Blue Dog Democrats

[yeahwho]

What are they? They call themselves fiscally conservative democrats. The Blue Dog democrats basically have stalled any chance at expediting universal health care in America.

WTF? Is getting something done to benefit regular Americans just become out of the question?

[DroppinScience]

They're assholes. That's all there is to it. (n)

[RobMoney$]

Why "Blue Dog"?

BTW, a better name would be "Intelligent Democrats"

[yeahwho]

Jimmy Kimmel got it right last week when he explained what the term "Blue Dog" signifies. The "Blue" means they're from "blue" or Democratic states (not quite true, but let's not quibble), and the "Dog" means they roll over for health insurance companies.

[saz]

kimmel is spot on.

according to the blue dog logic then, and the republicans as well, public health insurance is good enough for the elected officials from the house of representatives and the senate, as well as the president and all of the armed forces. they get public health insurance, it's good enough for them, but apparently it's not good enough for the american citizen, or the american civilian doesn't deserve it. go figure.

[Documad]

kimmel is spot on.

according to the blue dog logic then, and the republicans as well, public health insurance is good enough for the elected officials from the house of representatives and the senate, as well as the president and all of the armed forces. they get public health insurance, it's good enough for them, but apparently it's not good enough for the american citizen, or the american civilian doesn't deserve it. go figure.

Well, I think they would say that those government employees get health insurance from their employer and the think all americans should get it from their employer. That worked pretty well for a long time in the US but it's not working so well anymore. Maybe I should add that many government employees are paid less than they would make doing the same thing in private practice. Perhaps they work for less salary because they get better health care benefits (and more vacation, etc). (I know that doesn't apply to the president and our senators -- they make way less than they would in private practice but they're hardly doing it for the health care. :p)

I am fiscally conservative. I know that the health care system is broken, but so far I haven't seen any suggestions that I can get behind. I'm terrified of the mindset that "we have to do something, anything, even though we don't know what the fuck we're doing or what it will cost." Not when we're still at war in two countries.

[RobMoney$]

At least some Democrats understand bills have to be paid for eventually.

[saz]

i think having a public option is a great idea. people have the choice of sticking with, or choosing private health insurance companies, or going with the public one. with approximately 18,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm) americans dying every year because they can't afford health insurance, i'd say it's a very serious issue.

how about ending american empire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr11LC9I8h0)? that would save billions. it costs approximately 100 billion to maintain 750 to about 1000 foreign military bases. i don't think the us or the rest of the world has to worry about germany or japan acting up.

[Documad]

Why would my private employer offer health care coverage if I can get it from the government? Will a public option become a nationalized health care program eventually?

I don't see how we reform the system until we decide that some people won't be treated and some conditions won't be treated. And no politician is going to do that.

[Bob]

how about ending american empire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr11LC9I8h0)? that would save billions. it costs approximately 100 billion to maintain 750 to about 1000 foreign military bases. i don't think the us or the rest of the world has to worry about germany or japan acting up.

yeah, why do we have bases in japan still? i was never clear on that.

[Documad]

Bob, shouldn't you be in bed?

[Bob]

sorry mom

[saz]

Why would my private employer offer health care coverage if I can get it from the government? Will a public option become a nationalized health care program eventually?

your private employer will still offer coverage, but they will receive some competition from the government. but of course, that will make corporations sad, so blue dogs will ensure that the us can't have sad corporations. so thousands and thousands of uninsured people will still die every year. i highly doubt a nationalized health care program will ever come to fruition in the states, unless of course the 72% (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml) of americans who support a public health insurance option storm capitol hill and demand max baucus' slimey, douchey head.


I don't see how we reform the system until we decide that some people won't be treated and some conditions won't be treated. And no politician is going to do that.

ah yes, the private health insurance companies already do that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUGep9nLU9k&feature=related).

[Dorothy Wood]

Why would my private employer offer health care coverage if I can get it from the government?


this is something I'm concerned about. and mostly because anytime someone asks that, there's a lot of avoidance and double talk...which leads me to believe that it might be a problem that they just don't want to talk about right now.


I have no answers to the health care problem. I'm basically just in favor of things being fair, and people's lives and health being more important than a corporation's bottom line.

how to accomplish that, I don't know.

[Documad]

your private employer will still offer coverage, but they will receive some competition from the government.
The government isn't supposed to compete with my employer, it's supposed to compete with my employer's insurance company, right?

I guess I don't understand your point. Perhaps my employer pays for my private coverage now because they want me to be able to work for them even if I need some major medical care because it's worth it to my employer if I come back to work at some point. My employer wants me to be able to have surgery without going bankrupt. But why would my employer pay $10,000 a year for my coverage if they know that they can drop my coverage, pay zero, and I'll still get on some government plan? Why won't that lead to most people being on the government plan -- a la the nationalized system that most americans don't want?

ah yes, the private health insurance companies already do that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUGep9nLU9k&feature=related).

Not enough to balance the system. With the way we're living now, we have fewer and fewer people paying for more and more retired and sick people. I don't want half my money to go towards health care and social security for retired people. I don't see how we can pay for health care unless we make hard choices and decide that we're cutting costs. We can't pretend to cut costs unless we cut coverage.

[RobMoney$]

If you think Health Insurance is expensive now, just wait 'til it's free.

[Bob]

there ain't no such thing as a free bootstrap

[saz]

The government isn't supposed to compete with my employer, it's supposed to compete with my employer's insurance company, right?

right.


I guess I don't understand your point. Perhaps my employer pays for my private coverage now because they want me to be able to work for them even if I need some major medical care because it's worth it to my employer if I come back to work at some point. My employer wants me to be able to have surgery without going bankrupt.

understood. but there is that possibility that if you needed some sort of procedure, or operation, your insurance provider will go through your medical history, and for some lame ass reason deny you coverage.


But why would my employer pay $10,000 a year for my coverage if they know that they can drop my coverage, pay zero, and I'll still get on some government plan?

that depends on your decision. the legislation hasn't even passed yet, but if it does, you may tell your employer that you want to stick with your current insurance provider.


Why won't that lead to most people being on the government plan -- a la the nationalized system that most americans don't want?

it very could lead to a nationalized plan, and most americans aren't against one (http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html).


Not enough to balance the system. With the way we're living now, we have fewer and fewer people paying for more and more retired and sick people. I don't want half my money to go towards health care and social security for retired people.

but you're okay with your money going towards two endless, foreign wars, one in which was based on total b.s. and outright lies? you're okay with paying for bush's tax cuts for rich people? you're okay with paying for the american empire? you're okay with paying for a bloated, wasteful defence budget? you're probably not okay with those, but this is what outsiders don't get about many americans, that they don't want to pay into a system that benefits the entire society, it's this "me-me, fuck everyone else" mentality.


I don't see how we can pay for health care unless we make hard choices and decide that we're cutting costs. We can't pretend to cut costs unless we cut coverage.

how about cutting the waste out of the defence budget? how about ending the illegal occupation in iraq, which is costing approximately nine billion a month?

[yeahwho]

yeah what brought this on is a Krugman Op/Ed piece in yesterdays NYTimes, An Incoherent Truth (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html?em) and I have to be honest with you, I had never heard of the Blue Dog democrats until now.

It seems as if they haven't a fucking clue to any solution other than "We have to hold down costs" whatever the fuck that means? Because you know what? The more I read about the Blue Dogs the more I realize what they should be saying is "We have to keep corporate interests above our citizenry's health interest".

My mom has worked in health insurance her whole life, it's busted and it will bankrupt this nation if we do not get a handle on it. That handle isn't about corporate profits and CFO's running hospitals.

I agree with Krugman when he states, Now, however (the blue dogs), they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.

[yeahwho]

On another note, remember "Privatizing Social Security: The $10 Trillion Opportunity" ? George W. Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke almost fucking convinced us to give our money away to what undoubtedly would of been a total fucking corporate bailout of proportions 10 fold of our current fucked up economy the bitches left us.

We currently have a $108 billion dollar surplus while paying out $608 billion dollars in 2008.

Fuck just imagine what would of happened had the corporate machine convinced these assholes to just go ahead and fuck the average citizen out of their paychecks monthly.

I equate a lot of what is happening currently with healthcare to retirement benefits. It is the closest way to examine our current state of healthcare. Unless someone can come up with a better comparison.

[RobMoney$]

I bet we're all happy that initiative was put to an end.
And I hope Obama's National Health Insurance Plan meets the same death.

[RobMoney$]

how about cutting the waste out of the defence budget? how about ending the illegal occupation in iraq, which is costing approximately nine billion a month?


Pffthahhaahaaaa.

How can anyone raise an issue about the wars being a financial concern at this point while keeping a straight face.
The exit plan is in E.F.F.E.C.T. brother.

HOW ABOUT OBAMA'S TRILLION DOLLAR CORPORATE WELFARE PROGRAM?
You kinda forget to include that in your list of financial concerns.

[Documad]

that depends on your decision. the legislation hasn't even passed yet, but if it does, you may tell your employer that you want to stick with your current insurance provider.

We're having a basic misunderstanding. Perhaps you have never had employer-provided health care? My employer doesn't let me make the decision. My employer decides whether to provide health care coverage or not. And if they decide to provide coverage they tell me what sort of plan I have. If I like Blue Cross, that's tough because it's not offered. If there is a national plan that employers don't pay for, then employers have an incentive to not offer any private insurance at all. I can say "hey, I choose to stick with my old plan" and they can say "fuck you, we're not offering insurance anymore."

