comment #1

raygo says ...

Roller Girl can do no wrong in my book. Always radiant, and what's not to like about that?

comment #2

Eloi Manning says ...

Who's that doing the voice-over? I recognize it and can almost place it... this is annoying...

comment #3

Eloi Manning says ...

Oh, it's Peter Coyote.

comment #4

vansmith says ...

Heather understands her strengths and appeal and plays it well but she also stays out of the papparazzi glare so she stays fresh. And we love it fresh..

comment #5

Eloi Manning says ...

Things are looking up, it would appear: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/21/health.care.cbo/

comment #6

drbob says ...

I truly believe that Heather Graham is a gifted comedic actress. Unfortunately, her talent is mostly overshadowed by her undeniable physical charms. I especially liked her guest stint on Scrubs.

comment #7

joncro says ...

How anyone can use the 'unfair competition' argument with a straight face will always be a wonder to me.

comment #8

Sabina E says ...

cool video. I've always secretly liked Heather Graham, but she's veryyyy underrated. She's also pretty to look at.

comment #9

sashastone says ...

Those are yoga poses, by the way.

comment #10

great scott says ...

Heather Graham.

BOW

comment #11

Ryansi51 says ...

heard lindsay lohan was offered her HANGOVER part and she turned it down. oh well, back to the drugs.

comment #12

Josh Massey says ...

"How anyone can use the 'unfair competition' argument with a straight face will always be a wonder to me."

When one company has to make a profit to survive, and one can operate at a loss and coast on taxpayer funding, what about "unfair" is so difficult to comprehend?

comment #13

sutterkane says ...

Josh - health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust regulation and are free to fix prices. On top of which, in an employer-based health system, people are not, generally speaking, free to shop for better, cheaper coverage, and even if they were (like McCain proposed), you need to lawyer to decipher the massive binders of legal speak specifying what's covered and what isn't, what doctors and treatments are available to you, and what the costs are... it's all set up to screw people who aren't in a position to decipher it, because there is no competition. As a result, the insurance companies are reaping billions of dollars in profit.

We NEED a public option that has the best interests of the patient in mind, because in the current non-competitive environment, it is in the best interest of for-profit health insurance companies NOT to pay claims. A recent study showed major insurance companies turn down as much as 50% of the claims made by their customers. The system is fucked, and it's costing people the homes, their livelihoods, and their lives. A public option isn't the best solution - nationalized health care is - but dear god it's a step in the right direction.

comment #14

poseidon72 says ...

SUTTERLANE-

Couldn't agree more!

comment #15

Uncle Milty says ...

Sutter Kane for the win.

Josh Massey,

I'll remember to feel bad for the insurance companies the next time I'm not drowning in medical bills and my 18 year old cousin isn't suddenly thousands of dollars in debt because they turned down his claim.

comment #16

Rothchild says ...

Josh Massey:

The same people who use that argument also try to scare Americans by saying health care provided by the government will be half-assed and unreliable. If that's truly the case, then a lot of people will stay with their current provider. If that's not true, then you're just worried about the poor insurance companies and their bottom line. If so, suck my dick.

comment #17

Josh Massey says ...

Nobody is arguing the system is perfect; it's far from it - but more government morass is never the answer to someone searching for an easier way.

There are a few very, very simple steps to create competition and lower costs - allowing somebody to buy insurance from another state, tort reform legislation, allow companies to create consumer-specific policies instead of mandating items that have to be covered (as a single guy, I don't need to pay for maternity benefits, yet am forced to by the government).

But those things wouldn't empower the politicians - or would negatively affect the well-funded trial lawyers - so they're ignored.

comment #18

Colin says ...

You guys very quiclky blew Massey's argument out of the water.

How can FedEx and UPS exist with a government run entity(USPS)? There is plenty of business to go around.

comment #19

Rothchild says ...

Massey just doesn't want any of his tax dollars helping people out of his line of sight.

comment #20

Uncle Milty says ...

It seems to me that you want only the insurance companies empowered. Because they are way cleaner than the politicians, right?

Until they have competition they'll continue to screw over the very people they're supposed to be helping.

comment #21

Uncle Milty says ...

What Colin said. End of debate.

comment #22

Wiggumx says ...

Ahhh, conservatives.

"I got mine! Fuck everyone else!"

comment #23

MovieBob says ...

Graham is a perfect case-study in the concept of "too beautiful for your own good." She's always been an engaging actress, but because she's hot in an "All-American" way enough to not NEED to be people assume she's got nothing going on. (Fellow "perfect" actresses like Jolie and Johanssen are 'otherworldly looking' enough to sidestep this.)

Just watch: When time/nature conspire to knock Graham down to a "mere" 9.5, suddenly everyone is going to discover she's talented.

comment #24

M. Hulot says ...

Well put, Wiggumx.

Massey, how does it feel to have your argument ripped to shreds with such immediacy? Then you come back and completely ignore the point-by-point refutations by attempting to switch your reasoning around as if no one was going to notice?

You had me at tort reform, Joshy. Tje common MacGuffin thrown out by any or all Conservatives when they are
Incapable or unable to argue a topic on its own merits.

How much does legal malpractice and frivolous lawsuits play into
budgetary expenditures related to all health care costs including Medicare? 1% !!

Thats right, Massey. One percent. So stop trying to push tort reform as if it is a big part of the problem. It not even a small part. And thats a fact.

comment #25

Floyd Thursby says ...

My lovely wife has a stomach ailment her doctor cannot diagnose without some expensive tests her insurance claims are not covered, so we'll have to pay at least $5,000. Too many Americans have similar stories.

comment #26

jmevans says ...

i lost my full time job this past june. i've been applying ever since but have not landed anything in my specific field of work. in the meantime i'm working at restaurants to make ends meet.

when i lost my job, i lost my heath care coverage too. i'm now forced to pay for a private plan until i land a new full time job. the private plan costs a god damn fortune. but i can't afford it going forward, so i'll be joining the millions of uninsured americans, keeping my fingers crossed until i land a new job. it's absurd and a public option is absolutely the answer.

comment #27

poseidon72 says ...

jmevans

I don't know how anyone can not understand what your dealing with. I hope Obama does not back off a strong public option. I hate the fact my health insurance is tied to my business, I have atnea and its been good to me except the premium goes up every year. 11% this year. I want to buy health insurance at an affordable price as an indiviual not as part of a group.

comment #28

joncro says ...

'When one company has to make a profit to survive, and one can operate at a loss and coast on taxpayer funding, what about "unfair" is so difficult to comprehend?'

We're not really talking about 'companies' here though. If the government started handing out free ice cream then Ben and Jerry have a right to get upset but health care should be seen as a human right, not just an open market.

Let the private insurance companies offer their services as a luxury to those who want to pay for more than the NHS can provide, that's the way it is here in the UK.

comment #29

David says ...

"...but health care should be seen as a human right, not just an open market."

You have rights to things you inherently possess. Your body, your property, your speech, your creations. Anything beyond that, and you're speaking of assigning an entitlement to the money, services and time of others. People don't have a "right" to health care just as they don't have a right to another person's car.

A "public option" would only be an option if one was not forced to pay in. If the public option turns out to be absolutely abysmal, how do I stop supporting it? Should I just stop paying my taxes? By voting for one of two authoritarian parties that bar third parties from debates, that create ballot access requirements that are impossible for parties who garner millions of votes in national elections to completely fulfill?

