You know an exchange today between Eric Cantor and Barack Obama comes to mind as possibly being relevant. Cantor was talking about burdensome regulation driving up the cost of health care. Obama's response "you know we could probably make food even cheaper than current prices if we simply eliminated meat inspectors tomorrow."
Sometimes regulation is bad, sometimes it's a vital instrument of protection against the greed and apathetic neglect of corporations.
I don't think you're ever going to be able to sell me on the magical curative powers of the free market when it comes to health care. If we start from the premise that every American should have access to affordable, quality healthcare, then I don't think the private sector will ever be able to provide it, not because of regulation, but because of how their business model operates.
There is a financial disincentive built in to the health insurance system that makes it unprofitable to insure millions of people. So what do you do with them? If the government covered every one, then the risk pool would be spread out enough to absorb the costs, plus, with every one covered, a lot of problems are headed off before they even become problems. How will the private sector overcome that obstacle?
I don't think corporations should have a free hand to do whatever they want. You seem to be on the side that suggests they should have such abilities. I'd love to know why. And if not, exactly what limitations are you in favor of?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What prejudices? What exactly makes this a pressing issue?
I didn't say it was a 'pressing' issue that obliterates everything else about the Tea Party, or that it get to dominate analysis of the Tea Party on the whole, which is not something that is solely defined by negative race-related mentality. I am pointing out that it is relevant issue when you're talking about the Tea Party.
I don't accept that you get to say something like "I don't really want to get into Islam here" and have it be an appropriate dismissal. It's akin to if we were talking about the latent racism of the Minutemen and you said "I really don't want to get into Mexicans."
Hey, that's fair. I just didn't want to hijack the thread. Discussions of Islam and its related conflicts tend to do that, you know? Wasn't really trying to slap you down or anything, sorry if it came off that way.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:What is the Tea Party saying or doing with regards to Islam that indicates to you they're a bunch of racist xenophobic crackpots?
The things that your average Tea Party member might say that would convince me that they are a "bunch of crackpots" — and for your entertainment I'll start using your words just for the purpose of demonstration — is much more likely to have to do with whether or not they've figured out where Obama was born. The racist angle is subtler but easier to pick out when you look at issues in the directing mentality and associations of the movement. We already mentioned Tom Tancredo, Oath Keepers, and Michelle Malkin.
We did mention Tom Tancredo and the Oath Keepers. So are we going to ignore the fact that Tancredo is a pretty staunch small government conservative, and a critic of the Bush administration for his profligate, unconservative spending practices? Is the idea here that Tancredo is just a racist and the Tea Party likes him because he's such a good ole racist?
And again, I really don't know much about the Oath Keepers, but once again, their wiki entry indicates they're small government, constitutional types. They seem to use extreme language, and I think if they really believe all their language then they take their positions too far... but I'm not seeing the racism. Maybe that's not on their wiki.
As for Malkin, well, we'll get there.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Feel free to quote notable pro-Tea Party blogosphere personalities, certainly. Reynolds, Breitbart, Malkin, etc. I'm familiar with a fair number of them, to varying degrees, and I still don't see what you apparently see.
Hmm. This one's a gimme for me. Let's start with Michelle Malkin. I can make my case just by mentioning "In Defense of Internment." I'll just quote the lead on Wikipedia on that one.
quote:In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror (ISBN 0-89526-051-4) is a 2004 book written by conservative American political commentator Michelle Malkin. Malkin tries to justify the United States government's internment of Japanese Americans in relocation camps during World War II and extend that logic to justifying racial profiling of Arabs during the post-2001 War on Terror. The book's message has been condemned by Japanese American groups and civil rights proponents.[1][2] Its scholarship has been criticized by academics.[3][4]
I mean, I don't have to editorialize her views at all. The subtitle of her book does all I need to do. If you still don't see anything even subtly racist or xenophobic about a book that defended the WWII racial internments, well, there's not a lot I can say.