If this is really about nationalizing the entire US health care system, then let's have that discussion. But Obama, and the people in congress who support "health care reform" are telling me that it isn't about nationalization. I'm being told that I will have the same great plan I have today, and I don't see how they can guarantee that. I suspect that they're lying to me. Until I can trust what they're saying, I can't get behind any legislation. Again, I think it's dangerous to say "we have no idea what we're doing but we need to do something so aaaaahhhhh, we're going to pass a bill we haven't read." I know it's happened before, like with the republicans' prescription drug bill under Bush, and I opposed that bill too, for the same reason.

I want to insure poor kids, I really do. But tell me the truth about the cost and what we're going to cut to pay for it. There are many, many things that I'm willing to cut. I haven't heard anything that Obama or Pelosi want to cut yet, at least nothing significant. And the argument that we can pay for this by cutting "waste" is silly. This is where McCain was an idiot. Waste is a tiny percentage of the budget compared to entitlements. We have to cut entitlements. And defense of course.



but you're okay with your money going towards two endless, foreign wars, one in which was based on total b.s. and outright lies? you're okay with paying for bush's tax cuts for rich people? you're okay with paying for the american empire? you're okay with paying for a bloated, wasteful defence budget? you're probably not okay with those, but this is what outsiders don't get about many americans, that they don't want to pay into a system that benefits the entire society, it's this "me-me, fuck everyone else" mentality.
how about cutting the waste out of the defence budget? how about ending the illegal occupation in iraq, which is costing approximately nine billion a month?

I was against the war from the get go. I was also against the first Iraq war. But I didn't get to make those decisions. If Obama and Congress are going to keep funding those two wars, then there is an opportunity cost (and has been for years). We can't do everything. I'd rather have the money going to poor kids than to Afghanistan, but I don't want it going to poor kids AND Afghanistan. So far, it seems that this president and this Congress want to do everything at once, and the deficit is scaring the shit out of me.

[Documad]

Rob, those wars are still costing a shitload of money every day and we rarely hear anything on the news about it anymore. Americans are oblivious to the cost. It's been going on for years. We can't get it back. We have to pay the interest on that money. It ties our hands. We have to acknowledge that. It's similar to when Bill Clinton got into office with all his big plans and learned that he couldn't pay for any of them because the budget was in worse shape than expected.

I don't blame Obama or Pelosi for the situation we're in, but I do blame them for not having a frank talk about what is possible in the near future. Americans are delusional. The easiest thing to do is to tell them that we can do everything at once. Politicians know that so they don't tell us the truth. :rolleyes:

[saz]

Pffthahhaahaaaa.

How can anyone raise an issue about the wars being a financial concern at this point while keeping a straight face.
The exit plan is in E.F.F.E.C.T. brother.

HOW ABOUT OBAMA'S TRILLION DOLLAR CORPORATE WELFARE PROGRAM?
You kinda forget to include that in your list of financial concerns.

there's currently only one exit plan in effect, and the troops won't be out until what, 2012 or 2013? there's also afghanistan which seems to be endless as well. and it's also bush's corporate welfare concern too, as his administration started the bailouts.

We're having a basic misunderstanding. Perhaps you have never had employer-provided health care?

yeah, i'm not american and i don't have to rely on tentative health insurance with strings attached provided by a corporation.


My employer doesn't let me make the decision. My employer decides whether to provide health care coverage or not. And if they decide to provide coverage they tell me what sort of plan I have. If I like Blue Cross, that's tough because it's not offered. If there is a national plan that employers don't pay for, then employers have an incentive to not offer any private insurance at all. I can say "hey, I choose to stick with my old plan" and they can say "fuck you, we're not offering insurance anymore."

okay, than that's the cold reality of the private or corporate world.


If this is really about nationalizing the entire US health care system, then let's have that discussion.

i agree. polls have consistently shown that americans want it.


But Obama, and the people in congress who support "health care reform" are telling me that it isn't about nationalization. I'm being told that I will have the same great plan I have today, and I don't see how they can guarantee that. I suspect that they're lying to me. Until I can trust what they're saying, I can't get behind any legislation. Again, I think it's dangerous to say "we have no idea what we're doing but we need to do something so aaaaahhhhh, we're going to pass a bill we haven't read." I know it's happened before, like with the republicans' prescription drug bill under Bush, and I opposed that bill too, for the same reason.

I want to insure poor kids, I really do. But tell me the truth about the cost and what we're going to cut to pay for it. There are many, many things that I'm willing to cut. I haven't heard anything that Obama or Pelosi want to cut yet, at least nothing significant. And the argument that we can pay for this by cutting "waste" is silly. This is where McCain was an idiot. Waste is a tiny percentage of the budget compared to entitlements. We have to cut entitlements. And defense of course.

there is a lot of waste. i've already mentioned the two wars and the defence budget. incidently, one piece of really good news in regards to this is that a bipartisan effort, led by obama and mccain, resulted in the scrapping of the f-22 raptor (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f-22-plane22-2009jul22,0,750816.story), with mccain citing president eisenhower "It's What Eisenhower Warned us About," tweeted McCain before the vote (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/senate-beats-back-militar_n_242135.html). there's also of course the fact that kickstarting the hemp industry would provide an economic goldmine, as well as legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana would provide more billions. but of course that would mean that obama would have to truly be a "change" guy, which i doubt he is. hopefully this sort of specific change, ie sane and practical marijuana policy, will begin at the state level with california leading the way. a majority of americans seem to be okay with raising taxes (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/09/rel6e.pdf) (page 4) for healthcare. they seem to have had enough with the private insurance companies and want coverage without strings attached, nor having to jump through hoops. man, to pay for bush's two massive wars, his tax cuts for the rich, bush's and obama's bailouts et al, and more and more retirees etc, shouldn't taxes be raised? i can understang obama's plan to raise taxes on the much more wealthy, that seemed to really connect with the electorate, but when was the last tax hike, under bush senior? i'm fiscally conservative too, so in order to pay for services that everyone wants, as well as somehow balancing the books, you need revenue, especially tax revenue. i know this doesn't include you, but so many people want services and their humble pie, but they don't want to pay for it. well, at least in the case of healthcare, americans are willing to pay for it. but again, will i think that it will ever become a reality in the us? probably not, because there are too many jackasses like max baucus, big health insurance industry money, lobbyists et al who don't give a crap about what the electorate or taxpayers want.

[yeahwho]

I'm perplexed why the corporate health insurance companies can profit as much as they do. The similarities to the mortgage crisis are there, the lobbying by pharmaceuticals and health insurance companies is equal to creditors and bankers.

The Blue Dogs are telling us one thing by saying they are fiscally conservative yet on the other hand they are personally fiscally liberal on corporate handouts (http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1572/).

Just on a human level, I find the profit motive to be fucked up on health care here on earth. In the long run we have filled emergency rooms with homeless and transient people, we're storing mentally ill people in jails and when they're out of jail they're looking at you for the next ticket back to a cot and a hot meal.

That is dangerous, expensive and morally bankrupt. This is America?

[DroppinScience]

Thanks for summing everything up perfectly, sazi! (y)

[RobMoney$]

there's currently only one exit plan in effect, and the troops won't be out until what, 2012 or 2013? there's also afghanistan which seems to be endless as well. and it's also bush's corporate welfare concern too, as his administration started the bailouts.



yeah, i'm not american and i don't have to rely on tentative health insurance with strings attached provided by a corporation.



okay, than that's the cold reality of the private or corporate world.



i agree. polls have consistently shown that americans want it.



there is a lot of waste. i've already mentioned the two wars and the defence budget. incidently, one piece of really good news in regards to this is that a bipartisan effort, led by obama and mccain, resulted in the scrapping of the f-22 raptor (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f-22-plane22-2009jul22,0,750816.story), with mccain citing president eisenhower "It's What Eisenhower Warned us About," tweeted McCain before the vote (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/senate-beats-back-militar_n_242135.html). there's also of course the fact that kickstarting the hemp industry would provide an economic goldmine, as well as legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana would provide more billions. but of course that would mean that obama would have to truly be a "change" guy, which i doubt he is. hopefully this sort of specific change, ie sane and practical marijuana policy, will begin at the state level with california leading the way. a majority of americans seem to be okay with raising taxes (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/09/rel6e.pdf) (page 4) for healthcare. they seem to have had enough with the private insurance companies and want coverage without strings attached, nor having to jump through hoops. man, to pay for bush's two massive wars, his tax cuts for the rich, bush's and obama's bailouts et al, and more and more retirees etc, shouldn't taxes be raised? i can understang obama's plan to raise taxes on the much more wealthy, that seemed to really connect with the electorate, but when was the last tax hike, under bush senior? i'm fiscally conservative too, so in order to pay for services that everyone wants, as well as somehow balancing the books, you need revenue, especially tax revenue. i know this doesn't include you, but so many people want services and their humble pie, but they don't want to pay for it. well, at least in the case of healthcare, americans are willing to pay for it. but again, will i think that it will ever become a reality in the us? probably not, because there are too many jackasses like max baucus, big health insurance industry money, lobbyists et al who don't give a crap about what the electorate or taxpayers want.


Show me these polls that show Americans consistently want Nationalized Healthcare.
Because I dispute that. Obama's approval ratings are dropping faster than the Titanic. He's trying to push this through before they can get any worse. It reeks of desperation.
Hell, even Obama's own party isn't sure they want it, how can you claim it's what most americans want?