What is it like to exist in a world where the only "conservative" viewpoints are a couple of talk show hosts on Fox News? Is it easier living in this world where Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/blog) or the Cato Institute (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/) don't exist? Have you guys even heard of ACORN, for instance, or their little scandal?

And what do the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean to you? I am for small government. I am for the rights of the individual. I am for the free market and against government health care. I am against the death penalty. I am for legalizing all drugs, legalizing prostitution, getting rid of all smoking bans, and lowering the drinking age to 18. I think emergency contraception should be allowed to be sold at every gas station and 7-11. I'm an atheist. Am I a conservative? Or is that just a word you use to lump people in with George W. Bush in an effort to demonize human beings and avoid speaking about real issues?

But why do I bother? As I've been told time and time again, it's a waste of time to argue with religious people. And government is so obviously the new religion.

comment #30

David says ...

And by the way, Heather Graham is lovely, but have you ever seen her interviewed? I could go look up her talk show clips on YouTube, but I remember her being far into supernatural nonsense, the silly tarot card, palm-reader kind.

comment #31

frankbooth says ...

We need to make it harder to frivolously sue an incompetent doctor who kills a member of your family. I mean, c'mon, they already feel bad for making a boo-boo. Do we have to rub it in?

comment #32

David says ...

Colin: "How can FedEx and UPS exist with a government run entity(USPS)? There is plenty of business to go around."

USPS would have gone out of business long ago if it had to compete on the same terms for delivery of first class mail as the companies you named. It is ILLEGAL for FedEx and UPS to drop letters in your mail box, therefore, the postal service has NO COMPETITION to their first class mail delivery. On top of that, the postal service doesn't have to pay parking tickets or taxes. With all of the competitive advantages they have, they should be flourishing instead of cutting days of service in an effort to survive. Please don't use the postal service as an example of government efficiency.

Joncro:" We're not really talking about 'companies' here though."

You get to decide what is a company and what is not? Cool! Did you find the Cosmic Cube? What is the source of your godlike power?

Sutterkane: "On top of which, in an employer-based health system, people are not, generally speaking, free to shop for better, cheaper coverage..."

Yes, because government gives tax benefits to employers that it does not extend to individuals, thus individuals are stuck with their employer's insurance plan. And government prohibits you from buying health insurance across state lines, limiting competition. And when you can only buy insurance within your state, your state politicians can pay off its health insurance companies by passing legislation (under the guise of giving you a "bill of rights") requiring you to pay for insurance for things like hair transplants and gastric bypass surgery, which you will probably never use and is pure profit for your insurance company. And yet with this knowledge, you religiously look to the organization causing the problems to be your savior. Yes, hire the serial killer to babysit your kids, we wouldn't anybody hurt while you're out at the movies.

Poseidon72: "I want to buy health insurance at an affordable price as an indiviual not as part of a group."

And so you support a government collective? Which could in 3-7 years be conceivably run by the most religiously conservative Republican administration you could imagine, elected in a backlash against this regime? Count me out.

M. Hulot: "Massey, how does it feel to have your argument ripped to shreds with such immediacy? Then you come back and completely ignore the point-by-point refutations by attempting to switch your reasoning around as if no one was going to notice?"

Um, I'm still looking for the post where Mr. Massey's points were ripped to shreds. Or even addressed. I suppose one way to debate is just to yell "I win" before making a point, but it isn't the way I'd go. But I'll give you bonus points for this sentence:

"Tje common MacGuffin thrown out by any or all Conservatives when they are
Incapable or unable to argue a topic on its own merits."

Yes! Confuse your opponents with typos and random capitalization pulled out of your ass! They'll never know what hit 'em.

comment #33

SpinDozer says ...

'Heather Graham is...far into supernatural nonsense, the silly tarot card, palm-reader kind.'

Well, that and tantric sex. Need to learn to prioritize, David.

comment #34

sutterkane says ...

David - all very valid points. I actually thought the backlash against McCain's plan was unfair, not because I necessarily agree with the plan, but because all anyone heard was - "he's going to tax health insurance? new taxes! higher taxes!" I get it - take the burden off employers, give people the freedom to choose and let the insurance companies compete for best price/coverage, which will, in turn, drive down costs.

But personally, I just don't believe it will work. Buying insurance is more complicated, and probably more important, than buying a house or a car. I've worked freelance and spent a lot of time shopping for health insurance... it's practically unintelligible. And by the time people figure out that they've gotten a bad deal, they're dead, dying, or under hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. If I buy a tv and it craps out after a week, I can either return it, or, hey- buyer beware, i won't by that brand again, and if enough people feel the same way, that company either goes out of business or makes a better tv. But with health care, the stakes are too high, and by the time people figure out that clause a of paragraph 113, subsection 2, means that their insurance covers lung, breast, and throat cancer, but not colon or skin cancer... it's too late.

I agree with you that "liberal" and "conservative" are too simplistic terms to represent what most people in this country actually believe. I certainly consider myself a liberal, but I like small government and lower taxes. I think we should have AIG and GM fail. But I don't think a for-profit healthcare system works. Government run healthcare, even just the public option, will be expensive, bureaucratic, and inefficient, but it's only concern will be for patients. The only sensible way to run a for-profit health insurance company is to figure out ways to not pay claims.

comment #35

David says ...

sutterkane -- I agree with a lot of what you are saying, I'm no fan of health care companies, but I don't think that we gain transparency in health policies by handing control to government. And no one really talks about the bigger issue and consequences of conditioning a country to having its government make its moral decisions. "There oughta be a law" seems to be the popular solution to any problem. Even the problems caused by "there oughta be a law" thinking.

In Springfield, VA (right outside D.C.), where I grew up, a man was arrested this morning for being naked in his kitchen. A woman and her child, people the resident did not know, randomly cut across his lawn, looked in his window, and saw him in his kitchen. So later in the morning, 5-6 police officers stormed his house, arrested him in his bedroom as they called him a "pervert," and hauled him off to jail. The woman hasn't been arrested for trespassing on the man's property. I mention this to ask -- how many people are going to get truly upset by government doing something like this? How many people are upset that the governor of Texas is doing his best to upset an investigation into whether a man who was executed for the deaths of his children was innocent (in the face of overwhelming evidence that the executed man did not commit the crime)? And if your average citizen can't be bothered to pay attention to the kind of crimes that should easily incite the passion of any empathic human being, how or why would they be moved to be a watchdog when some Senator taking campaign contributions from an insurance company subtly fucks with "clause a of paragraph 113, subsection 2" in a 1,000 page bill that is made public hours before a congressional vote?

comment #36

David says ...

Spindozer -- If Heather Graham had performed tantric sex the last time she was on TV, I obviously would have mentioned that...BUT OUR GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT TO AIR! No better reason for anarchy.

comment #37

Gordon27 says ...

"You have rights to things you inherently possess. Your body, your property, your speech, your creations."

So, you're saying you have the right to health as long as you are healthy? That's a bizarre belief.

"People don't have a "right" to health care just as they don't have a right to another person's car."

You're merely describing how things are, and the other guy is merely describing how things should be.

"A "public option" would only be an option if one was not forced to pay in."

Definitionally untrue; the "option" is whether you use it or not, same as the schools you pay for, the police whose salaries you pay, the roads you pay for. You can choose to pay more money for private school, private security, and... I don't know, helicopters or whatever, if you want to.

"If the public option turns out to be absolutely abysmal, how do I stop supporting it?"

You? You can't stop supporting it, because you don't support it.

