feel that sharing political ideas, opinions and knowledge on this forum are a waste of time don't have to bother. I have found that reading these posts have provided me the opportunity to learn from others and further develop and substantiate my own knowledge.

Enough said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3313

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Co boardhead
I get the best thought out healthcare opinions in my reading from you . Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5746

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I don’t even read the endless masturbation I see here on education, health care, etc. for one simple reason: Unless it changes people’s votes, it achieves nothing."


Assuming that isobars is actually censoring the comments from the majority of contributors here on his computer as he claims, what does he really know about what's going on in these threads? While it's been exceedingly clear for some years now that much of the commentary here won't change his mind, his assumption that it doesn't ultimately affect the thoughts and votes of others is unfounded. Although many folks visit this part of the iWindsurf forum and may never comment, I'm convinced that there's an impact one way or another.

I have to say that I'm 100% with coboardhead on his following statement:

"I have found that reading these posts have provided me the opportunity to learn from others and further develop and substantiate my own knowledge."

Hell, I even read isobars' comments. However, what they reveal to me over and over is where I don't want to be in my outlook and opinions. Far too much of his mind is addled by overdoses of FOX News and extreme talk radio.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13998

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
Those who feel that sharing political ideas, opinions and knowledge on this forum are a waste of time don't have to bother. I have found that reading these posts have provided me the opportunity to learn from others and further develop and substantiate my own knowledge.


Learning something is quite different from doing or achieving something with that new knowledge, and vastly different from rejecting something based simply on its source rather than its actual merit or lack thereof. I'm sure that one could learn some valid facts from MSNBC or MoveOn.org, but their ratio of facts to bias is just too low to warrant the effort. At least with the particular Fox shows I watch, independent verification is almost always quick and confirmational. When I spot something bogus, I e-mail the show and whine about it. That's extremely rare.


Last edited by isobars on Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coyotewindsurf



Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 1269
Location: SF Bay

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
...all I see is pontification...

Me too!



Rolling Eyes

_________________
mo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jpbassking



Joined: 19 May 1998
Posts: 2361
Location: Leo

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pope Iso...he he Laughing Laughing

good one Mo.

_________________
{JP:}====****
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1930
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
SNIP

I don’t even read the endless masturbation I see here on education, health care, etc. for one simple reason: Unless it changes people’s votes, it achieves nothing. Even if you guys solved the world’s problems on paper, do ya think the administration is reading iWindsurf? Besides, all I see is pontification, usually based on local insights and personal opinions rather than large-scale facts or expertise.


This from a guy with the highest number of posts about politics, and the guy who admits he didn't pay attention to politics or even vote until the 2000 election.

He can't be serious . . . can he?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 85, 86, 87 ... 89, 90, 91  Next
Page 86 of 91

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group