[RobMoney$]

Rob, those wars are still costing a shitload of money every day and we rarely hear anything on the news about it anymore. Americans are oblivious to the cost. It's been going on for years. We can't get it back. We have to pay the interest on that money. It ties our hands. We have to acknowledge that. It's similar to when Bill Clinton got into office with all his big plans and learned that he couldn't pay for any of them because the budget was in worse shape than expected.

I don't blame Obama or Pelosi for the situation we're in, but I do blame them for not having a frank talk about what is possible in the near future. Americans are delusional. The easiest thing to do is to tell them that we can do everything at once. Politicians know that so they don't tell us the truth. :rolleyes:

So what would you do?
We're taking steps to end the war in Iraq. We can't just up & leave on a moments notice because we now decide we want a nationalized health insurance program.

[saz]

Show me these polls that show Americans consistently want Nationalized Healthcare.



"When given a choice of the current system or one "like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers," voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. A solid majority (59%) say they would prefer a national health insurance program that covers everyone, over the current system of private insurance offered to most through their emloyer."

link (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/PollMemo.pdf)



Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.

link (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf)



"....local ballot initiatives supporting single payer and opposing individual mandates passed by landslide margins in all ten legislative districts where they appeared. With almost all precincts tallied, roughly 73 percent of 181,000 voters in the ten districts voted YES...."

link (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_results/ma_localquestions/)



9. Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care, or don't you think so? In Pennsylvania; Yes 65%, No 31%, NA/DK 4%

link (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164)



"...59 percent of them 'support government legislation to establish national health insurance,' while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral."

link (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/most_doctors_support.php)



14. "Which comes closest to your view?
34% - The United States should continue the current health insurance system in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance
65% - The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers
2% - Refused / Not Answered"

link (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/december/where_are_we_on_refo.php)



30. Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?
64% - Yes,
35% - No,
2% - No opinion

link (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/09/rel6e.pdf)



27. Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?
64% - Guarantee
27% - Not responsibility
9% - DK/NA

30. If you had to choose, which do you think is more important for the country to do right now, maintain the tax cuts enacted in recent years or make sure all Americans have access to health care?
18% - Cutting taxes
76% - Access to health insurance
1% - Neither
2% - Both
4% - DK/NA

link (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf)



49. Which would you prefer – (the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or (a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?)
62 % Universal
33% Current
6% No opinion

link (http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/935a3HealthCare.pdf)

[Documad]

The polls are all over the place, in part because they never say what it will cost and what we might have to give up.

I'd like to see surveys of people in my state where the people are asked how much they would pay the government for health insurance that didn't allow them to see the doctor of their choice when they want to see him/her. And how much they are willing to pay for other people's medical care if they decide to opt for private insurance.

Not that I think that nationalized medical care is all bad. I'd be fine with some rationing. I frankly have co-workers who go to the doctor too often with their kids. I hate paying for that. The kids in my family rarely saw a doctor unless it was for shots before school.

[saz]

ah no, they're not all over the place. they clearly demonstrate that throughout this decade, a consistent majority of americans want public health insurance, and are willing to pay higher taxes if necessary. and you're citing a b.s. right-wing myth. with public health insurance, i can see any doctor of my choosing.

[RobMoney$]

"When given a choice of the current system or one "like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers," voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. A solid majority (59%) say they would prefer a national health insurance program that covers everyone, over the current system of private insurance offered to most through their emloyer."

link (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/PollMemo.pdf) - BROKEN LINK



Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.

link (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf) - JANUARY 11 - 15, 2009



"....local ballot initiatives supporting single payer and opposing individual mandates passed by landslide margins in all ten legislative districts where they appeared. With almost all precincts tallied, roughly 73 percent of 181,000 voters in the ten districts voted YES...."

link (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_results/ma_localquestions/) - '08 campaign



9. Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care, or don't you think so? In Pennsylvania; Yes 65%, No 31%, NA/DK 4%

link (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164) - April 2, 2008



"...59 percent of them 'support government legislation to establish national health insurance,' while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral."

link (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/most_doctors_support.php) - March 31, 2008


14. "Which comes closest to your view?
34% - The United States should continue the current health insurance system in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance
65% - The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers
2% - Refused / Not Answered"

link (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/december/where_are_we_on_refo.php) - December 14 - 20, 2007



30. Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?
64% - Yes,
35% - No,
2% - No opinion

link (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/09/rel6e.pdf) - May 4-6, 2007



27. Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?
64% - Guarantee
27% - Not responsibility
9% - DK/NA

30. If you had to choose, which do you think is more important for the country to do right now, maintain the tax cuts enacted in recent years or make sure all Americans have access to health care?
18% - Cutting taxes
76% - Access to health insurance
1% - Neither
2% - Both
4% - DK/NA

link (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/03022007_poll.pdf) - Feb 23-27, 2007



49. Which would you prefer – (the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or (a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?)
62 % Universal
33% Current
6% No opinion

link (http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/935a3HealthCare.pdf) - ...last, but not least, 10/13/2003


Seriously, I appreciate your effort.
But I think a polls taken from before Obama was even sworn into office are not a true indication of current opinions.

Here's a report from Rasmussen dated July 28, 2009

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/just_23_believe_health_care_costs_will_go_down_if_ reform_passes_congress


Americans are fairly evenly divided on the health care reform proposals working their way through Congress (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/just_23_believe_health_care_costs_will_go_down_if_ reform_passes_congress#), but most remain convinced that the plans will raise costs and hurt the quality of the care they receive.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/just_23_believe_health_care_costs_will_go_down_if_ reform_passes_congress#) survey finds that 47% are in favor of the reform effort proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats while 49% are opposed. Those figures include 25% who Strongly Favor the plans and 41% who are Strongly Opposed.
The specifics of what will be in a health care reform plan remains hotly debated in Congress at the moment. When a final proposal emerges, it is possible that support could move significantly in either direction.

Currently, 76% of Democrats favor the proposal and 76% of Republicans (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/just_23_believe_health_care_costs_will_go_down_if_ reform_passes_congress#) are opposed. Among the unaffiliated, 35% are in favor and 60% are opposed. Notably, just 16% of unaffiliateds Strongly Favor the legislative effort while 47% Strongly Oppose it.

At this time, voters are skeptical about the ability of the reform effort to help control the cost of health care. Just 23% believe passage of the reform legislation will lead to lower health care costs. Most voters (53%) say it will lead to higher costs, while 18% expect prices to remain about the same.
Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party overwhelmingly expect the passage of health care reform to lead to higher costs. Democrats are fairly evenly divided. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of those in the president’s party say reform will lead to higher costs while 35% predict the opposite. Another 30% of Democrats say the reform will have no impact on the cost of health care.

By 50% to 23% margin (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/just_23_believe_health_care_costs_will_go_down_if_ reform_passes_congress#), voters expect that passage of the congressional health care reform bill will cause the quality of care to go down.
Over the past month, support for the legislation has ranged from a high of 50% in late June (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2009/50_favor_obama_health_reform_plan_45_oppose_it)to a low of 44% last week (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform).Op position has ranged from a low of 45% in late June to a high of 53% last week. The number who Strongly Oppose the plan has consistently been higher than the number who Strongly Favor it.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters say it’s at least somewhat likely that it will be passed this year. That figure includes 15% who say it’s very likely to pass.

While voters like the general concept of health care reform, they see cost, not universal coverage, (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/cost_not_universal_coverage_is_top_health_care_con cern_for_voters) as the biggest health care concern. Also, 78% believe that health care reform is likely to lead to middle class tax hikes. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_200) Figuring out how to pay for the trillion dollar-plus plan has presented a significant challenge for congressional Democrats working on the legislation.

Another factor that may be playing a role is the underlying public skepticism about the legislative process. Americans by a two-to-one margin believe that no matter how bad things are, Congress can always make it worse (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/february_2009/58_say_most_congress_members_won_t_know_stimulus_p lan_when_they_vote_on_it).

Overall, just 35% of Americans rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/may_2009/35_rate_u_s_health_care_good_or_excellent).But 70% of those who have health insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/may_2009/70_of_insured_rate_health_insurance_coverage_as_go od_or_excellent). A major hurdle for those pushing health care reform is convincing those who already have health insurance that they will be even better off down the road.

One key item in the overall debate is a government health insurance company that would compete with private insurers. Thirty-five percent (35%) of voters favor a public health care option while 50% are opposed (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/50_oppose_government_health_insurance_company).
The president has recently become more vocal in promoting the plan as opposition from senators and congressmen in his own party have stalled it on Capitol Hill. The president’s job approval (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) ratings have slipped some over the past month. That may be the result of economic conditions, the health care debate or possibly his response to a question about the incident (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/july_2009/26_say_obama_response_good_or_excellent_on_cambrid ge_cop_question)involving a white Cambridge police officer and a black Harvard professor.

[yeahwho]

ah no, they're not all over the place. they clearly demonstrate that throughout this decade, a consistent majority of americans want public health insurance, and are willing to pay higher taxes if necessary. and you're citing a b.s. right-wing myth. with public health insurance, i can see any doctor of my choosing.

(y)

[saz]

well rob, just last month, 72% of americans polled supported a public option. seems to me then the advertising blitz of b.s. attack ads spearheaded by private insurance firms and other corporate interests have so far been effective. i think it's sad that americans won't have a basic human right that the rest of the western industrialized world has.


Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option

CBS News/New York Times Survey Shows Most Americans Approve Of Government Intervention In Health Care Coverage


(CBS) A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans.