"By voting for one of two authoritarian parties that bar third parties from debates, (blah blah blah)"

Oh, I get it. You're, what, 22? You were raised Republican, but then had a big revelation and became a libertarian, and now you bitch and moan about how unfair it is that the libertarian party isn't getting enough.

Well, congratulations; the Republican party is splitting, and within the next decade or so, the libertarians will be the major second party, unless something serious changes.

"What is it like to exist in a world where the only "conservative" viewpoints are a couple of talk show hosts on Fox News?"

Wow! What a wonderful non sequitur.

"Is it easier living in this world where Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/blog) or the Cato Institute (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/) don't exist?"

Ha! Yeah, you should DEFINITELY depend on the Cato Institute for information. What's it like living in a world where Penn Jillette is reasonable and intelligent?

"Have you guys even heard of ACORN, for instance, or their little scandal?"

You know, I thought the first one was irrelevant, but now I don't know what to call this. I should've saved the word non sequitur.

"And what do the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean to you?"

They are general terms to cover how a person leans in one direction or another; unfortunately, people like you tend to overly simplify things, so that anybody who thinks anything different than you is just mindlessly clinging to the two-party system, and "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is too complicated a term for you to grasp, so you boil it down to "conservative" and then say "But, hey, I also like liberal things sometimes!"

"I am for ... I am for .... I am for ... and against ... I am against ... I am for ... I think .... I'm an atheist. Am I a conservative?"

I always think it's hilarious when libertarians come somewhere, spout EXACTLY down the line what their party tells them is the "right" way to be, ignores how vague and undefined everything they say is, and then gets mad that people don't think they're a free thinker.

"I am for the free market"

And yet you don't want the insurance companies to have any competion? Weird.

"Or is that just a word you use to lump people in with George W. Bush in an effort to demonize human beings and avoid speaking about real issues?"

You haven't mentioned any real issues yet. You've just spouted stupid libertarian shit, which is a lot like stupid Green party shit except more selfish.

"it's a waste of time to argue with religious people. And government is so obviously the new religion."

I don't think you've spent even one second of your life trying to understand any point of view that isn't your own, and it makes you come off as stupid and ill-informed.

"Please don't use the postal service as an example of government efficiency."

You're right about this, but wrong about the reasoning. The USPS is a non-profit organization which entirely pays for itself with no funding from taxpayers.

"It is ILLEGAL for FedEx and UPS to drop letters in your mail box, therefore, the postal service has NO COMPETITION to their first class mail delivery."

That's one of the more specious things you've said in these two posts. I grant you that there are laws on the books regarding the USPS. But the idea that UPS and Fedex don't drop letters in your mailbox is just dumb.

Hey, here's an argument for you: it's so unfair, the USPS has a law on the books that they have the right of way over fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars! It doesn't matter that nobody with any common sense actually thinks that this law is ever enforced -- IT'S A LAW!!!

"On top of that, the postal service doesn't have to pay parking tickets or taxes."

You're complaining that the post office doesn't pay taxes? If they paid taxes, they would charge more money, effectively making it a postal tax on taxpayers. I can tell from everything you've said you would be 100% against that, yet you complain about the opposite was well. Almost as if you're one of those idiots who just loves to complain about government no matter what it does.

"You get to decide what is a company and what is not? Cool! Did you find the Cosmic Cube? What is the source of your godlike power?"

Sarcasm works better when you aren't blatantly misunderstanding the point to which you respond; he said we're not talking about companies, we're talking about people and their health (as opposed to, say, ice cream).

"And yet with this knowledge, you religiously look to the organization causing the problems to be your savior."

It's quite possible that, of all the specious points you make, none is more specious than lumping every single thing together under the term "government". USPS, state government, federal government, roads, police, etc., all of these things are not individual things which have pluses and minuses and work together and at odds with each other and things move slowly towards progress; NOPE! It's all government, and all government is bad.

Of course, since your starting position as a libertarian is that all government is bad, that tends to inform your entire position, and ruin your objectivity.

"Which could in 3-7 years be conceivably run by the most religiously conservative Republican administration you could imagine, elected in a backlash against this regime?"

That argument could be used against doing anything. Why bother to legalize drugs and hookers? Some Republican will just take over and tax them!

"Um, I'm still looking for the post where Mr. Massey's points were ripped to shreds. "

It was the ten or fifteen posts following his; of course, it helps to understand basic points and have an open mind, rather than starting from the position that all government is bad and everybody who isn't a selfish, stupid libertarian is wrong. [note: not all libertarians are stupid]

"David - all very valid points."

Sutter - you're far, far too kind. Not a single thing in either of his incredibly long posts has anything to do with the healthcare conversation that's going on in this country. It's ALL bullshit, about 99 and 44/100% pure.

comment #38

Gordon27 says ...

"And no one really talks about the bigger issue and consequences of conditioning a country to having its government make its moral decisions."

This is exactly the same argument that people used to say that the government shouldn't end segregation and slavery. You're coming from the position that all government is inherently bad; that's simply an incredibly immature position.

"I mention this to ask -- how many people are going to get truly upset by government doing something like this?"

Well, okay, I'm going to assume for the sake of this that you just described the incident accurately, even though you've yet to describe anything else accurately. Based on that assumption, obviously there are very few people who are going to agree with what happened.

But your problem is that you think of everything as "the government". Oh, the police did something bad -- well, that's the government. The "government" is not some monolithic entity; it's incredibly complicated, and filled with people who are acting at odds with each other. You can't judge "the government" by specific examples of behavior of low-level individuals employed by the government. You can't just lump a cop in with Obama and say "Yep, all government is bad, see what the cop did?" It's pure fallacy. The fact is, you keep repeatedly allowing your pre-conceived notion (all government is bad) to act as a confirmation bias. Yes, that cop did a bad thing. You know what another cop did? Saved a baby's life. You know what another cop did? Arrested a black guy for talking back. You know what another cop did? Arrested a crackhead who tried to mug an old black lady.

But, hey, anecdotal evidence is always great for emotional appeals. Not so much for logical ones, but you're obviously not much interested in logic.

comment #39

bfm says ...

All that stretching and healthy living and she's still only running neck and neck with the rest of them?

comment #40

DeeZee says ...

Josh: "When one company has to make a profit to survive, and one can operate at a loss and coast on taxpayer funding, what about "unfair" is so difficult to comprehend?"

But it's ok when Republicans rig the banks this way, right?

Colin: "How can FedEx and UPS exist with a government run entity(USPS)?"

Apparently, by violating labor laws... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fedex_ags_contractor_suit_5

David: "Anything beyond that, and you're speaking of assigning an entitlement to the money, services and time of others."

But it's ok when Halliburton and Blackwater feel entitled to rip off the American public?

"People don't have a "right" to health care just as they don't have a right to another person's car."

So what gives Republican politicians the right to have health care on our dime?

"What is it like to exist in a world where the only "conservative" viewpoints are a couple of talk show hosts on Fox News? "

I guess you forgot about the Today Show hiring Bush's daugher as a journalist, or Liz Cheney doing commentary for MSNBC. Oh, and the media coverage of tea-baggers over people who want the public option.

"I am for the free market and against government health care."

Of course, the irony is that the free market has opted to go to other countries where there is government health care.

" It is ILLEGAL for FedEx and UPS to drop letters in your mail box, therefore, the postal service has NO COMPETITION to their first class mail delivery. "

They've delivered to my apartment on time, actually, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, to be honest. Personally, I'm still wondering how UPS can stay in business with those gas-guzzling trucks. Nor do I understand why they need 'em, if USPS can deliver the same mail in those compact vans.