/edit -- added missing text that keeps me from BLATANTLY CONTRADICTING MYSELF lolz
Ooooh man. So. I don't really oppose racial profiling. I understand Malkin's case. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think it makes her a racist. I think the Japanese internment camps had a xenophobic and racist cause, certainly, but it was not the only reason for them.
If, statistically, people of a certain race are more likely to commit a certain crime, I don't think it's helping anyone to be politically correct and pretend that's not the case. I'm a man, more than that, I'm a relatively young, large man. I'm statistically more likely to rape a woman than, say, another young woman would be. I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman alone on a dark street corner to be more uncomfortable with me approaching her than she would be if, say, Lisa were approaching her.
So. Does this mean you don't have anything else to say? Am I a racist now? Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know an exchange today between Eric Cantor and Barack Obama comes to mind as possibly being relevant. Cantor was talking about burdensome regulation driving up the cost of health care. Obama's response "you know we could probably make food even cheaper than current prices if we simply eliminated meat inspectors tomorrow."
Ahahahah. Okay, I admit it, that was pretty good.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So. Does this mean you don't have anything else to say? Am I a racist now?
Dan, you have to get off of your pre-emptive victimization card. I have not ventured any guess about whether or not you are a racist and your constant attempts to goad the subject into pagressively venturing whether or not I am categorizing you as a racist or a rapist for being a large man or whatever (wtf) yet is wearing thin fast.
If you want me to call you a racist, say something distinctly racist and I'll indulge you. Otherwise, give it a rest already.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So. Does this mean you don't have anything else to say? Am I a racist now?
Dan, you have to get off of your pre-emptive victimization card. I have not ventured any guess about whether or not you are a racist and your constant attempts to goad the subject into pagressively venturing whether or not I am categorizing you as a racist or a rapist for being a large man or whatever (wtf) yet is wearing thin fast.
If you want me to call you a racist, say something distinctly racist and I'll indulge you. Otherwise, give it a rest already.
Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
But seriously, I don't get it. I could've sworn you said most of the Tea Party was racist/xenophobic (or was it a "statistically significant group"? Not necessarily "most" per se, but enough). I'm trying to get why you think that.
So, if you think that because of Malkin, well.. why? I don't think Malkin is a racist either. I don't agree with all she says but plenty of it makes sense to me. When I ask if you think I'm a racist I'm just continuing with what seems the logical conclusion. I'll stop asking though. Irrelevant.
Could you point out why Malkin is a racist, exactly? Because I don't think her defense of internment is racist.
We can do someone else if you've decided Malkin's not racist. Whatever your justifications are, I want to see them.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
It's also dumb. Stop it! It's got nothing to do with anything I am or am not suggesting. I don't feel like sitting here and watching you arguing with strawmen off to the side Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
It's also dumb. Stop it! It's got nothing to do with anything I am or am not suggesting. I don't feel like sitting here and watching you arguing with strawmen off to the side
Okay. Cool. So we agree that racial profiling can make sense in certain situations, and is not inherently racist or xenophobic.
posted
Also can I just say that when you italicize "large man" like that it makes me very self conscious. I may be fat, but jeez, man, you don't need to... to emphasize it like that!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
It's also dumb. Stop it! It's got nothing to do with anything I am or am not suggesting. I don't feel like sitting here and watching you arguing with strawmen off to the side
Okay. Cool. So we agree that racial profiling can make sense in certain situations, and is not inherently racist or xenophobic.
Progress!
What's next?
Look, if I point out that you're strawmanning, the worst way to move forward is by doing it even more blatantly in the immediate next post.
I mean, I know you're just having fun now but it's providing the ultimate bad-faith argument as to whether or not I should take you seriously. I'll laugh along, of course, but I'll sense that you have abandoned any pretense at actually debating.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
It's also dumb. Stop it! It's got nothing to do with anything I am or am not suggesting. I don't feel like sitting here and watching you arguing with strawmen off to the side
Okay. Cool. So we agree that racial profiling can make sense in certain situations, and is not inherently racist or xenophobic.