The new poll shows the idea of a government-sponsored plan, or "public option," to be fair non-controversial, though Democrats in the Senate have considered nixing the proposal in order to win Republican support for the bill. House leaders on Friday unveiled a health care reform plan that includes a public option.


link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml)

[yeahwho]

Seriously, I appreciate your effort.
But I think a polls taken from before Obama was even sworn into office are not a true indication of current opinions.

Here's a report from Rasmussen dated July 28, 2009

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/just_23_believe_health_care_costs_will_go_down_if_ reform_passes_congress

Interesting that the poll with the broken link is the one from when Obama is president.

Try Again (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/PollMemo.pdf)

[Documad]

ah no, they're not all over the place. they clearly demonstrate that throughout this decade, a consistent majority of americans want public health insurance, and are willing to pay higher taxes if necessary. and you're citing a b.s. right-wing myth. with public health insurance, i can see any doctor of my choosing.

The results vary with the questions. And a poll asking whether you support higher taxes to guarantee health care for everyone is meaningless. Who is paying the taxes, and how much are they paying? I think that people hearing those questions think in terms of what Obama has promised -- RICH people are going to pay more taxes to pay for it. He swore up and down that middle class people would not pay higher taxes. Ask them if they would personally pay 10% higher taxes and see what happens.

I'm curious? You can see any doctor you want in your country? How do they stop everyone from wanting to see the same doctor? Do they force all doctors to take patients in the public health system? To take every patient who wants to see them? That's so different from what my family members in the UK experienced.

[RobMoney$]

well rob, just last month, 72% of americans polled supported a public option. seems to me then the advertising blitz of b.s. attack ads spearheaded by private insurance firms and other corporate interests have so far been effective.

Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option

CBS News/New York Times Survey Shows Most Americans Approve Of Government Intervention In Health Care Coverage


(CBS) A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans.

The new poll shows the idea of a government-sponsored plan, or "public option," to be fair non-controversial, though Democrats in the Senate have considered nixing the proposal in order to win Republican support for the bill. House leaders on Friday unveiled a health care reform plan that includes a public option.



again, were confusing health care with health insurance.

Every American has access to healthcare.

Allow me to repeat that for the non-Americans...


Every American has the ability to walk into a hospital and will recieve medical attention at any time, even if they are destitute..

The issue is how to pay for it.

[saz]

The results vary with the questions. And a poll asking whether you support higher taxes to guarantee health care for everyone is meaningless. Who is paying the taxes, and how much are they paying.

no, it's not meaningless. it's significant. that cbs poll was conducted in 2007, prior to obama's nomination. it shows that americans are desperate enough for public health insurance that they are willing to pay higher taxes. americans wanting to pay higher taxes is astounding. but as far as getting down to the specifics of said leglislation, i can see your point. however, at some point or another, americans will have to pay higher taxes, as you've got two multi-billion wars raging, tax cuts for the rich, an empire to fund, a bloated defence budget to maintain, and massive budget deficits and national debt. plus all of that borrowed cash from china.


I'm curious? You can see any doctor you want in your country? How do they stop everyone from wanting to see the same doctor?

lol are you serious? yeah, we all live in igloos, and there's only one doctor every 30 kilometres or so.


Do they force all doctors to take patients in the public health system? To take every patient who wants to see them? That's so different from what my family members in the UK experienced.

no, doctors aren't forced to do anything. canada isn't a communist country.

[RobMoney$]

no, doctors aren't forced to do anything. canada isn't a communist country.

no, just socialist

[saz]

and damn proud to be living in a social democracy (y)

[Documad]

So you can't go to any doctor you want. Thanks for clarifying.

[Schmeltz]

So far I haven't really seen anything approaching a cogent argument in favour of the current American health care system, which seems to me badly deficient in many ways. Read the transcript or watch the video (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter) for an inside look at how for-profit health insurance actually works in the USA. All I can say is that I'm very, very glad not to live under that kind of corporate tyranny. In fact I don't understand why anybody would choose a private corporation, which is accountable to nobody but its investors, over a government-subsidized plan, governments being accountable directly to their citizens and voters.

So you can't go to any doctor you want. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm kind of confused by this. What point are you trying to make here? I would think it obvious to anyone that there are practical difficulties in giving every single person access to every single doctor, but nobody in this thread has suggested that, anywhere.

Moreover I think saz makes a good point - when it comes to costs and what Americans might have to give up in order to provide affordable health care to their own people, the Military-Industrial Complex has an awful lot of potential. Even at only 4% of its GDP the USA spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world put together. It's very bemusing to see people get all rankled at the thought of their hard-earned money being spent on the health and welfare of their friends and neighbours, while they seem quite complacent at the thought of their hard-earned money being spent to bomb the shit out of poor brown people on the other side of the world.

no, just socialist

What a bunch of crap, Canada's as capitalist as anywhere else. Confine your one-liners to topics about which you might know something.

[DroppinScience]

What a bunch of crap, Canada's as capitalist as anywhere else. Confine your one-liners to topics about which you might know something.

That would imply he could post only in "Beastie General."

[saz]

So you can't go to any doctor you want. Thanks for clarifying.

no i can go see any doctor i want.

[RobMoney$]

That would imply he could post only in "Beastie General."


Ahahhaaah

ahaaaaa

ah


brilliant comment on the issue at hand. You're so much more intelligent than me.

[RobMoney$]

BTW, I already hate the term "blue dogs"



...like nails on a chalkboard.

[DroppinScience]

Canadian health care hardly a Marxism threat (http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Canadian+health+care+hardly+Marxism+threat/1823845/story.html)

[Documad]

no i can go see any doctor i want.

You mean if you pay him or her yourself and if the doctor accepts you as a patient? I'm really confused about how it works. If doctors retained freedom of choice then I assume that some doctors don't accept patients on the government plan. And how does it work if everyone on the government plan wants to go to the same doctor? On a basic economic level, how does it work if the best doctor can't charge more? Or does your plan just cover a certain percentage or a certain amount and you cover everything over that so that there can still be price competition?

When I had family living in the UK they couldn't get to the doctor they wanted and they couldn't get the procedure they wanted so they paid a private doctor. It was so fucked up. I have no idea how Canada does it though.

[RobMoney$]

So far I haven't really seen anything approaching a cogent argument in favour of the current American health care system, which seems to me badly deficient in many ways. Read the transcript or watch the video (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter) for an inside look at how for-profit health insurance actually works in the USA.


Confine your one-liners to topics about which you might know something.


So you claim that no one's really making a compelling argument for the current system, and then you post a link to a completely slanted "Democracy Now" article to support your position?
That's a riot.

So where's your compelling argument against the current system?
I hope you don't consider posting a link to someone else's article to be YOU making a compelling argument?

My mind is 100% open.
Tell me why I should be for this nationalization of healthcare.

I'll be happy to respond with my argument against it.

[Schmeltz]

You mean if you pay him or her yourself and if the doctor accepts you as a patient? I'm really confused about how it works. If doctors retained freedom of choice then I assume that some doctors don't accept patients on the government plan. And how does it work if everyone on the government plan wants to go to the same doctor? On a basic economic level, how does it work if the best doctor can't charge more? Or does your plan just cover a certain percentage or a certain amount and you cover everything over that so that there can still be price competition?

When I had family living in the UK they couldn't get to the doctor they wanted and they couldn't get the procedure they wanted so they paid a private doctor. It was so fucked up. I have no idea how Canada does it though.

Well, it's somewhat complicated to explain, but Wikipedia has all the answers. The thing to keep in mind is that health care in Canada falls under provincial, and not federal, jurisdiction (although the feds do provide some of the funding). Every province is required by federal law to cover all medically necessary care, but outside those legally defined boundaries - for things like eye care or dental care or cosmetic surgery - there are wide variations from province to province. This is why most Canadians either pay cash for eye and dental care, or get employer-sponsored insurance to cover it.

With that in mind, you could sum up the Canadian health care system as publically funded, but privately delivered. The vast majority of doctors are private practitioners who bill the provincial health authorities for their compensation on a fee-for-service basis; the money for this comes from general provincial revenues (ie taxation) and federal transfer payments. So it would seem to me that Canadian doctors have just as much leeway to choose their patients or charge for their services as doctors anywhere else; the difference is the Canadian single-payer system - the provincial governments assume the burden of payment, rather than the individual patients themselves. It's quite different from in the UK where the entire service is fully nationalized at the federal level.

I can illustrate these things with my personal experience, which I've described in another thread - when I dislocated my shoulder for the third time, I went to a practitioner who was extremely off-putting and didn't want to treat me until I injured it for a fourth time. I said fuck this and went to another practitioner, whom I'd seen before, who put me on the operating table two weeks later, for the same low price of zero dollars. You see, doctors do have latitude to exercise their discretion in choosing whether to treat patients, and patients do have latitude in choosing their practitioners. But the key point is that it's free. And so far as price competition - well, first of all that's not the be-all and end-all of human relations. But if patients gravitate to the better practitioners, these then have more opportunities to bill the province for services rendered, and will thus make more money. I'm sure it's not as simple as that, but the point is Canada isn't some kind of mini-USSR where the doctors are all standing next to the patients in circular bread lines.

[Schmeltz]

My mind is 100% open.

That's a crock of shit and you know it. But in the first place, that's not an article, it's an interview, with a well-placed insider in the corporate American insurance system. His arguments against the system your country uses are extremely well-founded in view of his position. Perhaps you should do yourself a favour and read more than the headline, difficult though that might be for you.