"With all of the competitive advantages they have, they should be flourishing instead of cutting days of service in an effort to survive."

They should, but the less taxes thing means they had to lay off workers.

"Please don't use the postal service as an example of government efficiency."

I've had a 97-98% success rate with my mail, so I'm not sure why that isn't efficient.

"Yes, because government gives tax benefits to employers that it does not extend to individuals, thus individuals are stuck with their employer's insurance plan."

So you're saying you're against people running small businesses getting breaks?

"And government prohibits you from buying health insurance across state lines, limiting competition."

If you have to go to another state to get better insurance, then it's not very competitive in the first place.

"And when you can only buy insurance within your state, your state politicians can pay off its health insurance companies by passing legislation (under the guise of giving you a "bill of rights") requiring you to pay for insurance for things like hair transplants and gastric bypass surgery, which you will probably never use and is pure profit for your insurance company."

So it's better that someone who needs bypass surgery should be denied?

"And so you support a government collective? Which could in 3-7 years be conceivably run by the most religiously conservative Republican administration you could imagine, elected in a backlash against this regime? "

I love the irony of that argument, when insurance companies are aready rigging the system to make women pay more for birth control and family planning.

"but I don't think that we gain transparency in health policies by handing control to government."

The fact that people with socialized medicine have better life expectancies than us sounds fairly transparent to me...

"And no one really talks about the bigger issue and consequences of conditioning a country to having its government make its moral decisions."

Your side seemed to think it was ok with the Iraq War and Terry Schiavo...

"How many people are upset that the governor of Texas is doing his best to upset an investigation into whether a man who was executed for the deaths of his children was innocent (in the face of overwhelming evidence that the executed man did not commit the crime)? "

Hey, we tried to get rid of the death penalty, once, and your side said it's better to be safe from crime than it was to guarantee a fair trial.

comment #41

Gordon27 says ...

David - just so you understand, DZ is exactly the kind of idiot on the left that you're complaining that all people on the left are. So I'm sure that, like most conservatives (ha! just fuckin' with ya), you're going to cherry pick a few things that idiot said, disprove them because they're stupid and easily disproven, and then walk away feeling good about how you won the debate.

comment #42

SpinDozer says ...

'If Heather Graham had performed tantric sex the last time she was on TV, I obviously would have mentioned that...'

HG performed a tarot reading the last time she was on TV, that's why you mentioned that?

comment #43

Josh Massey says ...

David: Thanks for saying what I didn't have the patience to (and better than I could have, at that). Of course, for your trouble, you get Gordon to so blatantly misrepresent/misunderstand your points that it has to be willful.

comment #44

poseidon72 says ...

DAvid- QUESTION-what do you do if you have a prior condition (even minor) and no insurance co will sell you insurance? How do you answer that?

comment #45

SpinDozer says ...

[note: not all libertarians are stupid]

Please explain{!}. If not now, some day. I mean it.

comment #46

Gordon27 says ...

"Of course, for your trouble, you get Gordon to so blatantly misrepresent/misunderstand your points that it has to be willful."

So now you have the two of you guys, neither of you actually making a point, but both of you agreeing that everybody else is misunderstanding your points. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?!

comment #47

frankbooth says ...

Gordon, thanks for for saying what I didn't have the patience to (and better than I could have at that)...

comment #48

Gordon27 says ...

"Please explain{!}. If not now, some day. I mean it."

Spin - similar to something David said above, government is not the new religion, but politics is quickly becoming very very similar to religion. Much like religion, most people who follow a given party -- even the third-parties -- are definitely stupid. This is because most people, period, are stupid. Some people, smart or stupid, deliberately keep themselves ignorant and maintain that their side is the only correct one, but base their understandings on other sides on what their leaders tell them. The end result of this is stupidity which is indistinguishable from the genuinely stupid people.

However, again like religion, all political parties have lesser believers; people who vote the ticket because they agree with the general principle -- "Hey, Jesus, he was a good guy" -- but don't follow the actual strict tenets all the way down the line -- like, for instance, believing that, because free-market capitalism is good, that the free market should be applied to all things, even when it's been repeatedly proven to fail at them.

So, yes, not all libertarians are stupid. But anybody who parrots everything their political party says is.

comment #49

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

So...uh...how 'bout that Roller Girl?

I hear she's hot, or something.

comment #50

Gordon27 says ...

"Gordon, thanks for for saying what I didn't have the patience to (and better than I could have at that)..."

Cheers, man. I've been training temps all day, so my Internet time was severely restricted, and I came to this site about a half hour ago to unwind a little bit. Didn't mean to go on like that, but, my god, he made so many bad points in there, it was tough to stop once I got going. Kind of like DZ that way, but, to his credit, he genuinely seems to have intellectual consistency.

comment #51

David says ...

"Oh, I get it. You're, what, 22? You were raised Republican, but then had a big revelation and became a libertarian, and now you bitch and moan about how unfair it is that the libertarian party isn't getting enough."

Um, no, I'm 32 with a birthday just around the corner, but thanks for trying to make age an issue. You attack that imaginary 22 year-old messenger, get him good. I wasn't "raised Republican" or raised anything politically, I made all those decisions on my own. It seemed insane to me even as a little kid that you would lock someone up for a victimless "crime" like taking drugs. When I discovered libertarianism the only "revelation" was the comfort of knowing and reading like-minded people (who still don't always agree on everything).

Well, I honestly don't have the time to sit here and write all night in response, but guys, let's all get together at the next anti-war rally and have a picnic.

comment #52

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

He doesn't have time to "write all night," so he'll just respond to the one sentence that requires absolutely no perspective on the actual issues being discussed.

comment #53

KRush says ...

Oy, so much with the bloviating and posturing. Health care is broken, yes. But representing Heather Graham as the Public Option is a joke. Deal with the federal government for awhile and insurance companies will look fantastic by comparison. That, plus at some point the Chinese won't buy our bonds anymore to service our massive, MASSIVE debts, and then it's a barter economy boys. Load up on your goats and chickens.

comment #54

David says ...

"DAvid- QUESTION-what do you do if you have a prior condition (even minor) and no insurance co will sell you insurance? How do you answer that?"

Insurance is not pre-payment for medical services. If your car crashes you don't then call up the insurance company and sign up for a policy. But I am all for emergency medical funds, especially those that are donated to voluntarily. They can be run by the government, although I'd prefer they were run by hospitals, charities, communities, etc.

In fact, in our Facebook-Twitter-social media world, it seems ridiculous we haven't set up the kind of systems that would allow hospitals to publicize alerts when patients arrive who need financial assistance. A guy checks in to a hospital, needs a surgery to stay alive, why not have a system where you can send out a tweet certified by the hospital or health care provider requesting assistance? The patient's information could be listed in the request as openly or anonymously as they would personally choose. If something like this exists, let me know, because I would sign up and donate what I could. I'm not sure why we're afraid to try new things and tap into the generosity of our neighbors and communities first, rather than hand control immediately over to the government.

comment #55

mccool says ...

massey, you're wasting your breath. The concerned citizens here dont want to listen to ideas that simply expand coverage and reduce healthcare costs ... they are interested only in ideas that punish and condemn to hell anyone associated with the insurance or pharmaceutical industries, and if we expand coverage and reduce costs in the process, well then zippity doo da. That's where people like Wells and the shouters here are coming from. It's not about compassion for their fellow man, it's about punishment and retribution and justice and balancing the force.

comment #56

Gordon27 says ...

