I often see the proclamation that 45 thousand people die every year because they don’t have health insurance. This number comes from a Harvard study, so it is pronounced with great reverence and seldom questioned or considered. The study is widely available on the internet, and I suggest you read it. While reading it consider the point-of-view of one of the authors: according to the NIH website "Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler helped found Physicians for a National Health Program, a not-for-profit organization for physicians, medical students, and other health care professionals who advocate a national health insurance program."
Of course, the number quoted is the highest number in the study, and comes about only when using criteria suggested by the Urban Institute. The lower end of the estimated range is 27424, or a just about 50% less, albeit this covers only ages 25-64. Ignoring the Urban Institutes guidelines, the number provided is 35327 deaths annually for the non-elderly (ages 18-64), compared to the larger number 44789.
But the study also had several severe limitations.
First, the study relied on self-reported insurance status (unverified data). Further, the study only included insurance status at a single point in time, without determining whether the participants were actually insured at the time of their death. If a person had not been insured at the time of the initial interview, but got insurance later in the 6-year study period and may have actually had insurance at the time of death, they were counted as if a lack of insurance had contributed to their death. The authors have no information as to the duration of insurance coverage or lack thereof--only that the person was uninsured during the initial interview. To be fair, it may also be true that some people who reported having private insurance later dropped or lost their insurance, but the study does not consider either case.
Next, the study made no effort to determine that the cause of death was related to health insurance status. Deaths due to auto accidents, homicides, etc. were counted the same as deaths due to untreated diabetes. This is made more problematic because the study oversampled blacks and blacks are six times more likely to be victims of homicide than whites.
The study also excluded people on Medicare, which is reasonable as the study focused on the non-elderly. However, the study also excluded "nonelderly Medicare recipients and persons covered by Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs/Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services military insurance, as a substantial proportion of those individuals had poor health status as a prerequisite for coverage." These people were excluded because they were probably already sick and the fact that they had health care coverage, albeit government supplied, would likely have skewed the results. If they had died during the study, the hypothesis that lack of coverage is associated with increased likelihood of death may have been less strongly supported; also, it may well have indicated that having government-provided coverage is even more strongly associated with increased likelihood of death.
Although the study seemed to indicate that “uninsurance is associated with mortality,” it also points out that “uninsurance was associated with younger age, minority race/ethnicity, unemployment, smoking, exercise, self-rated health, and lower levels of education and income. Regular alcohol use and physician-rated health were also associated with higher rates of uninsurance.” Or, as the authors put it “unmeasured characteristics (i.e., that individuals who place less value on health eschew both health insurance and healthy behaviors) might offer an alternative explanation for our findings.”
Finally, it is worth noting that of all those who were included in the study, a total of 3.1% died. Of those who died, 83.8% had private insurance (but still died). The overall rate of death was 3.0% for the privately insured, and 3.3% for the uninsured. So, 97% of the privately insured were still alive after the study period ended, and so were 96.7% of uninsured.
In other words, there may be a 0.3% increased chance of death associated with instances of unverified periods of uninsurance (of unknown duration) and where cause of death may or may not be related to health-care related factors.
By way of comparison, in 2008 there were 43,313 deaths in auto accidents in the U.S. That number is typical for the annual loss of life on our roads. Each of those deaths was 100% preventable by simply banning automobiles. We could save many of them by simply lowering the speed limit to 25MPH on all roads. Are we willing to spend $1T to save those people over the next 10 years?
For further comparison, the CDC says that approximately 90,000 people die each year as a result of acquiring an infection while in a hospital. Almost all of those deaths could be avoided if doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff would simply wash their hands and use hand sanitizers regularly and properly.
P.S. According to the numbers in the Harvard report, being male had almost the exact same “risk” as being uninsured.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
"8 years of Republican control"
On blog after blog, I read about “8 years of Bush” or “8 years of Republican control”. As if Pres. Bush and the Republican party in Congress had total control over the country. These statements often reflect either ignorance or complete denial of the facts.
First, we know that Pres. Bush did not have Congressional support in the final two years of his 2nd term, as the 110th Congress was controlled by Democrats (233-202 in the House, and 49-49-2 in the Senate with Leiberman and Sanders as “independents” who mostly joined Democrats when they voted). Any bill which passed the 110th Congress had to have Democratic support, and especially had to have the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, they passed two bills that Pres. Bush vetoed and who’s vetoes were subsequently overridden. (Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (the 2007 Farm Bill)).