Second, the reason you should be for this "nationalization" of health care, which doesn't seem to be at all what the bill before Congress is proposing, is the fact that it would give the many millions of your countrymen who currently have no access to affordable health care a shot at enjoying the same privileges available to most of the rest of the Western world. I can understand why you might not like the Obama administration's proposals as to how to deal with this problem, as they do seem at least somewhat flawed, and not just because of the increase in federal spending they would necessarily entail. But I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would argue in favour of retaining your country's current, wholly inadequate system of health care provision. It sucks. It is terrible.

[Documad]

Well, it's somewhat complicated to explain, but Wikipedia has all the answers. The thing to keep in mind is that health care in Canada falls under provincial, and not federal, jurisdiction (although the feds do provide some of the funding). Every province is required by federal law to cover all medically necessary care, but outside those legally defined boundaries - for things like eye care or dental care or cosmetic surgery - there are wide variations from province to province. This is why most Canadians either pay cash for eye and dental care, or get employer-sponsored insurance to cover it.

With that in mind, you could sum up the Canadian health care system as publically funded, but privately delivered. The vast majority of doctors are private practitioners who bill the provincial health authorities for their compensation on a fee-for-service basis; the money for this comes from general provincial revenues (ie taxation) and federal transfer payments. So it would seem to me that Canadian doctors have just as much leeway to choose their patients or charge for their services as doctors anywhere else; the difference is the Canadian single-payer system - the provincial governments assume the burden of payment, rather than the individual patients themselves. It's quite different from in the UK where the entire service is fully nationalized at the federal level.

I can illustrate these things with my personal experience, which I've described in another thread - when I dislocated my shoulder for the third time, I went to a practitioner who was extremely off-putting and didn't want to treat me until I injured it for a fourth time. I said fuck this and went to another practitioner, whom I'd seen before, who put me on the operating table two weeks later, for the same low price of zero dollars. You see, doctors do have latitude to exercise their discretion in choosing whether to treat patients, and patients do have latitude in choosing their practitioners. But the key point is that it's free. And so far as price competition - well, first of all that's not the be-all and end-all of human relations. But if patients gravitate to the better practitioners, these then have more opportunities to bill the province for services rendered, and will thus make more money. I'm sure it's not as simple as that, but the point is Canada isn't some kind of mini-USSR where the doctors are all standing next to the patients in circular bread lines.
Thanks for explaining it in a way that I can understand.

[RobMoney$]

That's a crock of shit and you know it. But in the first place, that's not an article, it's an interview, with a well-placed insider in the corporate American insurance system. His arguments against the system your country uses are extremely well-founded in view of his position. Perhaps you should do yourself a favour and read more than the headline, difficult though that might be for you.

Second, the reason you should be for this "nationalization" of health care, which doesn't seem to be at all what the bill before Congress is proposing, is the fact that it would give the many millions of your countrymen who currently have no access to affordable health care a shot at enjoying the same privileges available to most of the rest of the Western world. I can understand why you might not like the Obama administration's proposals as to how to deal with this problem, as they do seem at least somewhat flawed, and not just because of the increase in federal spending they would necessarily entail. But I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would argue in favour of retaining your country's current, wholly inadequate system of health care provision. It sucks. It is terrible.



To be honest, your statement about no one putting forth a cogent argument against a nationalized plan got to me, considering you hadn't really put forth a solid argument yourself supporting it.
I've spent the better part of this evening researching and I'm more convinced than ever now.

Americans spend more money each year on health care, in both absolute terms ($6,350 per person) and as a percentage of GDP (15.2%), than anyone else in the world. (OK, the Marshall Islands spend 15.4% of their GDP on health care, but that's only $294 per person.)
European countries spend an average of $1,652 per person on health care each year, or 8.6% of GDP.

Yet the US ranks behind most European countries, and in fact, behind about three-fourths of all developed countries in life expectancy.

It's not surprising that we have so little to show (in terms of health) for all of our extravagant spending on health care. As it turns out, once certain basic health care needs are met, there's no correlation between additional spending on health care, on the one hand, and improved health, on the other. Marginal spending on health care tends to be either useless or worse than useless. We could maintain similar life expectancy and quality of life if we slashed our medical care in half.

Here's my argument.

1. In the U.S., more spending on health care does not mean better health.








From this article in The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande):McAllen is in Hidalgo County, which has the lowest household income in the country ... McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. ... In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. ...El Paso County, eight hundred miles up the border, has essentially the same demographics. ... Yet in 2006 Medicare expenditures ... in El Paso were $7,504 per enrollee - half as much as in McAllen. ... There’s no evidence that the treatments and technologies available at McAllen are better than those found elsewhere in the country. ... Nor does the care given in McAllen stand out for its quality. ... The primary cause of McAllen’s extreme costs was, very simply, the across-the-board overuse of medicine. ...In a 2003 study, ... Elliott Fisher, examined the treatment received by a million elderly Americans diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer, a hip fracture, or a heart attack. They found that patients in higher-spending regions received sixty per cent more care than elsewhere. ... Yet they did no better than other patients, whether this was measured in terms of survival, their ability to function, or satisfaction with the care they received. If anything, they seemed to do worse. ...And from a 2003 article in the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.longman.html):Where specialists are abundant, they find elders to treat--and Medicare pays, spending, for example, $50,000 more per patient in Miami than Minneapolis, as my colleague Shannon Brownlee recently wrote in The Atlantic. But according to John Wennberg of Dartmouth Medical School, elder persons living in regions where the use of specialists is high have no greater life expectancy than their counterparts in regions where it is low.The reference to Miami and Minneapolis comes from this study (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161308):In Miami, average inpatient Medicare spending on people in their last six months of life was about double Medicare spending in Minneapolis; average ICU days were nearly four times higher. What are the implications of such differences for the efficiency of health care? In this paper, we used Medicare claims data to document the extent of these variations across 306 hospital referral regions in the U.S. We did not find strong evidence that the spending differences were due to underlying variation in health levels across regions. Nor did we find evidence of any benefits from higher spending levels; regional survival rates following acute conditions like AMI (heart attacks), stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding were not correlated with more intensive health care spending. ... In sum, our results suggest that ... regions providing more intensive care are not gaining net health benefits over regions providing less care ... .Finally, these observations are from a couple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine (http://www.annals.org/content/vol138/issue4/):1. The more inpatient-based and specialist-oriented pattern of practice observed in high-spending regions largely explains regional differences in Medicare spending. Neither quality of care nor access to care appear to be better for Medicare enrollees in higher-spending regions.2. Medicare enrollees in higher-spending regions receive more care than those in lower-spending regions but do not have better health outcomes or satisfaction with care. The biggest and most carefully controlled study on this topic was the RAND Health Insurance Experiment (http://www.rand.org/health/projects/hie/). The gist is that when people have to pay for medical care on their own, they buy substantially less of it than when a third party is paying. But they get the same results in terms of their health. The extra health care has no benefit.



2. Indeed, a great deal of spending on health care is completely useless.


From David H. Newman, M.D. at the NYT blog (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/the-ideology-of-health-care/):The practice of medicine contains countless examples of elegant medical theories that belie the best available evidence.* Recent press reports detailing the dangers of cough syrup for children have noted that cough syrup doesn’t work. True: No cough remedies have ever been proven better than a placebo (http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/86/3/170), either for adults or children. Yet their use is common.* Patients with ear infections are more likely to be harmed by antibiotics than helped. While the pills may cause a small decrease in symptoms (for which ear drops work better), the infections typically recede within days regardless of treatment (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14520089). The same is true for bronchitis (http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000245.html), sinusitis (http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000243.html), and sore throats (http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000023.html). Unnecessary antibiotics are still given to more than one in seven Americans each year for these conditions alone, at a cost of more than $2 billion and tens of thousands of serious adverse medication effects requiring treatment.* Back surgeries to relieve pain are, in the majority of cases, no better than nonsurgical treatment (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/350/7/722). Yet doctors perform 600,000 of these surgeries each year, at a cost of over $20 billion.* More than a half million Americans per year undergo arthroscopic surgery to correct osteoarthritis of the knee, at a cost of $3 billion. Despite this, studies show the surgery to be no better than sham knee surgery (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/2/81), in which surgeons “pretend” to do surgery while the patient is under light anesthesia. It is also no better than much cheaper, and much less invasive, physical therapy (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/359/11/1097).More on knee surgeries to treat arthritis in this Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091002941.html):One of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States — arthroscopy to treat arthritis in the knee — is useless. ... [The] findings are being published in today’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. ... The study marks the second time a major study has questioned the operations, which can cost about $5,000 and are done on hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.All of this suggests that we could probably slash our health care spending in half without sacrificing our health.


3. Conclusion

A large fraction of the health insurance we purchase apparently doesn't do as much good as many people think it does. Our life expectancy has improved by about 30 years over the last century, but only about five of those years are due to improvements in medicine.
Most of it comes from better hygiene, better workplace safety, and better food inspections. (Most of the improvements from medicine involve vaccinations.)

Americans are spending twice as much on health care as most developed countries, but we still rank quite poorly in longevity.

A competitive health care market in the U.S. has put it at the head of the class in terms of innovation and customer satisfaction. Modern medicine has discovered all kinds of new treatments for diseases that nobody even knew existed a few decades ago. Cures (or preventative measures (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403803.html)) focusing on such fancy new "diseases" as high cholesterol (http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf) have been hugely profitable for pharmaceutical companies, but probably a waste of time and money for everybody else.