"Um, no, I'm 32 with a birthday just around the corner, but thanks for trying to make age an issue."

Wow, you even manage to misrepresent the simplest point I made; I wasn't trying to make age an issue, I was pointing out that your viewpoint is incredibly immature and trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

"I wasn't "raised Republican" or raised anything politically"

Okay, fair enough; so you're the guy who came upon religion later in life and compensated for his early years by thoroughly embracing all the tenets of the religion you discovered, even the ones that contradict the other ones. It's funny when you correct the things that are giving you the benefit of the doubt and make yourself look worse.

"It seemed insane to me even as a little kid that you would lock someone up for a victimless "crime" like taking drugs."

It's good to bring up your more sane and accepted beliefs, but it doesn't make the ones that don't make sense make more sense... the only time drugs will factor into a conversation about healthcare is going to be when conservatives start to claim (presumably falsely) that Obama's plan will pay for medical marijuana.

"Insurance is not pre-payment for medical services."

Wow. I mean, yes, this statement is true, but it's a great dodge for the actual question. Let's break it down:
"Here's an example of how the current system is broken, can you respond to that?"
"Yes, my response is that the current system is the way it is." And your car analogy is specious, because if you get into an accident and don't have insurance, you will be arrested for driving without insurance and sued by the other driver. If you have a medical condition and don't have insurance, you can't get arrested or sued. You'll just go broke and die, that's all.

"In fact, in our Facebook-Twitter-social media world, it seems ridiculous we haven't set up the kind of systems that would allow hospitals to publicize alerts when patients arrive who need financial assistance."

As I said above, I give you some credit for intellectual consistency. That said, you have offered the only medical plan I've heard yet that's worse than what we have now. Your plan is, basically, that there is no reason why insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to make as much profit as they can milk out of sick people who require their procedures and products to live, doesn't address the FACT that insurance companies deliberately deny people coverage they're entitled to in order to make more profit, and puts the burden of payment squarely on overly generous individuals rather than fairly and evenly distributing the cost to everybody.

"I'm not sure why we're afraid to try new things and tap into the generosity of our neighbors and communities first, rather than hand control immediately over to the government."

Depending on generosity of other people is not new; that's exactly what millions of Americans have to depend on when they either get sick without insurance or get sick and their insurance companies deny them coverage. The results have been that over 60% of bankruptcies are caused by medical problems, and almost 50% of all bankruptcies are caused by medical problems people who have insurance.

On the other hand, letting the government try its hand at healthcare would be new, in this country. Not in other countries, I grant you, but, of course, the countries who have publicly funded healthcare have healthcare which is both better and significantly cheaper. Your plan completely ignores the vital issue of the insane cost of healthcare because, hey, it's a free market, so it costs what it costs, but maybe somebody out there has a spare $30,000 to pay for the drugs I need during chemotherapy. Then I just need somebody else who can chip in for the actual chemotherapy.

If you're willing to voluntarily donate money to people, but you're not willing to do it if you're forced to, you're getting WAAAAAAY too hung up on your own political theory. Nobody enjoys the idea of the government forcing them to do things, but you've already said you're willing to do the thing they're proposing to force you to do, so your sole beef is that they're telling you that you have to do what you already want to do, which makes you not want to do it.

I know *you* can't, but most people here can easily see why I confused you with an immature 22 year old when you engage in "logic" like that.

comment #57

Uncle Milty says ...

McCool,

Please, just stop typing. Bad things happen with every keystroke.

"It's not about compassion for their fellow man, it's about punishment and retribution and justice and balancing the force. "

That's funny. It reminds me of something. Something to do with the Iraq war, the reasons behind it, and then the REAL reasons behind it.

comment #58

Gordon27 says ...

"The concerned citizens here dont want to listen to ideas that simply expand coverage and reduce healthcare costs"

ha! Hilarious. Yes, people are dismissing "tort reform" as a viable option to reduce healthcare costs because they just want to punish insurance companies. It has nothing to do with the fact, as stated above, that it would result in, at best, a 1% reduction in cost. And people are dismissing the idea of buying insurance from other states as a solution, and it's strictly for the reasons you said. Of course, as one of those guys who "just wants to punish insurance companies", I'm really curious how giving the same companies more potential customers would make them want to voluntarily reduce their own profits -- but, you know how we all just spout things other people have said and hate the government, er, sorry, I mean the insurance companies, mindlessly without further thought...

And what was the other one? Oh, right, individual policies. I'm not sure what planet Josh Massey lives on, but on the planet earth, when employees of a company have to spend time with a client tailoring a plan to their individual needs, the company charges people for those manhours, and for all the manhours of all the people who have to learn all of the specific details of all of the millions of individual plans, and all of those manhours drive costs of the services up. So I have to believe even you can't think of that as one of Josh's better proposals.

comment #59

M. Hulot says ...

Yet, you didn't answer his question STILL, you tool.

What if you had a preexistong condition RIGHT NOW and were given 6 months to live UNLESS you already had insurance, which would jane saved your life? What then, David? What does your libertarian handbook tell u to do then?

And Gordon dismantled both you and that limp-dicked mouth-breathng ignoramus, Massey, too.

Of course you can't see that, David, you too wrapped up in your Ayn Randian callousness and blinded by the religion known as Libertarianism

comment #60

Gordon27 says ...

"What if you had a preexistong condition RIGHT NOW and were given 6 months to live UNLESS you already had insurance, which would jane saved your life?"

This question is unfair; it presumes that the insurance company would actually pay your claim.

comment #61

David says ...

M. Hulot - Why are you calling someone an "ignoramus" in the same post where you wrote the words "which would jane saved your life?" Who is Jane?

I'm not sure how to answer your question when it begins with the questionable premise that someone will die in six months if they don't have insurance. Does the insurance come in pill form, or maybe an ointment? Will the ointment be applied by this Jane character you speak of?

Why don't we pretend that we're all speaking face to face rather than hiding anonymously behind keyboards, and maybe try to treat each other like human beings.

comment #62

Gordon27 says ...

"Does the insurance come in pill form, or maybe an ointment?"

Man, this is the most entertaining thread ever.

Paging Doctor Pedantic, Doctor Pedantic to the front desk. Doctor, thank god you're here -- somebody just made a really good point about how under the current system, insurance is the only option with is even remotely viable to pay for the incredible cost of healthcare profiteering. How can I respond to this point without giving up any ground in my argument?

Well, it's quite simple; just respond to the wording of it and point out that insurance itself is not the thing that's going to save his life. You could even bring up the point that, even with the money, there's no guarantee that the procedure would save your life, but that's a losing argument, and, on top of that, would require actually responding to the issue itself, if not the question. So, stick with the "responding to the wording rather than the points" argument.

Thank you, Doctor Pedantic! You're a lifesaver!

comment #63

Gordon27 says ...

"Why don't we pretend that we're all speaking face to face rather than hiding anonymously behind keyboards, and maybe try to treat each other like human beings."

One of the worst things the media has done in the last decade is propogate the belief that all ideas are equally valid, and that all viewpoints should be treated with respect and not retorted or responded to. If you want your ideas to be respected, have better ideas. The few you've actually expressed aren't working, you should send them back to the Cato Institute for scrap metal.

comment #64

M. Hulot says ...

Sorry about the typo's, David. Perhaps I will type this next question properly.