Progress!
What's next?
Look, if I point out that you're strawmanning, the worst way to move forward is by doing it even more blatantly in the immediate next post.
I mean, I know you're just having fun now but it's providing the ultimate bad-faith argument as to whether or not I should take you seriously. I'll laugh along, of course, but I'll sense that you have abandoned any pretense at actually debating.
So, ha ha?
Yeah, I kind of got tired of asking for you to give me an actual position to work with. But, y'know, if you ever feel like taking me up on it, I'll be happy to get serious again. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes regulation is bad, sometimes it's a vital instrument of protection against the greed and apathetic neglect of corporations.
Agreed. I never said otherwise. But in the specific case of healthcare, the US has insanely bad regulations.
quote:Neither do insurance companies apparently. In fact, they have it made. All they have to do is insure the healthiest people in the country, and as soon as someone gets sick, refuse to pay out, or if they get really sick, just boot them entirely and blacklist them from getting coverage.
You know, it's really strange, but somehow people do actually get healthcare in this country, even when they get cancer. You are focusing on outlying horror stories and acting as though they were the median. It's a textbook case of outrage bias; you don't look at the average, you insist on focusing on the small parts that don't work, and make the news.
quote:But how is the private sector going to solve the problem of millions who either can't afford health care, or who aren't able to get it at all because they're simply too costly?
Ok, in the first place, a freer market would have cheaper health insurance; even better, it wouldn't have 'insurance' that covered your every sniffle. Having 'insurance' that pays for going to the doctor for the flu is insane. But in the second place, if you want people to have stuff, give them money to buy stuff. Vouchers, if you insist on believing that you know better than them what they ought to buy. But messing around with mandating what can be sold and at what price, just gives you the worst of both worlds: You get all the fluid skill of the market applied to finding the loopholes in your regulations, and all the scleroticism of a bureaucracy in responding to new treatments.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: This was getting fun until Dan_Frank just started clowning around.
Boo.
Boo? Really? How constructive.
Samprimary:
The problem with discussing this with you is that it seems like your MO here has involved ignoring most of what I say in favor of getting bent out of shape at one or two sentences. At least twice you seemed to ignore a reasonably sized post and chose to just harp on a single comment I had made.
As I said above, I'd be happy to roll it back to the whole Tea Party/Malkin part of the discussion.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a short list of African American conservatives who are worth listening to and agree with the tea parties.
Alan Keyes Thomas Sowell Herman Cain Mychal Massie Walter Williams Larry Elder Erik Rush Ellis Washington Star Parker Allen West Jessee Lee Peterson JC Watts
My favorite: Thomas Sowell
Sowell is in my top three of intellectual conservatives, sandwiched in between Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan.
Of course, the left considers the people on my list to be illegitimate for not adhering to the stereotypical role of a minority in American society.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
What problems presented by the Canadian/Euro model of government provided health insurance do you think a totally free health insurance market would solve?
And by the way, I'm on board with changing the perception/nature of health care to disinclude visits for every sneeze and sniffle. I think if we start treating health insurance a little more like car insurance, where you only use it when you really need it, as opposed to every time you get sick regardless of what you're sick with, or at least, some sort of halfway measure that allows for consultation with your doctor via email/phone so you know when you come in and when not to, it would both cheapen insurance somewhat, and takes some of the pressure off of the PCPs.
I think, so far as a public discussion of the problem goes, this is where we start to muddy the waters that separate health care from health insurance. I think we'd all be a lot better off if a clearer distinction was made between the two issues, and they were tackled separately, but with equal vigor.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
A senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, which describes itself as "A think tank on the campus of Stanford University, dedicated to research in domestic policy and international affairs, committed to generating ideas that define a free society."
OK, but what does Sowell think about people who's roll is to generate ideas?
quote:Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas - the intellectuals - have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times. The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, for the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on net balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers or apologists among the leading intellectuals - not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where intellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted to.
