mattp

Fairweather, I have been very clear about what I am for and I provide a basis for my ideas. You, on the other hand, have been obsessed with the label "socialism" but refuse to suggest anything concrete about what would, could, might, or should be better and refuse to back up your assetions. Even your pal KK says something more substantive than you do when he complains of malpractice lawsuits, though I'm not sure what that issue has to do with this discussion.

Those are my words, Fairweather. Now: how do they answer any of the questions we are discussing here on THIS PAGE? Yes, I tend to think that our best answer lies in MORE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT. I don't know how it would could or should work. But where have you shown that government run healthcare is inherently worse? Where have I said that the only changes I would accept would be government run facilities only? Where DO you get your information that you refuse to support?

Question about the "medical malpractice crisis." How does this relate to a discussion of whether universal healthcare is a good idea, or whether broader coverage of any kind and combination of public and private sector services would be worth pursuing?

Nope. I pay my taxes without complaining about it and I pay for my own healthcare insurance plus deductibles, co-pays and uncovered services. I pay enough for myself AND a few others, in fact.

Show me where JayB answered these questions for you.

So spewing unfounded assertions with no apparent basis in fact and refusing to even provide any reference or source when questioned is real discussion? Feel free to post any "real discussion" about how government healthcare in America today is inherently and systemically worse than private. Explain where you got the idea that all proposals for healthcare reform that would draw the support of Democrats or someone like myself would have all healthcare delivered in government run facilities and provided by government employees. Show us where you got the idea that people who go bankrupt over medical expenses actually deserved it because they "chose" not to insure themselves.

Yeah. We know all about "transfer payments." You have declined to address any of the substance of Tokogirl's post, or really much of anything else, except your disdain for socialism.

Refusing to discuss the issues is not a legitimate argument.

Try google. Search: Veterans Administration Healthcare Quality. You get a lot of government stuff, but you also get this: American Journal of Medical Quality We found that in-hospital mortality in 1 VA hospital and a nationwide sample of private-sector hospitals were similar, after adjusting for severity of illness. Although not directly generalizable to other VA hospitals, our findings nonetheless suggest that the quality of VA and private-sector care may be similar with respect to one important and widely used measure. American Journal of Managed Care Once disparaged as a bureaucracy providing mediocre care, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is recognized for leadership in clinical informatics and performance improvement, cares for more patients with proportionally fewer resources, and sets national benchmarks in patient satisfaction and for 18 indicators of quality in disease prevention and treatment. Annalys of Internal Medicine Diabetes processes of care and 2 of 3 intermediate outcomes were better for patients in the VA system than for patients in commercial managed care. However, both VA and commercial managed care had room for improvement, especially for blood pressure control. I realize you don't check any of my links, but I already posted a link with similar information.

The weather radar loop makes it appear as if the end is nigh.

Yes and no. In my mind, we have to keep talking about this because so many Americans and politicians keep arguing that we can and should rely upon American military strength as the answer to just about every "situation" that comes up. You are right that the debate over the run up to the war is a distraction from considerations of exactly what to do in Iraq now, but it is absolutely essential that we acknowledge how we got into this mess if we are going to avoid making things worse everywhere else. It is not enough to say, two years ago, that "yes, we were mislead" and then argue that it is only partisan muckraking to make any further mention of that fact or raise any question about whether we should conduct military operations and joint exercises and deploy troops or send arms everywhere from Pakistan to Patagonia.

Yeah. The last thing we need is for our doctors to start "going postal."

A quaint truism. The problem with all of this is that nobody is even trying to talk about what our prospects for any kind of improvement let alone success in Iraq may be. From Democrats and Republicans all we get is sound bites that are designed to stimulate an emotional response but no real information nor any actual discussion.

KK, where did I say I wanted to spend other people's cash? Aren't you the one who argued that tolls on a new 520 bridge would be a travesty? What do you think about public education -- is that socialism involving transfer payments? I don't know the reality but one of the sources I linked above argued that we already pay more -- you and I as taxpayers already pay more - than we would for universal coverage. If that is the case, would you still be against saving money and covering everybody? It might free up more change for highway 520.

Whatever, Fairweather. What you've shown in these three different discussions is that you know little about what you speak and have even less inclination to look anything up. Government-operated medical facilities are known for poor quality service? If we reform healthcare the government will actually run all the hospitals and employ all the doctors? Hilary wants to outlaw private doctors? You haven't heard whether Obama has anything specific to propose? All of this appears as if your primary source of information is your favorite talk show host or right wing blogger. Call it socialism - I don't care. My original point was that you've completely closed your mind because someone labeled a set of proposals as socialism. You have not even tried to debate that particular point.

Read the editorial I posted above. Then respond. Argue how you have not swallowed the "socialism" pill and abandoned effort to actually inform yourself. Take your time.

So that is your argument against "SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE" (gasp)? You don't know how much you pay for Comcast? Seriously, we're not talking about metaphysics here. It is basic healthcare that is on the plate. Draw the lines wherever you want. Your taxes already pay for it. Why not have it?

Yes, if it is the RIGHT thing to do and if it might actually SAVE US MONEY, why not?

Your punk made a pretty good point here. Aside from the clearly unimformed "if you guys have your way we'll have rats in the hospitals," do you have a point?

When I first started climbing one of the first accidents I heard of which occurred in a place where I was climbing involved somebody who was killed falling underneath a snowpatch and getting swept underneath it in a stream entering the snow from a cliff band. that was 35 years ago. I have been fearful of (cautious with) the upper margin moat situations we regularly cross ever since. I think I'll be careful for the next 35 years, provided I am lucky enough to be climbing that long.

With our bungling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and declaring ourselves unaccountable under International law, I think it is fair to say we've scared the crap out of our allies, too. Like KK says, it may be a mixed bag - but there have been attacks in Europe and the Middle East is not looking all rosy or anything so on the whole our exercise of foreign policy cannot have been reassuring.

Did you get that from our intelligence community that Scott seems to worship? That is the dumbest thing you've posted for quite a while.

That's the point, Akhalteke. We cannot "win the war on terrorism" through military action. All this rah rah rah we have to take the fight to the terrorists so they don't bring it here is straight up crap. The closely associated "we have to fight to a win in Iraq or the terrorists are going to come get us" is propaganda intended to sidetrack any national dialogue about what our goals may be and what the prospects of accomplishing any of them really are. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

I admire your skepticism, Bill, but do you really think you should not consider the opinions of anybody who can't provide links to back up their opinions? Clearly, if somebody like me asserts that we subsidize oil companies you are right to ask yourself: is there a basis for that or is it just urban myth or ideal-driven demagoguery, but Mr. Stash's suggestion that political loyalty and favoritism would color the Bush administration's appointments of post-invasion administrators certainly comports with every thing we have ever heard about virtually any appointment made by Bush and company. Why WOULDN'T you believe it? Billcoe: doubting thomas.

Lame. Clearly we SHOULD be concerned about whether our government's actions are making us safer or not, and we SHOULD NOT rely upon the "intelligence community" to tell us the answers.