The Cato Institute is a "free" market supporting organization as well as one that uses discredited scientists to write "papers" attempting to debunk global warming (a serious human health crises if there ever was one). So let me ask you (because this will more fairly devise whether or not you are as much as ignoramus as you appear), do you deny the existence of Global Warming, too?

comment #65

M. Hulot says ...

Oh, and one more thing, Davey.

Since you are such a free marketeer, does that mean I call hold you partly responsible for creating the financial crises, too?

I'd love to fond some specific free-market capitalist to beat with a baseball bat in lieu of not being able to beat any of the bankers since they are so well-guarded. Oh wait, let me guess, you don't believe that less regulation caused this mess! Of course! Unregulated, unchecked, free wheeling, free market greedheads (some of whom are dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians, had nothing to do with creating this disaster. Nothing at all. Of course!

comment #66

Gordon27 says ...

M. Hulot - it's really basic logic. The government is bad. The banking crisis is bad. Therefore, either the government caused the banking crisis, or the banking crisis is a part of the government.

Just remember, you can also make bridges out of stone.

comment #67

Gordon27 says ...

BTW, Hulot, I'm not trying to come down on you in any way at all, but, strictly out of curiosity, what was that typo meant to say? I only ask because I thought it over for a few minutes and can't quite decipher what word(s) you replaced with "jane". It has no bearing on anything; pure curiosity, because I like to think I'm a smart guy [that's a lob, straight over the plate, for David (et al)], and I'm not getting what the intent was. I'm racking my brain for words that would fit that sentence that sound like jane, and I got nothin'.

(But any fan of 'Playtime' can make all the typos he wants in my book.)

comment #68

MAGGA says ...

As much as I like america and would like to move there to work in the industry etc, the fact that you guys have to pay for health care blows my mind. I know we all pay for it in terms of taxes and what have you, but the notion of having to decide whether to get a test, an operation or anything of the sort seems to be a true stab at human dignity. A public option seems like a worst-case scenario, and as much as we all love Obama (I'm from the country that will give him the Nobel Prize, as much as most of the population is befuddled by that decision) it seems absurd to think that a relatively humanist society can have the health of its population as one sixth of the GNP. This is immoral in all senses of the word, and what is seen as radical on this front is nothing compared to other civilised societies. There's a 9-11 every month because of un-ensured people, and just because the deaths aren't on tv or visually dramatic doesn't change the fact that this would save more American lives than any war or other anti-terrorist measure. Truly despicable, and the Dems are real cowards for compromising before the debate even began. There really are no words to describe the lunacy of the American health-care system.

comment #69

M. Hulot says ...

I meant to say, "which would then save your life". Damn iPhone autocorrect feature! Yeah, Playtime is great. Hulot would have definitely been for the public option. As would Tati.

comment #70

M. Hulot says ...

PS. Gordon

If u really like Tati, google Tativille. It's extraordinary. One of the best sites celebrating the life of any filmmaker, ever.

comment #71

mccool says ...

McCool,

Please, just stop typing. Bad things happen with every keystroke.

"It's not about compassion for their fellow man, it's about punishment and retribution and justice and balancing the force. "

That's funny. It reminds me of something. Something to do with the Iraq war, the reasons behind it, and then the REAL reasons behind it.

Greetings to you too. Normally an introduction is appropriate before bearing one's ugly side, but why worry about such formalities and frivolities?

Yes, Milty, good comparison. The haste with which someone proposing an alternative to government-run healthcare gets called a corporate shill reminds me very much of the bullying cries of anti-patriotism that met opponents of the Iraq War. Very astute. Well done, sir.

comment #72

Gordon27 says ...

Ah, see, I was looking for something that you could've conceivably mistyped; I forgot the autocorrect factor, which seems to be becoming more and more prevalent these days.

I'll check the site out. I'm actually embarrassed at how few of his films I've seen; a few years back, I rented 'Playtime' from Netflix (I can't remember the reason, but it was at least partially because of the insane array of people singing his praises, from Gilliam to Spielberg to P.T. Anderson, and maybe I heard somebody comparing it to Kubrick + Chaplin, which is an intriguing pair), and it was absolutely one of the best movies I've seen since becoming an adult. I sometimes think that I don't enjoy movies as much as I did when I was younger, but then I see a movie like 'Playtime' and say, "Nah, it's the movies that got bad, because I can still fall head over heels in love with a movie if it's amazing."

So I love it that much, and the guy only has but six or seven movies, and I still haven't sat and watched them all.

Anyway, this is all side-tracking from the side-tracking, and I think I'm gonna go to bed. Hopefully, tomorrow, the temps will be a bit more self-sufficient and I will have time to check into the Internet throughout the day and not have so much pent-up Internetery [without an I-phone, I can feel free to make up words] when I get home...

comment #73

mccool says ...

I'll try that again with proper syntax....

McCool,

Please, just stop typing. Bad things happen with every keystroke.

"It's not about compassion for their fellow man, it's about punishment and retribution and justice and balancing the force. "

That's funny. It reminds me of something. Something to do with the Iraq war, the reasons behind it, and then the REAL reasons behind it.

Greetings to you too. Normally an introduction is appropriate before bearing one's ugly side, but why worry about such formalities and frivolities?

Yes, Milty, good comparison. The haste with which someone proposing an alternative to government-run healthcare gets called a corporate shill reminds me very much of the bullying cries of anti-patriotism that met opponents of the Iraq War. Very astute. Well done, sir.

comment #74

mccool says ...

Third time's a charm....

McCool,

Please, just stop typing. Bad things happen with every keystroke.

"It's not about compassion for their fellow man, it's about punishment and retribution and justice and balancing the force. "

That's funny. It reminds me of something. Something to do with the Iraq war, the reasons behind it, and then the REAL reasons behind it.

Greetings to you too. Normally an introduction is appropriate before bearing one's ugly side, but why worry about such formalities and frivolities?

Yes, Milty, good comparison. The haste with which someone proposing an alternative to government-run healthcare gets called a corporate shill reminds me very much of the bullying cries of anti-patriotism that met opponents of the Iraq War. Very astute. Well done, sir.

comment #75

Gordon27 says ...

"Yes, Milty, good comparison. The haste with which someone proposing an alternative to government-run healthcare gets called a corporate shill reminds me very much of the bullying cries of anti-patriotism that met opponents of the Iraq War. Very astute. Well done, sir."

Hey, McCool - that was pretty funny. (And not the way that I'm laughing *at* David.) I mean it; Milt may have left himself open, but that was still a really good one.

I'm worried you won't think I'm sincere. But if I were trying to criticize or insult you, I think it's fairly self-evidence this post would be significantly longer.

comment #76

Gordon27 says ...

Okay, i mean, look, it was genuinely funny the first time, but but come on. Don't beat it into the ground.

comment #77

David says ...

"I'd love to fond some specific free-market capitalist to beat with a baseball bat"

Wow. I think that says it all.

comment #78

M. Hulot says ...

Mccool,

Bullying cries of anti-patriotism? Really? Do us all a favor and go shovel that shit at Breitbart.

Citizens questioning then rallying against a war-particularly one which came to fruition based on a body of lies-couldn't be more patriotic.

Our country was founded upon the virtues of dissent and protest
You're not very bright, are you?

comment #79

Gordon27 says ...

""I'd love to fond some specific free-market capitalist to beat with a baseball bat"

Wow. I think that says it all."

Meaning that rather than respond to *any* points anybody will make, or rather than making points *any* of your own, you'll just pull things out of context and, even then, have nothing to actually say?