So... smart people sometimes agree with bad people, therefore smart people are bad. Also, he's one of those smart people.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
A senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, which describes itself as "A think tank on the campus of Stanford University, dedicated to research in domestic policy and international affairs, committed to generating ideas that define a free society."
OK, but what does Sowell think about people who's roll is to generate ideas?
quote:Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas - the intellectuals - have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times. The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, for the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on net balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers or apologists among the leading intellectuals - not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where intellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted to.
So... smart people sometimes agree with bad people, therefore smart people are bad. Also, he's one of those smart people.
A good quote of Sowell. A quote that makes me agree with him even more. The fact that I called him a "conservative intellectual" doesn't negate his statement against "intellectuals". He's talking about the intellectuals of the left who adored the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. The very same intellectuals are active today and give a free pass to William Ayers, Castro, respect Hugo Chavez, negotiate with Iran or North Korea and give constitutional rights to terrorists.
The realm of the "intellectual" is predominately left. The leftist intellectuals have always defended the likes of the National Socialist Party. Of course, they deny their love of the likes of Moussolini, Mao, Hitler and Stalin, once the genocide becomes public. Our "Intellectuals" think the ideal was corrupted by those bad men, yet can still be achieved. Communism is a wonderful concept, as long as you have a benevolent dictator. The problem is, we aren't a dictatorship. Of course the executive branch can always impose regulations at the will of the president,...EPA, DEA, HOA, etc. Our dictatorship will resemble money laundering. Congress better pass cap and trade, or the EPA will have to regulate.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And by the way, I'm on board with changing the perception/nature of health care to disinclude visits for every sneeze and sniffle. I think if we start treating health insurance a little more like car insurance, where you only use it when you really need it, as opposed to every time you get sick regardless of what you're sick with, or at least, some sort of halfway measure that allows for consultation with your doctor via email/phone so you know when you come in and when not to, it would both cheapen insurance somewhat, and takes some of the pressure off of the PCPs.
I absolutely love the bolded section. This isn't the first time I've seen this idea put forth (It's a favorite suggestion of a couple of my favorite conservative bloggers), but it's the first time I've seen a person on the other side of the fence, so to speak, suggest it. Bipartisan agreement! Man, if only Congress were as levelheaded as Hatrack.
Lyrhawn, I don't expect we'll ever have a truly free market in the USA. For health care or health insurance or anything else, really. I'm not going to cry about that. That's the world we live in.
And, since it's getting to be about bedtime, I'll cop out again and say I agree with a lot of what KoM said. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I absolutely love the bolded section. This isn't the first time I've seen this idea put forth (It's a favorite suggestion of a couple of my favorite conservative bloggers), but it's the first time I've seen a person on the other side of the fence, so to speak, suggest it. Bipartisan agreement! Man, if only Congress were as levelheaded as Hatrack.
Well, I'd start off by saying I'm not a stereotypical liberal in a lot of ways. But more importantly, while that is something I support, there's another side to that coin: if health insurance is going to operate just like car insurance, the price of health insurance has to dramatically come down in response to such a measure. Also, the choice should be the consumers, not the insurance company's. We choose not to invoke car insurance for a variety of reasons: 1. We can often choose higher deductibles in order to gain a lower premium, with the understanding that minor fender benders will be paid for out of pocket, and the knowledge that our rates won't go up because of claims. There's a built-in financial incentive, then, to choose that path. But if your car gets totaled, then you call the insurance company. A lot of the time, we make this decision after we seek out the advice of a repair person, who estimates the cost of the damages.
If we're going to carry the analogy over, then we'd have to have discounts offered for health insurance premiums to people who act the same way. I'm not going to pay the same price for fewer services. I think this is especially something young people would sign onto, because we rarely use the health care system unless something more catastrophic happens.
And like the repair estimate, I think there would have to be an agreement with doctors that you can call or email them with your symptoms to get an expert opinion on whether or not it's worth it to come in and see him or not. A lot, maybe even most doctors already provide this service. My old doctor did, whom I no longer see since I lost my insurance.
