Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

Sorry tommy, but that is a little revisionist. You said that after the fact, not before.

[classicman]

SSDP = Same shit different post.

Avoid, deflect and demean. Typical.

Are you enjoying the misrepresentations of my opinions, putting words in my mouth, telling me what I do or don't stand for, what I like or dislike, what sources are or are not allowed, lumping posters together?

What can I say other than the same thing I’ve been saying? YOU choose who you want to believe and I'll choose who I wish to believe - In the end, that’s all that is going to happen. Feel free to believe what you wish with your Gov't sources. I'll take the independent source EVERY SINGLE time over them. I give them more credibility.

I bring up opinion pieces to discussion, whether I agree or disagree with what is said. You don't like it. You’ve made that clear. That is your opinion.

I learned a long time ago NOT to trust what the Gov't says – Our Gov’t is full of lawyers and politicians - two of the most UNtrustworthy types of people on the planet. They are more self-serving than looking out for their constituents. You disagree - I know that.

The post on Global warming as a perfect example of something I quoted for discussion. You ridiculed and disregarded it, that’s fine for you. You take the guys last 5 blog entries and dismiss him as unobjective. It was never supposed to be objective. That wasn’t the intention. It was to discuss – that’s all. Don’t like it? Don’t discuss it.
The author even prefaced it with:
“All right, I'm going to try to explain both sides of the Global Warming debate. I'll try to be as middle-of-the-road as possible, so spare me any over-arching partisan stuff. Well, enjoy:”
It was entered to open discussion, nothing more. Yet you, who claim that making blanket statements is narrow-minded and idiotic, have repeatedly done just that. This is just one example. I believe the term you’ve used to describe this behavior is hypocrisy. In this case, I agree.

Originally Posted by redux

I try to post facts and try to cite sources (more often than most others)...and continually and repeatedly have those cites dismissed or ignored because they are counter to your opinion.

This is disingenuous and blatantly false. I have repeatedly disagreed with you about Gov’t links and my personal preference for sources independent of the Gov’t. You disagree – fine. We both know where we stand on this issue. We disagree. So be it. Move on.

Originally Posted by redux

One day you point to "real unemployment numbers" in response to counter a post that unemployment decreased last month ~snip~ those "real unemployment numbers you pointed to are government numbers...the same government you don’t trust when it comes to stimulus job numbers! And posting those numbers with no context (similar "real" numbers in earlier years) is less than honest.

You missed the point again. In the first case they were used as a relative comparison. Both sets of data were used because they came from the same source. Independent sources have nothing to do with this example.

Originally Posted by redux

Can you understand why some find it so fucking hard to have a conversation with you?

I believe there is an ignore function at your disposal. I suggest you use it.

Originally Posted by redux

I'm really not interested in attacking anyone.

Bullshit. You’ve been doing that for pages upon pages. It’s ok though whatever floats your boat.

Originally Posted by redux

BTW, I think tw's posts are often the most informative and thought-provoking of any contributor to the political/current affairs discussions...and look at the crap he takes for it....primarily from you and Merc.

I’m curious if you would feel the same if his opinion differed from yours? Actually, I’m not. Oh, and by the way – his posts are probably on ignore more than mine.

At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree and try to be as civil a possible. That's what I'll try to do anyway.

Oh dont worry.

I'll still call you out on your bullshit and your twisting the facts and your feeble rationalizations when you really dont really know the facts and refuse to admit it.

No personal attacks. Just the facts.

Like the fact that you still cant admit that your understanding of the intent of the stimulus program was NOT based on the facts and the much broader intent of the program than you keep insisting in order to serve as a lame excuse for criticism.

Or the fact that you scream revisionist history when TW posts facts you cant refute about which president had a comprehensive anti-terrorism program.

And when you post a partisan link.....show some balls, dude and take a position on it....either stand behind it or disavow it...something more than "interesting" or offering no comment at all, What does it say about you when you wont even comment on your own links without waiting to see what others might say first?