Yep, you nailed it in only seven words.

You should try to get more ideas from the Cato Institute. Then at least you'd have ideas.

comment #80

frankbooth says ...

MAGGA,

Wait, you mean you're happy with your health care? Despite the rationing and lines and the primitive equipment in your hospitals and the fact that you all endure such horrible quality of life because you have nothing left to live on after paying taxes?

It's a nightmare over there, right?

And now I'm off to Tativille.

comment #81

Uncle Milty says ...

"Yes, Milty, good comparison. The haste with which someone proposing an alternative to government-run healthcare gets called a corporate shill reminds me very much of the bullying cries of anti-patriotism that met opponents of the Iraq War. Very astute. Well done, sir."

Except that in this case the label fits. That's the difference. You are anti-human if you give half a shit about the insurance companies and the fairness of a public option.

Were each of your three attempts at making that joke the same? Did it really take you three attempts to word that properly? Without reading all three, what exactly was the problem? Are you really that fucking stupid?

comment #82

joncro says ...

Mein gott what have i started?
Gordon27 you said it better than i ever could, thanks.
You too Magga.

comment #83

DeeZee says ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_hl951 All I have to say is in there.

comment #84

plastiqueelephant says ...

I'm 100% for the public option, but I'm with Josh Massey on the sole point that I think tort reform is something that the Dems should have on their agenda if they had any integrity and desperately wish they would get out of the thumb of the trial lawyers on this one. My father is a doctor and a damned good one. He works 15 odd hours a day and his office is a daily receiving centre for the thank you goods which flood in for all the lives he's saved. For a while last year he was also in danger of losing his medical license for a single mistake he made in very difficult circumstances. The simple fact is that doctors often have hundreds of patients and do their darn best to see everything and remember a huge amount of information. I don't believe patients should EVER have the right to sue their doctors. If a doctor is negligent they should suffer sanctions from the appropriate body but litigation from medical malpractice is a major driver in increasing health costs. The idea that a family should receive money for a human error to me is insane. I make a glaring error every time I direct despite the fact that I bleed for my job and there's nothing I care more about. In my case we can usually fix it in post or worst case scenario with a reshoot. The idea that I would be sued as a monster for my error is quite horrifying.

comment #85

Floyd Thursby says ...

Go, Phillies. Destroy the Evil Empire.

comment #86

Josh Massey says ...

Careful, Plastique - don't bring reason and real-life experience into this. The band of Anonymous Internet Tough Guys will quote some statistic they read in the comments section of Huffington Post, call you limp-dicked, and then crow about ripping you to shreds. I'm still rattled from their vicious cyber-berating.

Seriously, though, do you know how much your father pays annually for malpractice insurance?

comment #87

Gordon27 says ...

"I don't believe patients should EVER have the right to sue their doctors. If a doctor is negligent they should suffer sanctions from the appropriate body but litigation from medical malpractice is a major driver in increasing health costs."

Listen, I feel where you're coming from -- though you should know that, factually speaking, eliminating medical malpractice litigation would reduce health costs by about 1% or so. I mean, that's just the facts. But that doesn't really matter, because your whole belief is that the suing should happen period, from what seems to be more of an ethical standpoint as opposed to a strictly financial one. Obviously, I can't sway you from your own opinion and ethics, but I can state my own; personally speaking, I think that there are too many lawsuits in a general sort of way in this country, in no way limited to medical malpractice. But I think that your proposed solution would be going too far in the opposite direction, because it doesn't address the actual problem. Not speaking of your father, since I don't know any specifics regarding that anecdote and feel no need to target him (though I would like to ask, if you're against financial retribution and you're against the possibility of a medical license being revoked, what sort of penalties are supposed to be enforced?), the facts regarding medical malpractice are that most doctors who are found liable for malpractice are found liable more than once. Much like churches shifting molesting priests around, hospitals will try their best to keep doctors unless they committ the most flagrant sorts of malpractice, like performing surgery while drunk (even then, you have to do something wrong in the surgery). If there were better paths to eliminate medical malpractice on the hospitals' side, I'd be more likely to support some form of tort reform as well but, at the same time, I can't really understand saying to somebody, "Hey, you accidentally got paralyzed because your doctor slipped suring surgery. You're going to spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair. Unfortunately, you can only receive a settlement of up to $10,000 to cover the lifelong loss of your legs.

I mean, something like that seems far wronger to me than doctors having to pay for malpractice insurance.

"The idea that I would be sued as a monster for my error is quite horrifying."

Well, see, I see some significant difference between a shot where the leg of a light stand sneaks in at the edge of a frame and a doctor committing malpractice. The thing is, the term "malpractice" is so big, it covers a lot of ground. In general, though, doctors have a lot of power in a situation; most patients take them as an authority on medical matters, and will listen to what they say. It's the sort of thing where a doctor needs motivation to be extremely careful, make sure the patient is fully informed, and all sorts of other stuff that falls under the umbrella of "medical malpractice" if they don't do it. There's only one director I'm aware of who committed a lapse in judgement that would be comprable to high-end medical malpractice, and his name's John Landis, and I 100% believe he deserved to be sued, as he was, successfully. [Er, that's the 'Twilight Zone' lawsuit; I'm a little less informed regarding the 'Coming to America' lawsuit.]

comment #88

Gordon27 says ...

"suing should happen period"

From context, it should be obvious I mean "should not".

comment #89

mccool says ...

Mccool,

Bullying cries of anti-patriotism? Really? Do us all a favor and go shovel that shit at Breitbart.

Citizens questioning then rallying against a war-particularly one which came to fruition based on a body of lies-couldn't be more patriotic.

Our country was founded upon the virtues of dissent and protest
You're not very bright, are you?

Genius, I'm taking the leftist stance on this. Reread. Gordon picked up on it quite easily. You were saying something about not being very bright??

xcept that in this case the label fits. That's the difference. You are anti-human if you give half a shit about the insurance companies and the fairness of a public option.

Were each of your three attempts at making that joke the same? Did it really take you three attempts to word that properly? Without reading all three, what exactly was the problem? Are you really that fucking stupid?

Issues were html related ---

Who said anything about being PRO insurance? If you;ve been around longer than this thread, you'd know I believe in every American being covered in some form. That I don't believe the US Government is the best administrator of this has nothing to do with compassion or humanity, it has to do with mistrust of an entity that has repeatedly proven itself incompetent and inefficient.

You're a disgrace. A foaming, spitting mad man.

comment #90

George Prager says ...

"I don't believe patients should EVER have the right to sue their doctors."

plastiqueelephant: spoiled rich kid.

I'm sure his father (the one with the real-life experience) doesn't believe that.

comment #91

Gordon27 says ...

I have to admit, George, it's a pretty funny argument to say "I think medical malpractice is bad because my father is a doctor and he's really good and really cares and he just made one mistake and he DIDN'T lose his license."

Wouldn't that be evidence that the system, regarding malpractice, is working?

comment #92

plastiqueelephant says ...

Gordon 27, fair enough if it really is only 1% of costs. My understanding (from speaking to doctor friends/family friends) is that because medical malpractice not only impacts the direct costs of insurance (about $40K per year for his single practice) but also indirectly because the fear many doctors of having sued leads to a major, systematic increase in the number of tests, treatments which they prescribe to cover their ass. As I'm sure you know this is particularly prevalent in OBGYN which is a cost ever child bearing family wears (usually multiple times).