I think this sort of arrangement also encourages wellness, and the idea of people taking care of themselves before they ever even reach the doctor's office, or feel the need to go, so they get sick less, again, because of the financial incentive.
However, this sort of arrangement would disproportionately negatively effect lower income groups. These are the sort of people who can't afford a car, let alone the insurance on it, and choose not to drive. But they can't choose not to get sick. How do we insure them? The same structure of financial incentives and higher deductibles won't work, and they'll go to the ER, as they've done in the past, where they can pass the bill off onto the hospital, and via raised prices, onto everyone with the money to pay. It's possible that using a model like this will bring down prices enough to bring in a lot more lower income workers, but for people living paycheck to paycheck, I don't really see it solving the problem. This is where the analogy falls apart.
That's still a problem that has to be solved. Tax breaks aren't going to solve it either. These people already don't pay income tax. Unless you absolve them of their other tax burdens, there's no way to return "their" money to them without creating fully refundable tax credits to give them. That puts us back into the realm of income redistribution and government hand-outs, which a lot of conservatives are going to have a problem with. What's the solution?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... It's really a fantastic business model from a profit stand point. Only insure people that don't cost you money, and exclude everyone who might be risky.
Or to put some numbers behind it:
quote:The insurers claim that rescission is very rare; at the Congressional hearing, two of three industry representatives said it happens to less than 0.5% of policies per year. But that is a deeply misleading number. That means that if you are in the individual market for twenty years, you have a 10% chance of your policy being rescinded; 30 years, and it goes up to 14%. There is a big difference between health insurance and a 90% chance of having health insurance. And remember, insurers only try to rescind policies if you turn out to need them; so the percentage of people who lose their policies when they need them is even higher. (The denominator should exclude all those people who never need expensive medical care, at least not before 65 when they go onto the single-payer system.)
quote:If the top 5% is the absolute largest population for whom rescission would make sense, the probability of having your policy cancelled given that you have filed a claim is fully 10% (0.5% rescission/5.0% of the population). If you take the LA Times estimate that $300mm was saved by abrogating 20,000 policies in California ($15,000/policy), you are somewhere in the 15% zone, depending on the convexity of the top section of population. If, as I suspect, rescission is targeted toward the truly bankrupting cases – the top 1%, the folks with over $35,000 of annual claims who could never be profitable for the carrier – then the probability of having your policy torn up given a massively expensive condition is pushing 50%. One in two. You have three times better odds playing Russian Roulette.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So you're both going with the black people are lazy and like welfare, excuse?
Disgusting. Are you that uncertain of your own views that you have to lie about those of others?
Lisa, it may not be what you meant to imply, but it is hardly a stretch to read it that way. I don't think you think that, but I did a double take when I read what you posted none the less, and reread it to make sure you had really said that.
Perhaps it has more to do with HOW you said something rather than what you meant to say.
BTW, calling Lyr (or myself) a racist makes as much sense as claiming you are a member of the Arab League.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, thank you for engaging people in a discussion. I read the earlier part of this thread am I almost gave up on the thread. Too many people were jawing back and forth with talking points and assumptions, and I didn't think that this thread would be worth much if it kept up like that.
I don't mind discussions where people disagree with me....most of the time I prefer it. I appreciate the fact that you and Lyr are talking.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [QB]The problem with discussing this with you is that it seems like your MO here has involved ignoring most of what I say in favor of getting bent out of shape at one or two sentences. At least twice you seemed to ignore a reasonably sized post and chose to just harp on a single comment I had made.
The only MO I have is that if I reach the end of a 'reasonably sized post' and it concludes with some strawmanning or other rhetorical devices which, at its core, misrepresent me very unconstructively, I'm going to pause the greater 'discussion' and focus on that because it's pointless to continue that discussion at large as long as the other person does not appear able or willing to represent my real views over rhetorical revisionism. I'm going to tell you to quit it and see if you are serious about not actually doing that before I bother going forward.