We'd probably have a similar life expectancy and quality of life if we weren't so enthusiastic about spending other people's money on health care.
Your "right to health care" would require some other person to give up a portion of their life or their property to either treat you, or to provide you with drugs or medical implements. The Constitution does not provide for another individual to be indentured to you in this manner.
Therefore, you have no "right" to health care.
Perhaps we should do something about the Wal-Marts and the Home Depots of the United States who continue to do everything they can to prevent offering their employees health insurance while they reap in billions in profits.
You know, legislation to actually help the poor working slobs instead of just throwing even more money that we don't have at the problem.

[Schmeltz]

To be honest, your statement about no one putting forth a cogent argument against a nationalized plan got to me

I said no such thing. What I said was that nobody had put forth a cogent argument in favour of the current system. With comprehension problems like this, it's no wonder you won't read the interview I linked to.

Much of what follows this seems to me largely irrelevant to the discussion. What's up for debate, as you've said yourself, is not the quality of care available in the USA, or how much medical establishments spend on caring for people. It's the fact that so many people cannot afford it. If people are incapable of paying for their own health care, or are left destitute in their effort to do so, or are denied care on the basis of inadequate medical coverage, then does it really matter how much unnecessary surgery is performed in a year? Health spending isn't the issue. Affordability by patients is the issue.


Your "right to health care" would require some other person to give up a portion of their life or their property to either treat you, or to provide you with drugs or medical implements. The Constitution does not provide for another individual to be indentured to you in this manner.
Therefore, you have no "right" to health care.


Leaving aside the entirely spurious nature of this conclusion, would you like to show me where I have used the phrase "right to health care"? And anyway, it doesn't matter how much or whose money is spent on health care if tens of millions of people can't afford it either way. Which is what we're discussing.

Perhaps we should do something about the Wal-Marts and the Home Depots of the United States who continue to do everything they can to prevent offering their employees health insurance while they reap in billions in profits.
You know, legislation to actually help the poor working slobs instead of just throwing even more money that we don't have at the problem.

I dunno Rob, sounds an awful lot like big bad scary socialism to me. But actually if you read that interview I posted you'll see that a large part of the problem lies with insurance corporations who do exactly the same thing - exert every effort possible to deny paying out on the claims of their customers, while reaping billions in profits. That's the part of the system that needs changing.

[Schmeltz]

PS - Rob, you really should give credit where credit is due... (http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=471371&st=0&p=10423444&#entry10423444) that's not much to show for having spent most of the evening researching, is it?

[Echewta]

Using 911 and Emergency Rooms as access to health care to those who do not have insurance/coverage to see a doctor in a normal setting isn't the smartest way to do things.

[yeahwho]

So far I haven't really seen anything approaching a cogent argument in favour of the current American health care system, which seems to me badly deficient in many ways. Read the transcript or watch the video (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter) for an inside look at how for-profit health insurance actually works in the USA. All I can say is that I'm very, very glad not to live under that kind of corporate tyranny. In fact I don't understand why anybody would choose a private corporation, which is accountable to nobody but its investors, over a government-subsidized plan, governments being accountable directly to their citizens and voters.


That link parallels much of what my Mom who worked and retired from a major national insurance company has been saying all along to us kids. This is a business, your health, your families health and our Nations health.

Nothing personal America, it's just a business. When we bailout insurance giant AIG for $80 billion dollars just a few short months after denying underprivileged children a minuscule $5 billion so they could have health insurance, well it's nothing personal America, it's just business.

Fuck that business, I'll take socialized medicine, anything besides this nightmare.

[yeahwho]

Between saz and Schmeltz I'm completely in awe, first of all not only do you have excellent healthcare, the both of you have exceptional knowledge of how it works!

Bravo, not only has the healthcare cloak of confusion been lifted from both or your vocabularies, so has the myth "we're all gonna die waiting in line to see a doctor".

Jesus, when my sister had pertussis (whooping cough) she went to 3 of the top doctors on the west coast.... Her insurance covered 70% for two "un-preferred providers in Washington State and 50% for the out of state doctor. That's actually as good as it gets with most insurance when you go outside the policy writ

The public health facility down the block figured it out within minutes, just before she became critically ill. For free. They were extremely glad to see her and gave all of us in my family script to erythomyacin for free.

[b i o n i c]

(!)this one's gonna rupture an artery in r$'s forehead

http://gothamist.com/2009/07/12/homeless_use_ambulances_as_car_serv.php

"Ricky Alardo, a homeless alcoholic nicknamed Ricky Ricardo" who "swigs cheap vodka by day at his favorite corner in Washington Heights, then calls an ambulance to chauffeur him to the hospital for a free meal and a warm place to sleep, courtesy of taxpayers who fund his Medicaid benefits." (More details here.) He calls 911 "four or five times a week," which works out to $300,000 a year—or $3.9 million over the 13 years he's been running the scam.

^ i wonder if anyone will forgo the classic predictable blame conclusions and realize what the real problem is here. ^

i bet objectivity is out to lunch somewhere getting high listening to calypso in his caddy

[DroppinScience]

Bill Moyers talks with health care professionals about Health Care Reform (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/watch.html)

...[S]upporters who want to scrap the present system for fundamental change are staring glumly through the fog of war at a battlefield in total disarray. They fear that in the White House's desire to get a bill -- any bill -- passed by Congress, it will have been so compromised, so bent to favor the big interests, that it will be less Waterloo than water down, a steady diluting of what they'd hoped for, or America needs.

[RobMoney$]

In order to understand the President's approach to health care reform, it's important to understand the beliefs and policies of his advisers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efacebook%2Ecom%2Fhome%2Eph p&feature=player_embedded

[saz]

michele bachmann? are you serious? hahahahahahahahahahahaah!

[DroppinScience]

michele bachmann? are you serious? hahahahahahahahahahahaah!

He's just making the rounds of quoting the right-wing lunatics. Malkin, Drudge... now it's Bachmann! But don't worry, he's always been a "lifelong Democrat."

[RobMoney$]

Yes, attack the messenger. Ignore the message.

[RobMoney$]

But don't worry, he's always been a "lifelong financially conservative Democrat."


.

[DroppinScience]

^

Make that "conservative in every respect" Democrat.

[RobMoney$]

as long as you realize the difference between "conservative democrat" and "republican".

[DroppinScience]

as long as you realize the difference between "conservative democrat" and "republican".

Yeah, the name.

[RobMoney$]

It continues to amaze me that being so brilliant, and your ability to understand the problems that face our country (Well, my country at least. We all know this isn't even your country) so much easier than the rest of us regular folk, that you're still able to get down here with the regular people and walk amongst them.
I imagine the climb back up to the ivory tower is tiring, yet you keep doing it.
Kudos.

Although, coming from such a regular folk I'm guessing this minor accolade doesn't really mean anything, so I guess I apologize for wasting your time having to read it.

[Schmeltz]

Although, coming from such a regular folk I'm guessing this minor accolade doesn't really mean anything, so I guess I apologize for wasting your time having to read it.

Actually the reason it doesn't mean anything is because it's coming from the guy who copied and pasted a post from another forum and tried to pass it off as the product of his own tireless research.

Seriously, did this just pass everyone by? What Robmoney did on page 2 of this thread, which I called him out for? Does nobody else think that his credibility took a massive hit there? Does nobody else think that this makes it much more difficult to respect or take seriously anything he has to say?

[DroppinScience]

Actually the reason it doesn't mean anything is because it's coming from the guy who copied and pasted a post from another forum and tried to pass it off as the product of his own tireless research.

Seriously, did this just pass everyone by? What Robmoney did on page 2 of this thread, which I called him out for? Does nobody else think that his credibility took a massive hit there? Does nobody else think that this makes it much more difficult to respect or take seriously anything he has to say?

Well, his credibility has been shot for quite some time. It's a thankless job trying to talk truth to stupid, but somebody's gotta do it.

[kaiser soze]

I do remember dorothy wood calling him out on plagiarism as well.

I'm not surprised considering he's not a campus fuck face so plagiarism is not in his dictionary.

better to be a campus fuckface rather than a fucking fake :)

[saz]

former president bill clinton takes on the gop, private health insurance lobbyists, and special interests in an email sent out by the democratic congressional campaign committee:


Friend --

It seems like the 1993 health care debate all over again. Back then, I led the charge for comprehensive health insurance reform. I fought tooth and nail to get it done, keenly aware that millions of Americans were living in fear that a serious illness or injury could spell economic disaster for their families. Americans needed health care reform then and we urgently need it now.

But, just as I did in 1993, President Obama has run into a buzz saw of special interest opposition to his top domestic policy priority -- health care reform. He is facing off against some of the most powerful special interests in Washington who've launched a furious campaign to preserve the status quo.

Simply put, they're at it again. That's why I'm calling on you to stand with President Obama and the DCCC in fighting for change right now. The DCCC is united in their Health Care Reform Now campaign and is trying to raise $250,000 in grassroots donations before their deadline at midnight tonight.

Contribute $5, $10, or more tonight before our deadline at MIDNIGHT and your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar.

Legislation that would lower health care costs for everyone, improve the quality of care, preserve choice and provide more coverage options for American families was introduced in the House last month - just as Speaker Pelosi promised.

But a U.S. health care system that makes quality care affordable for everyone is going to take a lot of hard work from all of us.

Your immediate response is essential because Republicans are waging a fierce assault on President Obama's health care initiative and on Democratic Members of Congress fighting to reform health care now.