Ignore you? Not a chance. I prefer exposing ignorance and extremism.

Originally Posted by classicman

Feel free to believe what you wish with your Gov't sources. I'll take the independent source EVERY SINGLE time over them. I give them more credibility.

I learned a long time ago NOT to trust what the Gov't says – Our Gov’t is full of lawyers and politicians - two of the most UNtrustworthy types of people on the planet. They are more self-serving than looking out for their constituents. You disagree - I know that.

Government sources like the Statistical Abstract of the US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (DoL), Bureau of Economic Analysis (DoC), Economic Research Service (DoAg), etc. are considered reliable sources by economists, social scientists, researchers, subject area policy experts, academia, etc. across the political spectrum who use the data as the the basis for independent research.

And none of these agencies are staffed "full of lawyers and politicians", but honest, hard-working federal employees - economists, social scientists, subject area policy experts, accountants, etc.

Every agency also has an independent Inspector General as well as having oversight by other non-partisan organizations like the GAO.

Hell, even wingnuts like Limbaugh/Beck acknowledge these sources as credible (and then or course, twist the data for their own agenda)

When there is conflicting public/private data, it is certainly worth further exploration and further independent thinking (that phrase again that you obviously dont understand).

When you can cite that independent data on a case-by-case basis, you can make a strong case for your position.

When you cant, you come off as a classic extremist ideologue making blanket ignorant states like "full of lawyers and politicians" and dismiss all these sources as "biased" because you cant defend your own position.

It is a cheap and dishonest way to engage in discourse. If you gave that kind of advice (dont cite any govt data - it is biased) to your son's friend for a paper, you can bet she would have failed.


edit: from stimuluswatch.org faq

Where do you get your data?

The Recovery Act mandated that all spending information be made public and transparent. As a result, the administration is publishing quarterly reports from funding recipients at .Recovery.gov website This official site is the source for all our data.

A note about data quality: One thing to keep in mind about the official data is that it is comprised of "recipient reports." That is, the data is not gathered and tabulated by the federal government. Instead, it is the recipients of stimulus funds who report back on a quarterly basis about how much money they received and what they did with it. So, for example, if you find a contract on this site for a construction company that says it resulted in 10 jobs saved, it is that construction company who has made the estimate.

Why do you keep insisting it is government data when your own independent source says it is not?

Why do you keep insisting the stimulus program was supposed to be about "infrastructure jobs" when only $35 billion out of $787 billion was for "shovel ready" short term infrastructure projects?

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by tw

Let's not forget that I preceded those intentional personal attacks by saying I was going to do it because of constant personal attacks. It was started because another was constantly posting personal attacks AND the powers that be choose to ignore it. I do not apologize for escalating so that the cheap shots would be stopped. And am quite pleased how so many here have finally stood up to address the problem.

Before I started replying to constant insults with equivalent replies, I said exactly what I was going to do and said why. I am now seeing results that I intended. Sharp rebuke has changed the tone in a Cellar that had become a haven for cheap shots. It is a shame things had to become so nasty. I am only sorry that it had to get that nasty to fix things. I said exactly what I was going to do and why before I started.

Yeah, yeah. He made me do it. You had the opportunity to take the high road.

[TheMercenary]

Someone please pass the fucking popcorn already...

[TheMercenary]

I guess I should start here...

Originally Posted by Redux

Thank you for further clarifying the difference between us.

You're welcome.

I have stated my understanding of the bills and my belief that they will address the issues of coverage/access as well as cost...and frequently cited specific language in the legislation. I have never claimed with certainty that it will 100% successful as envisioned, with no need for further corrections, but IMO, it was the correct approach.

And you have claimed repeatedly and with absolute certainty that it will fail...and with absolutely no evidence to back it up, other than your opinion and the numerous partisan opinions of others with which you flooded the discussion.