You said that you didn't want to stuff words in my mouth. Then, you flippantly continue doing so, then you say stuff like "I kind of got tired of asking you to give me an actual position to work with" when there's no lack of evidence that I'm giving you ample position to work with.
These act like hard breaks in any willingness I have to keep debating with you as though you were being serious, since it's just flippant disregard/dismissal. Then, you blame your continued disregard on me. It's just lazy. Even this post is suggesting that my methodology is based on just ignoring most of what you say. If you actually think this about me at this point, what can I accomplish?
quote:As I said above, I'd be happy to roll it back to the whole Tea Party/Malkin part of the discussion.
Then do! A simple 'okay, okay, i'll cut out the strawmanning' will suffice.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'm a man, more than that, I'm a relatively young, large man. I'm statistically more likely to rape a woman than, say, another young woman would be. I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman alone on a dark street corner to be more uncomfortable with me approaching her than she would be if, say, Lisa were approaching her.
Would you be okay if we preemptively locked you up then?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Really? I mean... really? If this is sincere, and not just over-my-head sarcasm, it kind of hurts your credibility.
Really. I don't have to deal with them very often, but on the rare occasions that I have, they seem to do what they are supposed to do. It is tedious, but no more tedious than most tedious chores like dealing with the gas company or the phone company. What problems do you have?
I also have very few problems with other government services like police and fire departments, my garbage gets picked up and the roads (while not perfect) are generally usable. Same with public schools and universities. Not perfect, but I am glad that we have them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem is that they suspended my license for not insuring a car I didn't even own and then DIDN'T tell me, so I almost got arrested the next time I encountered a police officer.
It certainly wasn't deliberate, but that was some massive incompetence with serious consequences. I am not impressed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quality of various different government departments varies tremendously from state to state.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Car insurance is a reactionary type of insurance. It kicks in when something bad happens. If you get into a wreck it is covered. If it is your fault your premiums may go up.
How is this different than health insurance in America right now? Depending on how you live your life, your health will be better or worse than the average person. When you get in a health "wreck" you will usually be covered. I know some people are dropped or denied coverage, but the actual number of people that happens to is miniscule. If you do not drive your health well (smoke, binge drink, eat nothing but fast food) then you are more likely to have a health wreck, and your insurance may go up.
The key to health care is preventative care. I am lucky in that my health insurance provider covers preventative care 100%, with no co-pay. If you can prevent the wreck from happening by correcting problems early on, both you and the insurance company saves money.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, there are plenty of things over which we have no control at all that effect our health. Genetics, accidents, childhood diseases, and so forth.
I notice a tendency in conservatives to attribute unfortunate circumstances in others to some fault of the unfortunate person. While we certainly do have an impact on our circumstances, bad things do sometimes happen to people who do everything right and who don't somehow deserve misfortune.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That means that if you are in the individual market for twenty years, you have a 10% chance of your policy being rescinded; 30 years, and it goes up to 14%.
This is simply untrue; it assumes that rescissions are independent, which is clearly not true. What's more, it takes "less than 0.5%" and plugs 0.5% into the calculation, which is based on bad assumptions to start with. A really classic case of misusing statistics.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh. On the other hand, "less than 0.5%" is from pre-prepared testimony from insurance executives. I have no doubt that it has already been massaged downward to cast them in the best possible light and that the true statistic is much higher anyways.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, even if it were only .5% however, that is a lot of people. If there are 200 million insured Americans and .5% of them have their insurance revoked, that is still 1 million people.
And kmboots, I completely agree with you. There are things that are out of your control. Bad things happen to people at times without any reason. I don't believe I said otherwise.
I was comparing health with driving a car. If you drive carefully and treat it with respect, you are much less likely to get into a wreck. That isn't to say accidents still don't happen.
The same rule applies with your health. If you eat healthy, work out, and keep your personal hygiene habits, you are going to be less likely to have poor health. Again, "accidents" happen that are out of your control.