But even when Republicans held majorities in Congress under Bush, as they did in the 107th-109th Congresses, the majorities were slim, and especially slim in the Senate (often an even split). Thus whenever a bill was approved in the Senate, it had to be done with support of something close to 20% of the Democrats in the Senate (assuming 100% Republican support, which was not at all guaranteed). In light of this, anything that passed the Congress did so with something of a bipartisan effort, since Democrats could block the Senate on any issue simply by withholding cloture votes as a bloc (or something remotely like a bloc). Instead we saw one of the most “Bushy” bills, the PATRIOT Act, passed 99-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House. On the other hand, another big Bush bill, the Medicare Modernization Act, passed 220-215 with 16 Democrats voting Yea in the House (and 25 Republicans voting Nay) and 54-44 in the Senate, with 11 Democrats supporting it and 9 Republicans opposed (i.e., nearly ¼ of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill). In perhaps the most telling vote, the Iraq war was started with strong Democratic support, according to Wikipedia: “Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002 in conjunction with the Administration's proposals, H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.” Eighty-two Democrats (40%) supported the action in the House and 29 Democrats (50%) in the Senate also supported the action. In fact, the Democrats+Jeffords(I-VT) as a bloc had a 51-49 majority in the Senate, yet they still passed the bill. Even the Bush tax cuts of 2003 could have been held up, but 2 Yeas from Democrats in the Senate counterbalanced 3 Nays by Republicans, leaving the final vote in Dick Cheney’s hands breaking the 50-50 tie.
It has been widely reported than Democrats in Congress (esp. Barney Frank) blocked attempts by the Bush administration to reform and regulate the mortgage industry in the part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even though in the minority party, they could block items in committees and by withholding cloture, because the Senate was so evenly split.
In the end, nearly everything in the Bush years, other than executive orders and other policy matters (e.g. rules set by Cabinet Secs.) was done with some measure of Democratic support. In particular, since only Congress controls the purse strings, all the money spent under Bush was spent with Democratic votes in support. Had Democrats held their party line, the “Bush years” would have come out differently.
First, we know that Pres. Bush did not have Congressional support in the final two years of his 2nd term, as the 110th Congress was controlled by Democrats (233-202 in the House, and 49-49-2 in the Senate with Leiberman and Sanders as “independents” who mostly joined Democrats when they voted). Any bill which passed the 110th Congress had to have Democratic support, and especially had to have the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, they passed two bills that Pres. Bush vetoed and who’s vetoes were subsequently overridden. (Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (the 2007 Farm Bill)).
But even when Republicans held majorities in Congress under Bush, as they did in the 107th-109th Congresses, the majorities were slim, and especially slim in the Senate (often an even split). Thus whenever a bill was approved in the Senate, it had to be done with support of something close to 20% of the Democrats in the Senate (assuming 100% Republican support, which was not at all guaranteed). In light of this, anything that passed the Congress did so with something of a bipartisan effort, since Democrats could block the Senate on any issue simply by withholding cloture votes as a bloc (or something remotely like a bloc). Instead we saw one of the most “Bushy” bills, the PATRIOT Act, passed 99-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House. On the other hand, another big Bush bill, the Medicare Modernization Act, passed 220-215 with 16 Democrats voting Yea in the House (and 25 Republicans voting Nay) and 54-44 in the Senate, with 11 Democrats supporting it and 9 Republicans opposed (i.e., nearly ¼ of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill). In perhaps the most telling vote, the Iraq war was started with strong Democratic support, according to Wikipedia: “Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002 in conjunction with the Administration's proposals, H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.” Eighty-two Democrats (40%) supported the action in the House and 29 Democrats (50%) in the Senate also supported the action. In fact, the Democrats+Jeffords(I-VT) as a bloc had a 51-49 majority in the Senate, yet they still passed the bill. Even the Bush tax cuts of 2003 could have been held up, but 2 Yeas from Democrats in the Senate counterbalanced 3 Nays by Republicans, leaving the final vote in Dick Cheney’s hands breaking the 50-50 tie.
It has been widely reported than Democrats in Congress (esp. Barney Frank) blocked attempts by the Bush administration to reform and regulate the mortgage industry in the part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even though in the minority party, they could block items in committees and by withholding cloture, because the Senate was so evenly split.
In the end, nearly everything in the Bush years, other than executive orders and other policy matters (e.g. rules set by Cabinet Secs.) was done with some measure of Democratic support. In particular, since only Congress controls the purse strings, all the money spent under Bush was spent with Democratic votes in support. Had Democrats held their party line, the “Bush years” would have come out differently.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
"Tea Partiers don't get it"
ajc blogger: "Tea baggers are a small group of 6th grade educated morons. Anyone above a 6th grade education would know better."
First, you use offensive language, then you insult a lot of peoples' education.
I attended the April Tea Party at the Capitol with several members of my family (some of whom also attended the Tea Party in D.C. later in the year) and between the 5 adults we held a PhD, several master's degrees (plus a not-quite finished MBA), five bachelor's degrees in various disciplines. And yet, there we were speaking out.
It is oversimplifying the issue to say we are against taxes and government. When I say "we" here I cannot speak for all Tea Party attendees, but only those I know and spoke with.