Once again a mis-statement of what I said, I said it would fail to fix the ultimate problems in healthcare. You have been unable to defend the fact that the Insurance companies were on the inside at the beginning and that an insurance insider helped craft the Bill in the Senate.

Just as you proclaimed the Recovery Act a failure as soon as it was enacted and continue to insist it failed...despite the fact that the evidence has proven you wrong. Has it been 100% successful as envisioned? Nope, no one claimed it has been perfect. Programs of that size and complexity (much like the health reform bills) rarely are perfect when implemented. But certainly it has been moderately successful in creating jobs and helping prevent the economy from a longer or deeper downturn.

Do I really have to go back to Feb where Pelosi and Obama were quoted repeatedly saying to the American people that this bill would create "millions of jobs"? It was bs to sell the boondoggle to the electorate and get them to buy in.

Because I understand federal policy, I rarely address complex policy issues in absolutes and understand the subtleties that arise with implementation. You, on the other hand, with no policy experience, are always certain of an outcome, a negative outcome if it is a Democratic policy proposal, that is based solely on your ideology.

Same old tactics.., your insistence that your opinions are better and more informed than anyone else. Wrong!

No, what I have said is that documented subject matter experts carry more weight than a person who posts on a public forum as Redux who is a self admitted partisan hack.

I have said repeatedly that we should be able to agree to disagree...but you will not or cannot accept that and continue to insist that your projected outcome of failure, based on nothing other than your opinion (and the opinions of like-minded columnists), is the only possible outcome.

Many of the things I have posted are less partisan than you make them out to be, and where appropriate, I have stated they were partisan.

[quote]And I am not the one who has flooded the discussions with partisan opinion columns and childish pictures.[/qutoe]Anything that you disagree with is partisan, I only consider the more partisan opinions that you post when you parot the Demoncratic party line or White House.

You should know by now that your bullying tactics wont work on me.

You are a failed bully and you have been outed....perhaps that explains why you are so bitter and angry.

Don't flatter yourself.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

And as Merc gets more raises medical costs skyrocket, like they have in the last year while the cost of living remained flat, more families are going to be in the same bind.

I have gotten one primary raise in 8 years. And all that meant was I got a bigger bit of a fixed piece of a pie.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I was honestly shocked, for example, that Merc (and prerhaps you as well) did not seem to have a clue that the largest single component of the Recovery Act was tax relief and not spending....or that he would repeatedly post columns screaming "death panels" (before finally backing away from that ignorance when called out on it)...

That is a completely false statement. I posted one bit about "Death Panels" and retracted my position when presented with more accurate data. And yet you continue to deny that rationing of healthcare will occur.

I have tried to answer questions here to the best of my understanding whenever asked, pointing to specific language in the legislation, rather than dodge and weave like you and Merc. And I am not the one who has flooded the discussions with partisan columns/opinions...then runs away from them when challenged.

Mischaraterized again. I have quoted specific language from the Bill, and when in error I corrected myself. What you consider "flooding" a discussion I consider the posting of information from known subject matter experts in health policy, not the ramblings of a partisan hack for the Demoncrats.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I'll save Merc for another time....but he is never wrong and unless anything the Democrats propose or enact are 100% successful...they "fail" even before they are implemented....standards that I think is fair to say, none of us can meet.

False. There are a number of programs that I feel were pretty good.

you and Merc, with your constant denial of the facts, floods of undocumented partisan opinions, belittling my posts and ducking weaving when challenged and yes, hypocrisy....drove me to it. I think I lasted longer than most, who just give up out of frustration. I turned my cheek long enough. It was time to fight back.

False. 99% of my posts were not "undocumented partisan opinions", they are factual opinions posted by subject matter experts in healthcare. It just so happens that they shot holes in your positions and countered the current party line.

BTW, I think TW's posts are often the most informative and thought-provoking of any contributor to the political/current affairs discussions....and look at the crap he takes for it....primarily from you and Merc.

Mischaraterized again. I have not read anything from tw in over a year.