I notice a tendency in your posts to come up with ways to try and demean others by deliberately trying to say they meant something other than what they made clear in their post. I don't know if this stems from not reading the entire post or a desire to disagree with me on every single point I make, even if I agree with your view.
That being said, I will address your comment. Both sides do it. It could be said that conservatives do this to the extreme, and I would agree with you. I could also argue that liberals do the same thing on the opposite side of the spectrum. I could argue that liberals shun personal responsibility and say that any morally reprehensible act is a direct result of "genetics" or "the way they were brought up" or "the lack of opportunity in the community they live" or that "his mother and father didn't love him" or what have you.
Both ideas are hogwash
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mucus, even if it were only .5% however, that is a lot of people. If there are 200 million insured Americans and .5% of them have their insurance revoked, that is still 1 million people.
The number was for the individual market. Not many people get their insurance that way.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [QB]The problem with discussing this with you is that it seems like your MO here has involved ignoring most of what I say in favor of getting bent out of shape at one or two sentences. At least twice you seemed to ignore a reasonably sized post and chose to just harp on a single comment I had made.
The only MO I have is that if I reach the end of a 'reasonably sized post' and it concludes with some strawmanning or other rhetorical devices which, at its core, misrepresent me very unconstructively, I'm going to pause the greater 'discussion' and focus on that because it's pointless to continue that discussion at large as long as the other person does not appear able or willing to represent my real views over rhetorical revisionism. I'm going to tell you to quit it and see if you are serious about not actually doing that before I bother going forward.
You said that you didn't want to stuff words in my mouth. Then, you flippantly continue doing so, then you say stuff like "I kind of got tired of asking you to give me an actual position to work with" when there's no lack of evidence that I'm giving you ample position to work with.
These act like hard breaks in any willingness I have to keep debating with you as though you were being serious, since it's just flippant disregard/dismissal. Then, you blame your continued disregard on me. It's just lazy. Even this post is suggesting that my methodology is based on just ignoring most of what you say. If you actually think this about me at this point, what can I accomplish?
quote:As I said above, I'd be happy to roll it back to the whole Tea Party/Malkin part of the discussion.
Then do! A simple 'okay, okay, i'll cut out the strawmanning' will suffice.
By giving this a meaningful response, I feel like I'm letting you control the discourse and tacitly admitting that this whole derail is my fault. Nevertheless, I really want the discussion to move back to somewhere meaningful, so I'm going to give it a shot.
The first "strawman" I used, I explicitly said "That probably makes you think X". I wasn't implying that I knew what you thought. I guessed, and I admitted that I was guessing. Nevertheless, I'll accept that I shouldn't have guessed at your motives and then extrapolated to say "if that is your motive then Y." I should have simply reacted to what you were saying.
And then, what really set us off down that wonderful little unproductive road was when I asked if you thought I was racist yet. Here's the thing...
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If you still don't see anything even subtly racist or xenophobic about a book that defended the WWII racial internments, well, there's not a lot I can say.
Perhaps I'm misreading you here. But the way I'm reading this, that "well, there's not a lot I can say" pretty strongly indicates that your conclusion is anyone who doesn't see any racism in Malkin's book obviously has some racist leanings themselves. Thus, when I respond by saying I don't think Malkin's view is racist, I also jump to the wild conclusion that you will, in fact, see me as a racist.
Where's the strawman here? I guess I misread you, in which case, hey, I'm really sorry. I don't like misreading people. I don't like "stuffing opinions in their mouth" (though I do love that phrase). So, if you weren't saying you think I'm a racist for not thinking Malkn is a racist, then we can pick up there and everybody wins.