Republicans have made a political calculation that they'd rather attack Congressional Democrats with sound bites and misleading characterizations of the President's health care reform plan than work on behalf of the American people.

It's up to us to prevent the Republican Party and their special interest backers from doing whatever they can to prevent this historic opportunity to make quality health care affordable and accessible to all.

Please make your next contribution to the DCCC a generous one...and please be sure to give before midnight tonight.

Thank you,
Bill Clinton

P.S. Remember that any size contribution you can make to the DCCC will be matched dollar-for-dollar. So, if you are able, now is an ideal time to step up your support of President Obama's change agenda.

[RobMoney$]

I do remember dorothy wood calling him out on plagiarism as well.

I'm not surprised considering he's not a campus fuck face so plagiarism is not in his dictionary.

better to be a campus fuckface rather than a fucking fake :)


This is the internet, fuckface.
Not college.

[RobMoney$]

Well, his credibility has been shot for quite some time. It's a thankless job trying to talk truth to stupid, but somebody's gotta do it.


Who are you calling stupid?

You're gay, dude.
Not that there's anything wrong with it, but you're twenty something years old and you haven't figured it out yet.
It's beyond sad at this point.

[kaiser soze]

This is the internet, fuckface.
Not college.

This coming from the guy who came up with campus fuckface as an insult on an internet board

go figure :rolleyes:

anyways nice plagiarism (y)

[RobMoney$]

Whatever.

It's no different than using a rasmussen poll to illustrate a point you're trying to make instead of going out and making 1000 phone calls and doing your own survey.

[QueenAdrock]

Who are you calling stupid?

You're gay, dude.
Not that there's anything wrong with it, but you're twenty something years old and you haven't figured it out yet.
It's beyond sad at this point.

He fucks quite well for a fag. (y)

[Bob]

Whatever.

It's no different than using a rasmussen poll to illustrate a point you're trying to make instead of going out and making 1000 phone calls and doing your own survey.

nobody's saying it's not ok to copy information from a source, in fact it's encouraged. it's just a little confusing that you didn't cite the source or even bother to tell anyone that you'd copied something. especially since the thing you copied prefaced its argument by saying "here's my argument". obviously this is a message board, not a research paper so nobody's expecting anyone to document their posts with properly bluebooked citations and footnotes but still, man, it wasn't your argument. don't you think it was a little weird not to mention that?

He fucks quite well for a fag. (y)

you're just a beard

[saz]

what's interesting is that rob keeps going on about "socialized medicine" or whatever, when obama actually just wants to create a public health insurance option, to compete with private health insurance companies, so people can pick and choose between the two, or remain with private insurance if they already have it.

meanwhile, bill and hillary actually tried to completely reform america's health insurance system in '93-'94, advocating public insurance for everyone, which sent the gop, private health insurance lobbyists and special interests into hysterics (just like now), with effigies of hillary with a noose around her neck. bill and hillary's initiative was much more bold and massive than obama's, and they're also 100% behind obama with the current proposed reform. so i guess rob was vehemently opposed to the clintons back then too?

[RobMoney$]

what's interesting is that rob keeps going on about "socialized medicine" or whatever, when obama actually just wants to create a public health insurance option, to compete with private health insurance companies, so people can pick and choose between the two, or remain with private insurance if they already have it.

HAHAHAA, Oh man, I remember when I believed everything the government told me. Kids...

Curious Saz, have you seen the youtube footage of Obama stating that he's in favor of a single-payer option?

http://brainshavings.com/2009/08/video-obama-caught-supporting.html


How long do you think employers will continue to offer to pay for a large portion of a private healthcare plan when there's a Gov't run plan that you can be put on that'll cost them nothing.
I know I don't have to illustrate the level of greed that exists in corporate america.

[DroppinScience]

Whatever.

It's no different than using a rasmussen poll to illustrate a point you're trying to make instead of going out and making 1000 phone calls and doing your own survey.

See, this is the reason why you couldn't make it through college. Everyone here has posted content from the likes of the New York Times, BBC, CNN, Salon.com, you name it. But everyone here makes sure to link the source and/or attribute it to the original author. You here try to pass off this kind of stuff as completely your own creation, which makes you unethical and an unworthy opponent. It's a wonder you continue as if you've done nothing wrong.

Thank God I'm a campus fuckface. (y)

[saz]

HAHAHAA, Oh man, I remember when I believed everything the government told me. Kids...

Curious Saz, have you seen the youtube footage of Obama stating that he's in favor of a single-payer option?

http://brainshavings.com/2009/08/video-obama-caught-supporting.html


How long do you think employers will continue to offer to pay for a large portion of a private healthcare plan when there's a Gov't run plan that you can be put on that'll cost them nothing.
I know I don't have to illustrate the level of greed that exists in corporate america.

all that edited clip from that conservative website you linked proved is that obama has flip-flopped, just like any other politician. in this nader spot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5WiE6MnmCM), at the 0:32 mark, obama flip-flops once more and says "i never said that we should go ahead and get single-payer".

in regards to how much longer employers will continue to offer to pay for a large portion of a private healthcare plan, when there's public insurance available which will cost the employer nothing, well that just comes down to basic common sense. besides, the private health insurance industry are a bunch of greedy parasites who fuck people out of their coverage in order to turn a profit.

anyways, you didn't answer my question about the clintons.

[DroppinScience]

anyways, you didn't answer my question about the clintons.

He only supported the Clintons because Bill enjoyed eating at McDonald's and was a womanizer.

[RobMoney$]

I must have really struck a nerve with that homosexual theory.

You're clearly taking this shit way too personal.
I'm done with the insults. That's not what I'm here for.
Do and say what you want.
I'm going the "ignore" route with you for a while.

[DroppinScience]

I must have really struck a nerve with that homosexual theory.


Speaking of nerves being struck...

Who are you calling stupid?

You're gay, dude.

I guess what this shows is that when you can't debate, go for the personal insult!

You sure showed me.

[QueenAdrock]

I'm going the "ignore" route with you for a while.

Censoring Brett?!

When I see anyone employing tactics the Nazi's used, no matter how benign, I shout it from the fucking rooftops.

Don't want to be compared to Nazi's? Don't do shit that they did.
Simple.

You know, the Nazis used censorship. :eek:

[RobMoney$]

As someone with a BA in European History and a Master's in Information Science, I'd expect you'd understand the difference between ignoring someone and censoring.

Now run along and go flaunt your education to someone who gives a shit.

[QueenAdrock]

Thus it being a ridiculous joke. KINDA like comparing Obama's asking for voluntary information to Nazism.

And I wasn't flaunting it, sorry if you felt that way. Just saying I know quite a bit about the topic, so don't pull any bullshit with me. Like arguing law to Documad or Bob; it's THEIR specialty.

[kaiser soze]

you'll shout it out from the roof tops......but you accept torture?

seriously rob, your mouth smells like foot

[RobMoney$]

And I wasn't flaunting it, sorry if you felt that way. Just saying I know quite a bit about the topic, so don't pull any bullshit with me. Like arguing law to Documad or Bob; it's THEIR specialty.


Thanks. I didn't realize that.

I always try to argue law with them too :confused:


And you were absolutely flaunting it. Your BF too. You're both on some pedestal shit like you're better than.
"See, I have this degree, and that degree. I'm always right and I have all the answers so don't even try arguing with me. hehehee"
My college drop-out ass prolly makes more than both of you.

[QueenAdrock]

If you think I was flaunting it and I think I'm on a pedestal, you've got some serious inferiority hang-ups about yourself that has nothing to do with me. It's not even about "Don't argue with me," it's "Don't pull the Nazi card and refuse to listen to anyone else's arguments if you're not even an expert in the field."

Well, DUH, you probably do make more than us, since we're fresh out of college and you've been working full-time since you were what, 20? That's like 20 years of promotional experience? We can talk again once we're your age.

[RobMoney$]

Nah, I'm not the one with inferiority issues.
But I think you are. And maybe some denial issues that you can't admit when you might be wrong.

I've never seen Doc or Bob using their LAW degrees as a debating crutch for credibility.
I've never seen anyone else besides you two, and toucan do it.

And I'm pretty sure a majority of the people here have a degree.


BTW, what did Brett do, send you to do his bidding for him now that I've put him on ignore?
Fucking tag-team.
Isn't there something else you two could be doing on this hot summer night for crying out loud?

[QueenAdrock]

That's because it's well-known that they've got law degrees. Not that many people know I have a European History degree, so when we're debating Nazism, yeah, I'm going to give my expertise credentials. A lot of the time, people say "prove it," well, that's me proving it. My degrees.

If you notice, I say "As someone with a BA in European History and a Master's in Information Science, I can assure you that linking Obama to Nazism propaganda is ridiculous." You take it as "OMG, I'M SOOOOO SMART, LOOK AT ME, RUBBING MY CREDENTIALS IN ROB$'S FACE!"

Honestly. Go re-read it. I don't bring it up in many threads at all, but yes, if we're going to be talking about propaganda and Nazism, I'm noting MYSELF as a source.

[RobMoney$]

I'd just like to thank you and your boyfriend for coming here these last two days and completely turning every thread you posted in, in this forum about you and your isuues with me.

This place is better for having you both contribute.
Kudos.


Now you're both on "ignore".

[QueenAdrock]

I told an ironic joke, you can't handle it, and you reply with "Go flaunt your degrees to someone who gives a shit."

Kudos to YOU, kind sir! (y)

[Schmeltz]

Whatever.