I just think that switching to a more of a public disability support system (as in Australia, UK, pretty much every 1st world nation) means people can get financial and other disability support instead of a payday. My best friend became a quadriplegic in a terrible accident and the Australian system did him well, helped him put a life back together better than a million bucks ever would have. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but the American litigation culture rubs me as pretty coarse.

Maybe I wasn't clear but I do think that it is quite appropriate for doctors to lose their licenses for clear or repeated negligence. This is obviously a pretty huge stick given the consequences to most doctor's lives. In my father's specific case after 3 years it was ruled to be a medical error which was not his fault by the tribunal (the patient was geriatric and severely mentally impaired and unable to convey the pain details). My point was that even if it had been his (inadvertent) mistake, I don't think he should be sued because I believe that's an unreasonable burden which (I think) also causes the cost escalations I outlined before.

Prager, go fuck yourself you toxic cunt. My father (who spoiled me so much I put myself through college because he believed higher education was my responsibility) does happen to agree with me on this point. The stupid thing is that I support the Pelosi strain of healthcare reform except for this one issue which I put out for discussion and to which you responded to with a Glenn Beck level response. It's people like you which infect the political climate unlike Gordon who actually engage the fucking issues.

comment #93

plastiqueelephant says ...

George 27: Just went to do a little research and not that the President of Johns Hopkins is exactly an impartial commentator but in a 2004 Washington Post editorial estimated that in 2003 malpractice costs equalled $US16-32B (2%) with the indirect costs of defensive medicine I mentioned being in the range $50-100B annually. That means it was up to $130B in 2004 and imagine it's climbed significantly in the last 5 years. This money could be put towards the costs of the new system. In addition, he highlighted a study which found 80% of suits involved zero doctor error (even when juries made awards and 9/10 actual medical errors go uncompensated making this system more a lottery than a system of real justice .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46795-2004Nov12

Perhaps, you should be a little more wary of closing down issues with "the facts". This is all exceeding complex and even the numbers need to be tackled multiple ways both to take this once in a lifetime opportunity and avoid unintended consequences.

comment #94

Gordon27 says ...

PE - I want to say first that I'm sorry I don't have as much time right now as previously, so I can't do a huge point by point on this as above. If I have a chance at some point today, I might respond more than this. However, I'm going to throw out a little food for thought...

I've heard variations on the statistic you quote for a while now -- the "defensive medicine" one. And, when that statistic is presented in a vacuum, yes, it sounds fairly damning. However, there's at least one glaring problem that I can see. It doesn't exist in a vacuum in real life. In real life, it exists on a spectrum. Other entries on that spectrum include: "Doctor thought a procedure would be unneccessary, but did it defensively and wound up saving the patient's life" and "Doctor thought the procedure would be unneccessary, didn't do it, and then the patient died". Without those statistics to provide some context, the statistic you're providing is somewhat meaningless. But, of course, those statistics are much more difficult to get, because the medical community is much more reluctant to release that information, because it would reflect poorly on them, whereas the medical community in this country would really really like to eliminate the possibility of being sued for medical malpractice. That statistic would only mean something if doctors were perfect, and I think we all agree that's not the case.

I understand where you're coming from, but the way that hospitals push for that legislation always reminds me of the 'South Park' episode where the Catholic priests have a meeting and say, "You know, there have been a lot of reports lately of priests molesting children. We've got to figure out some way to stop these kids from talking." There's an interesting article floating around the web somewhere about how people see a problem and, depending on their place on the political spectrum, the questions they ask inform the solutions that they propose. It provided numerous examples of conservatives' solutions to problems being to eliminate the report or to change the definition of the word so that the problem disappeared, but I honestly think that aspect was biased, and that the truth is both sides obfuscate in very similar ways. I'll see if I can track it down if you're interested.

But, anyway, I got sidetracked there.

"Maybe it's a cultural thing, but the American litigation culture rubs me as pretty coarse."

I think the system you're proposing would rub the majority of Americans as "socialism", but I don't think it's neccessarily a bad idea. However, turning it around, how flagrant a mistake would a doctor have to make before you would think it was his personal responsibility, rather than the responsibility of everybody? Also, i"m not familiar with the system to which you refer, so, under that, what happens if a doctor kills a patient?

Anyway, maybe I will be able to respond more (though I got more in than I meant to), but my basic point is, I personally would rather have doctors perform tests they feel are unneccessary unless it can be proven that 100% of the tests that doctors believe are unneccessary actually are. Because, until that's at 100%, you're talking about wasting some money on the one hand and people dying on the other.

comment #95

Gordon27 says ...

Oh, I forgot...

"Perhaps, you should be a little more wary of closing down issues with "the facts". This is all exceeding complex and even the numbers need to be tackled multiple ways both to take this once in a lifetime opportunity and avoid unintended consequences."

I think I would feel properly chastised if I heard this in your accent ;)

The thing is, because we're all human, it's impossible to avoid unintended consequences. Obviously we don't want them. But, let me turn that one around -- by your reasoning, doctors are more likely to do tests to avoid the unintended consequence of being sued rather than performing tests to avoid the unintended consequence of letting the patient die because they don't know (or are wrong about) what's wrong with them. Unfortunately, I think this is true, because that's human nature -- at the end of the day, I'm concerned with my own well-being first and foremost no matter how much empathy I have. But as long as this is true, it seems like medical malpractice lawsuits are performing a service, by making sure the doctor is paying a bit more attention and running some tests that he doesn't think are neccessary but could wind up saving a life.

comment #96

plastiqueelephant says ...

Gordon: you're right, the system I prefer would probably rub Americans as socialism. In Northern Europe many countries use a non-adversarial system using medically qualified administrative courts where the doctors actually help the patients file claims in case of medical error. This eliminates both the doctor burden but also is much more just by removing the lottery aspect of awards and just to low-income people without access to legal avenues.

On your turn around, the question is one of scale (the answer to which neither of us seems to know). If it really is "a few extra tests" you're surely right but that doesn't seem to the case from the data I've seen or the discussions I've had. After my last message I found estimates as high as 9% of total healthcare spent on this sort of defensive medicine. In addition, the 3% of healthcare estimated from doctor error is compounded because doctors are fearful of discussing mistakes as teaching tools because of the legal ramifications.

On your central point that "I personally would rather have doctors perform tests they feel are unneccessary unless it can be proven that 100% of the tests that doctors believe are unneccessary actually are" perhaps again we just sit on opposing sides of a cultural divide. I just don't. I trust my doctors and never get them to waste money on the pot shots. I take care of my health, I exercise daily and eat well but if it's my time to die I'll die (I've had one close run before and felt both at peace with it and then happy to make it through). Maybe it's my Asian ethnic background but this relatively recent phenomenon of holding on to life with your fingernails no matter what the cost strikes me as unfortunate. I actually think the "Obama death panels" would have been actually a step in the right direction. Many geriatric and terminal patients would be (by any rational counselor) advised to accept palliative care than submit to further futile surgical procedures which will, even if successful lead to a horribly reduced quality of life. It's a shame Republicans were able to paint this as inhumane when it was actually the opposite.

Finally, in term of your catholic analogy... the reality is that up 100,000 people a year die because of medical error just in hospitals. To put that in perspective there are only 800,000 doctors. If 1/8 doctors is "killing someone" each year, and they're amongst the best, brightest and hardest working in our society should we not accept that a punitive system is borderline insane? Surely there's a more holistic way of dealing with this than through litigation.