The case is more that we are opposed to increased Federalism, especially so much of the federal government's actions that appear to be outside the limited powers provided for in the Constitution. And at the time, we were specifically opposed to and quite upset about TARP and the unread, pork-laden stimulus bill that many of us felt was simply not going to work. We didn't want the federal government to bail out the GM or AIG, let alone Fannie and Freddie. We believed that it was madness to socialize risk and privatize profit (which is what the bailouts did and will do next time). We believed that the housing meltdown was exacerbated if not precipitated largely by the federal government's policies and the fact that the federal government held more than $5T in mortgage loans through the auspices of Fannie and Freddie (even though there's was never a promise that the government would backstop Fannie and Freddie--nudge-nudge wink-wink, right?) We believed that all of these problems were not only foreseeable, but had been clearly foreseen and corrective actions actively fought by elements in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
We understand that government is necessary, and it has to be funded. But we also believe that, especially at the federal level, the Constitution provides a very specific set of powers and responsibilities. We are seeking a return to that limited government--we believe that the federal government ought not be everyone's mommy. We believe that the current situation (huge deficit spending) is unsustainable and it is better to deal with the problem now rather than face total economic collapse. We see a future when the Treasury will be forced to print money, when devaluing the dollar will be the only way to pay our debts. That will not be pretty. One way to stave that off is to start cutting the expenditures of the federal government. As it is much of the federal government actions are simply unfunded mandates to the States. We believe that these actions should be made at the State level anyway, and taking the federal government out of the loop is a good thing.
Ironically, in light of this article, we believe that transportation is at least partly within the enumerated domain of the federal government, I have no problem with Interstate highways as "post roads"; more so that I am familiar with the military aspects of the system as constructed. The notion that these post/military highways serve civilian needs (also known as "dual use") is just a bonus. And the gasoline tax is perhaps the single fairest and least complicated way to offset the maintenance requirements caused by civilian use of the system: the more you drive, the more you pay (and heavier and less efficient vehicles pay more).
On the other hand, the income tax system has been used as a mechanism for social engineering and class warfare. We have a system in which more than 40% (and every year we get closer to the 50% tipping point) not only pay no income taxes, but where a growing number have negative tax liability (aka tax welfare). When 141 thousand people pay more than 20% of all federal income taxes, when the top 5% pay more than 71% and then the bottom 75% pay barely more than 13% of collected income taxes, this system cannot be considered fair. Indeed the imbalance means that every day more and more voters will be freeloaders, paying nothing into the system yet sucking more and more out and voting themselves more and more largess. How quickly would the system fail if the top 5% simply stopped doing what they're doing?
So, we believe that government is a necessary evil, but that it must be limited to what is prudent, necessary, and affordable. We know that government must be funded to do those things and that taxes, equitably assessed, are necessary. What we disagree on is simply what we believe is the line for prudent, necessary, and affordable.
First, you use offensive language, then you insult a lot of peoples' education.
I attended the April Tea Party at the Capitol with several members of my family (some of whom also attended the Tea Party in D.C. later in the year) and between the 5 adults we held a PhD, several master's degrees (plus a not-quite finished MBA), five bachelor's degrees in various disciplines. And yet, there we were speaking out.
It is oversimplifying the issue to say we are against taxes and government. When I say "we" here I cannot speak for all Tea Party attendees, but only those I know and spoke with.
The case is more that we are opposed to increased Federalism, especially so much of the federal government's actions that appear to be outside the limited powers provided for in the Constitution. And at the time, we were specifically opposed to and quite upset about TARP and the unread, pork-laden stimulus bill that many of us felt was simply not going to work. We didn't want the federal government to bail out the GM or AIG, let alone Fannie and Freddie. We believed that it was madness to socialize risk and privatize profit (which is what the bailouts did and will do next time). We believed that the housing meltdown was exacerbated if not precipitated largely by the federal government's policies and the fact that the federal government held more than $5T in mortgage loans through the auspices of Fannie and Freddie (even though there's was never a promise that the government would backstop Fannie and Freddie--nudge-nudge wink-wink, right?) We believed that all of these problems were not only foreseeable, but had been clearly foreseen and corrective actions actively fought by elements in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
We understand that government is necessary, and it has to be funded. But we also believe that, especially at the federal level, the Constitution provides a very specific set of powers and responsibilities. We are seeking a return to that limited government--we believe that the federal government ought not be everyone's mommy. We believe that the current situation (huge deficit spending) is unsustainable and it is better to deal with the problem now rather than face total economic collapse. We see a future when the Treasury will be forced to print money, when devaluing the dollar will be the only way to pay our debts. That will not be pretty. One way to stave that off is to start cutting the expenditures of the federal government. As it is much of the federal government actions are simply unfunded mandates to the States. We believe that these actions should be made at the State level anyway, and taking the federal government out of the loop is a good thing.