It's no different than using a rasmussen poll to illustrate a point you're trying to make instead of going out and making 1000 phone calls and doing your own survey.

That's a bunch of fucking crap, and you know it. Copying out a post made on another forum, by a total stranger, and passing it off as your own original argument, based on a supposed evening of tireless research, which is what you did, is nothing at all like using a poll to illustrate a point. You ripped someone else off and figured you wouldn't get caught, and now that you've been called on it you don't even have the balls to own up to your plagiarism.

Again, I ask you - how do you expect anybody to take you seriously after pulling shit like that?

[kaiser soze]

It's the sense of entitlement conservatives are nefarious for projecting on other people.

He won't own up to it and if he doesn't he should be shunned in this political forum for thieving other peoples' arguments outright.

[Dorothy Wood]

That's a bunch of fucking crap, and you know it. Copying out a post made on another forum, by a total stranger, and passing it off as your own original argument, based on a supposed evening of tireless research, which is what you did, is nothing at all like using a poll to illustrate a point. You ripped someone else off and figured you wouldn't get caught, and now that you've been called on it you don't even have the balls to own up to your plagiarism.

Again, I ask you - how do you expect anybody to take you seriously after pulling shit like that?


he does this shit all the time, probably more often than we realize. I caught him here, in the thread about Gates:
http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1683487&postcount=69

he never addressed it. he even changed the wording a little to suit his argument better.

he also posted this whole thread with pics of NYC as if it were his idea, actually thanking people by saying "I just spent a few hours posting them all.
I'm glad someone appreciates the effort. I thought it was worthwhile.":
http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=90848


but then kaiser caught him and said:
I appreciate ablarc's efforts (y)

You could have posted this link and saved yourself the time

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5010





so you see, we might as well google everything rob says to see who said it first. his ideas are not his own.

[saz]

Actually the reason it doesn't mean anything is because it's coming from the guy who copied and pasted a post from another forum and tried to pass it off as the product of his own tireless research.

Seriously, did this just pass everyone by? What Robmoney did on page 2 of this thread, which I called him out for? Does nobody else think that his credibility took a massive hit there? Does nobody else think that this makes it much more difficult to respect or take seriously anything he has to say?

the link you posted to that football forum opened up to the bottom of the thread, so for anyone who checked out that link, initially didn't see the post rob copied and pasted. once you open the link you posted, you have to scroll up to the very top or beginning of the thread to see the post rob plagiarized.

but anyways, yeah, first dorothy catches him in the act, and then shortly afterwards you did too. so there's no credibility whatsoever and i can't take rush limbaugh talking points seriously.

[RobMoney$]

he does this shit all the time, probably more often than we realize. I caught him here, in the thread about Gates:
http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1683487&postcount=69

he never addressed it. he even changed the wording a little to suit his argument better.

he also posted this whole thread with pics of NYC as if it were his idea, actually thanking people by saying "I just spent a few hours posting them all.
I'm glad someone appreciates the effort. I thought it was worthwhile.":
http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=90848


but then kaiser caught him and said:
I appreciate ablarc's efforts (y)

You could have posted this link and saved yourself the time

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5010





so you see, we might as well google everything rob says to see who said it first. his ideas are not his own.


I did it.
I'll do it again.
Not a god damn thing you can do about it.
Deal with it.
Doesn't matter because my attitude and style can never be duplicated.
As a matter of fact, I'll probably step it up just because I know it pisses all the campus dorks off soo much.


BTW, it still took me several hours to post those pics. I explained that in the thread and everyone said they didn't really have a problem, but I understand that part of the discussion doesn't really fit into your witch hunt.

[Bob]

i realize you're not running for president but rob, come on, man (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=88449)

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, Pretty sure I copied that thread from somewhere else too.


Seriously tho, I'm not running for POTUS.
I'm posting conservative threads to stir up a MB filled with a bunch of campus liberals.

[Bob]

Yeah, Pretty sure I copied that thread from somewhere else too.


Seriously tho, I'm not running for POTUS.
I'm posting conservative threads to stir up a MB filled with a bunch of campus liberals.

i'm just saying, you had some pretty harsh things to say about plagiarism in that thread, like "Plagiarism is stealing and lying." did you mean to say "plagiarism is stealing and lying (if you're running for president but if you're not then it doesn't matter really)"?

nobody cares if you take stuff from other sources, everyone does it, just cite the source. right click, copy, right click, paste. why are you defending your plagiarism so dickishly?

[RobMoney$]

Perhaps I'm just responding in kind?
A lot of dick-headed type of comments have been thrown my way lately, ya know?

[Bob]

i think maybe you focused on the "dickishly" part and not the "why are you defending your plagiarism" part of my question because i'm really confused about that

in the hip hop world, we call you a biter, and it's one of the most egregious things a person can do

[Dorothy Wood]

I did it.
I'll do it again.
Not a god damn thing you can do about it.
Deal with it.
Doesn't matter because my attitude and style can never be duplicated.
As a matter of fact, I'll probably step it up just because I know it pisses all the campus dorks off soo much.


BTW, it still took me several hours to post those pics. I explained that in the thread and everyone said they didn't really have a problem, but I understand that part of the discussion doesn't really fit into your witch hunt.

well...you're right that I can't do anything about it...and I am dealing with it...by making fun of it and calling you out as a copy cat weirdo.

I mean, read what you wrote back to yourself out loud, you sound ridiculous. I mean, why on earth would you spend hours duplicating a thread you saw on another forum instead of just linking to it? was it worth the tiny bit of praise you got?

I mean, maybe I'm digging too deep here...maybe you're just fucking with people. I guess that's cool man, just know that it's totally weird and it doesn't piss people off it just makes people feel sorry for you.

[RobMoney$]

Perhaps I see you're nothing more than just another liberal rat in the BBMB GP cage that I'm toying with, and I couldn't care less about your respect?

[Bob]

Perhaps I see you're nothing more than just another liberal rat in the BBMB GP cage that I'm toying with, and I couldn't care less about your respect?

alright dude, have it your way

(that was a very jeffersonian thing to say by the way, i applaud you)

[RobMoney$]

well...you're right that I can't do anything about it...and I am dealing with it...by making fun of it and calling you out as a copy cat weirdo.

I mean, read what you wrote back to yourself out loud, you sound ridiculous. I mean, why on earth would you spend hours duplicating a thread you saw on another forum instead of just linking to it? was it worth the tiny bit of praise you got?

I mean, maybe I'm digging too deep here...maybe you're just fucking with people. I guess that's cool man, just know that it's totally weird and it doesn't piss people off it just makes people feel sorry for you.


LOL. Spare me your pity.
I read your BF posts, I know I'm nowhere near as fucked up as you are.


The reason I took the time to post each pic was because no one's going to look at a thread containing just a link.
And I found those pics to be amazing and know there are people here who love NYC just as much as me and would find them interesting.
I'm giving like that sometimes. ha

[Dorothy Wood]

you can keep explaining it, but it's still a weird thing to do, dude. weird. really weird.

[RobMoney$]

Not really.
I'm sitting here watching the Phils spank your Cubs, and stirring the pot on the internet.
That's much more normal than running around not realizing all the daddy issues you're constantly posting about portraying on to men

[Dorothy Wood]

Not really.
I'm sitting here watching the Phils spank your Cubs, and stirring the pot on the internet.
That's much more normal than running around not realizing all the daddy issues you're constantly posting about portraying on to men


OH NO NOT THE CUBS! ANYTHING BUT CUBS BASHING!

wait, I don't give a shit about baseball. I'm too busy running around portraying daddy issues on to men without realizing it and then posting about it.

IF THAT MADE ANY SENSE AT ALL TO ANYONE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T TO ME!




*apologizes for impromptu glenn beck impersonation*

[Bob]

Not really.
I'm sitting here watching the Phils spank your Cubs, and stirring the pot on the internet.
That's much more normal than running around not realizing all the daddy issues you're constantly posting about portraying on to men

so if i'm hearing you properly, what you do is you look for stuff on the internet, post it, pass it off as your own and then say to yourself "the trap is set...now i just need to wait for a campus fuckface to discover what i've done and then i've got them exactly where i want them..."

do you twiddle your fingers like mr. burns while you wait? in my head you do

[Bob]

*apologizes for impromptu glenn beck impersonation*

needs more tears and spittle

[Dorothy Wood]

needs more tears and spittle

damn, I knew it was missing something. that, and cheesy graphics.

[kaiser soze]

so if i'm hearing you properly, what you do is you look for stuff on the internet, post it, pass it off as your own and then say to yourself "the trap is set...now i just need to wait for a campus fuckface to discover what i've done and then i've got them exactly where i want them..."

do you twiddle your fingers like mr. burns while you wait? in my head you do

no he pokes at his belly button

[Bob]

Doesn't matter because my attitude and style can never be duplicated.

maybe not, but who would want to

[Schmeltz]

Doesn't matter because my attitude and style can never be duplicated.

Your attitude and style consists of duplicating other people's attitude and style. You talk a lot of shit for someone with nothing - nothing - to back it up.

Seriously, you think you're pissing people off but you're only making them laugh. At you, not with you. And I think you know it. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish other than filling up your spare time?

[Bob]

Your attitude and style consists of duplicating other people's attitude and style. You talk a lot of shit for someone with nothing - nothing - to back it up.

Seriously, you think you're pissing people off but you're only making them laugh. At you, not with you. And I think you know it. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish other than filling up your spare time?

forget about it man. he's the puppet master and we've all just been dancing on his strings. we just got served and there's not a thing we can do