We all have a breaking point when we get "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!"

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Do I really have to go back to Feb where Pelosi and Obama were quoted repeatedly saying to the American people that this bill would create "millions of jobs"? It was bs to sell the boondoggle to the electorate and get them to buy in.

I disagree with this argument. Politicians hype everything and it is extremely rare that any big event (stimulus bill, Iraq War, etc) go as it has been publicly stated. Just because the stimulus bill did not create 2 million "shovel-ready jobs" does not mean that it can be blanketed as a failure. Your definition of failure is clearly different than Redux's and many other people. I don't know what effect the stimulus bill actually had and I don't fully believe Obama's numbers as well but the only real consensus is that no concrete evidence exists for either side.

Also, to play devil's advocate, it most likely is necessary for politicians to overly hype all their bills and wars to get any support for it in the first place. A catch 22 of over hyping whatever you want or not getting it at all.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have gotten one primary raise in 8 years. And all that meant was I got a bigger bit of a fixed piece of a pie.

I was just fucking with ya, that's why it was crossed out.
Pardon my ignorance, but I've no idea how you get paid, so I don't know what is a "primary" raise is, per hour? per case? base rate?
If the pie is "fixed", why are the costs of medical care shooting up so fast? Do you mean the section of the pie, that you get a piece of, is fixed?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I was just fucking with ya, that's why it was crossed out.

Pardon my ignorance, but I've no idea how you get paid, so I don't know what is a "primary" raise is, per hour? per case? base rate?

One of my jobs is a sort of floating salary, the rest are hourly fee, different for different jobs and different work environments. I have one primary and 4 - 5 contractual relationships.

If the pie is "fixed", why are the costs of medical care shooting up so fast?

Well there are lots of answers to that, few of them have to do with providers getting paid more at the bottom end of patient to provider contact.

Do you mean the section of the pie, that you get a piece of, is fixed?

In my case it is because it is a government contract, every three years when the contract is bid on they have to make adjustments to lure various specialties to each area of need. They have to give and take to attract the business, win the contract, and hire the needs, and make a profit. Each of those elements is subject to adjustments up or down within the framework of a set amount awarded by the government.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I disagree with this argument. Politicians hype everything and it is extremely rare that any big event (stimulus bill, Iraq War, etc) go as it has been publicly stated. Just because the stimulus bill did not create 2 million "shovel-ready jobs" does not mean that it can be blanketed as a failure. Your definition of failure is clearly different than Redux's and many other people. I don't know what effect the stimulus bill actually had and I don't fully believe Obama's numbers as well but the only real consensus is that no concrete evidence exists for either side.

Also, to play devil's advocate, it most likely is necessary for politicians to overly hype all their bills and wars to get any support for it in the first place. A catch 22 of over hyping whatever you want or not getting it at all.

Although there are lots of people saying that it is working to some degree most agree that it did not do what it set out to do. I call it a boondoggle because I am looking at the cost benefit ratio. It was filled with pork barrel spending where millions were spent on pet projects that produced little to no jobs but brought home the bacon for various powerful Congress persons.

here is a good example, although built before the stimulus it too got a huge influx of funds from the stimulus package to the tune of $800k, why?:

http://www.thegreatilluminator.com/blog/?p=4144

Other examples of wasteful spending:

http://www.usnews.com/money/business...ulus-bill.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...-68709732.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-seeking-cash/

http://www.cagw.org/

http://www.cagw.org/assets/pig-book-...l-13-2009_.pdf

I am pretty sure he is eating these words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw

[SamIam]

Here is a NONpartisan report issued today:

WASHINGTON – The economic stimulus law added between 1 million to 2.1 million workers to employment rolls by the end of last year, a new report released Tuesday by congressional economists said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study also said the $862 billion stimulus added between 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points to the growth of the economy in 2009. The controversial stimulus law combined tax breaks for individuals and businesses with lots of government spending.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/...Jvc3RpbXVsdXNi