Well, except my girlfriend. I have to go take her to an oral surgeon now, and she's getting a screw drilled into her jaw. So I think she loses. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I notice a tendency in conservatives to attribute unfortunate circumstances in others to some fault of the unfortunate person. While we certainly do have an impact on our circumstances, bad things do sometimes happen to people who do everything right and who don't somehow deserve misfortune.
posted
More specifically, it's a westener thing. Many cultures don't show this error. It is tied not to human nature, but rather the way our culture tends to see the world.
posted
kate - that's not kosher to pretend that a single thing you are linking to defines all conservatives. If you mean the adherents of that particular theology, then be more careful and less careless in your general accusations.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pointing to other niche loonies does the same thign as kate's link - only highlight how lazy and careless the accusation was in the first place.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: kate - that's not kosher to pretend that a single thing you are linking to defines all conservatives. If you mean the adherents of that particular theology, then be more careful and less careless in your general accusations.
err...how is saying something applies to much of the conservative crowd equate to saying it applied to all conservatives? This criticism seems obviously unwarranted.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I'm not sure what niche loonies you are talking about. Do you think that Just World Theory is something that fits into this category? The link I provided implies, but doesn't really go into detail, that this is a widespread and well-studied issue.
I'm having trouble seeing sense in the things you are saying. You seem to be throwing accusations at people that are obviously contradicted by what they are writing.
---
For the record, several studies of self-identified "liberals" vs. "conservatives" have shown a significantly higher prevalence of the fundamental attribution error in the conservative group. Which, honestly, I don't think is that surprising.
It's important to note that 1) this error is widespread across our culture, whether liberal or conservative and 2) this is not a universal trait among conservatives.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing health insurance to car insurance is a very bad idea. In car insurance, discrimination is accepted. Car insurance looks at statistics. Women pay less than men and things like age, home ownership, credit scores, college degrees, student status, etc are accepted inputs into the equation.
Health insurance considers age, ignores sex, credit scores, marriage, race, etc. Minorities and women are certainly the highest expense for heathcare. Car insurance is scientific in it's approach to the risk of the individual. This approach would be called sexist/racist profiling if applied to healthcare. Healthcare insurers need to ignore the costs of pregnancy and medical problems more common among different racial groups. Asians should have the cheapest health insurance and African Americans, the most expensive....if auto insurance type statistics were applied. Healthcare risk has a lot to do with genetics.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:... Feel free to quote notable pro-Tea Party blogosphere personalities, certainly. Reynolds, Breitbart, Malkin, etc.
quote:In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror (ISBN 0-89526-051-4) is a 2004 book written by conservative American political commentator Michelle Malkin. Malkin tries to justify the United States government's internment of Japanese Americans in relocation camps during World War II and extend that logic to justifying racial profiling of Arabs during the post-2001 War on Terror.
Just bookmarking this in my account so it is more easily searchable. Should be handy next time someone is all "In this century, we won't succumb to putting people in internment camps. Americans have a more evolved sensibility."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Minorities and women are certainly the highest expense for heathcare ... Asians should have the cheapest health insurance and African Americans, the most expensive
Do you not consider Asians minorities or something?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
War is hell. Interning every American Japanese was horrible. >99% of the Japs they interred were loyal Americans. For this reason, we aren't interring American Muslims today. Unfortunately, that <1% belong to terrorist cells. That fraction of a percent will kill hundreds, if not thousands. I hope you are as understanding when the victims are people you love.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey guys, I just wanted to say that I've watched a couple interviews with Stewart Rhodes from the Oath Keepers and they seem pretty awesome. Maybe there's some video of them being racist and evil that I haven't seen yet. So far I've seen Rhodes interviewed by a conservative and interviewed (i.e. attacked) by Chris Matthews, and in both cases he was composed and relatively articulate (perhaps a bit less articulate with Chris Matthews, because he kept being put on the defensive).
So, yeah. They seem pretty radical. Er, to clarify, that's radical in the 1980s sense, not in the extremist sense.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Minorities and women are certainly the highest expense for heathcare ... Asians should have the cheapest health insurance and African Americans, the most expensive
Do you not consider Asians minorities or something?
Maybe he's saying that minorities, on average, are a higher expense than white people. Asians are minorities, but there are so few of them compared to African Americans and Hispanics that they wouldn't affect the average minority expense very much.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Do you not consider Asians minorities or something?