Ironically, in light of this article, we believe that transportation is at least partly within the enumerated domain of the federal government, I have no problem with Interstate highways as "post roads"; more so that I am familiar with the military aspects of the system as constructed. The notion that these post/military highways serve civilian needs (also known as "dual use") is just a bonus. And the gasoline tax is perhaps the single fairest and least complicated way to offset the maintenance requirements caused by civilian use of the system: the more you drive, the more you pay (and heavier and less efficient vehicles pay more).
On the other hand, the income tax system has been used as a mechanism for social engineering and class warfare. We have a system in which more than 40% (and every year we get closer to the 50% tipping point) not only pay no income taxes, but where a growing number have negative tax liability (aka tax welfare). When 141 thousand people pay more than 20% of all federal income taxes, when the top 5% pay more than 71% and then the bottom 75% pay barely more than 13% of collected income taxes, this system cannot be considered fair. Indeed the imbalance means that every day more and more voters will be freeloaders, paying nothing into the system yet sucking more and more out and voting themselves more and more largess. How quickly would the system fail if the top 5% simply stopped doing what they're doing?
So, we believe that government is a necessary evil, but that it must be limited to what is prudent, necessary, and affordable. We know that government must be funded to do those things and that taxes, equitably assessed, are necessary. What we disagree on is simply what we believe is the line for prudent, necessary, and affordable.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Northeast and west coast are subsidizing the south and heartland
On ajc blog:
Re: Not Going To Use My Usual Name
"The Southern states take WAY MORE than they pay as a percentage of federal taxes. The Northeast and west coast are subsidizing the south and heartland"
Well, that's true and false, meaning you've made a generalization that has some truth in it, but is not the whole story.
It is also true that Alabama ($1.66), Mississippi ($2.02), Louisiana ($1.78), and Arkansas ($1.41) receive more than they pay (at least in 2005). But Georgia ($1.01) basically breaks even, North Carolina ($1.08) is a little on the plus side, and Texas ($0.94) pays in more than it takes out. On the other hand, we can look at New Mexico ($2.08), North and South Dakota ($1.68, $1.53 respectively) being big consumers of tax dollars, while Vermont ($1.08) shows that not all Northeastern states are paying in.
Some of the biggest dollars go to Maryland ($1.30) and Virginia ($1.51), proving that the government likes to spend money on itself. And the king of all the tax dollar money pits is D.C. ($5.55).
California ($0.78) and New York ($0.79) do payout much more than they receive, on the other hand they have by far more millionaires residing there than anywhere else (excepting Florida ($(0.97) and Texas ($0.94)) so maybe there's something to the whole "tax the rich" scheme----if all the evil millionaires live in California and New York, and you want to tax the rich, then it follows that those states (and their evil population) will be net payers to fund the desires of the government.
Which is what I thought Democrats want. So stop complaining about it.
Re: Not Going To Use My Usual Name
"The Southern states take WAY MORE than they pay as a percentage of federal taxes. The Northeast and west coast are subsidizing the south and heartland"
Well, that's true and false, meaning you've made a generalization that has some truth in it, but is not the whole story.
It is also true that Alabama ($1.66), Mississippi ($2.02), Louisiana ($1.78), and Arkansas ($1.41) receive more than they pay (at least in 2005). But Georgia ($1.01) basically breaks even, North Carolina ($1.08) is a little on the plus side, and Texas ($0.94) pays in more than it takes out. On the other hand, we can look at New Mexico ($2.08), North and South Dakota ($1.68, $1.53 respectively) being big consumers of tax dollars, while Vermont ($1.08) shows that not all Northeastern states are paying in.
Some of the biggest dollars go to Maryland ($1.30) and Virginia ($1.51), proving that the government likes to spend money on itself. And the king of all the tax dollar money pits is D.C. ($5.55).
California ($0.78) and New York ($0.79) do payout much more than they receive, on the other hand they have by far more millionaires residing there than anywhere else (excepting Florida ($(0.97) and Texas ($0.94)) so maybe there's something to the whole "tax the rich" scheme----if all the evil millionaires live in California and New York, and you want to tax the rich, then it follows that those states (and their evil population) will be net payers to fund the desires of the government.
Which is what I thought Democrats want. So stop complaining about it.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Tyranny of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi
[My wife sent me a chain-email (see below) with a question: "So much of this internet email stuff is total crap - do you know anything about this?? D". This is my response...]
Go to this CNN link to download the document (http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/18/hcbill.pdf) which shows up in an CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/health.care/index.html. Once you have the PDF go to page 1020 in the PDF, starting on Line 7 that text indeed appears. This is the House bill that passed (HR3590). The Senate bill was essentially the same bill with 350+ pages of amendments (link to download http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf). It's somewhat harder figure out what the final bill looks like until you piece together the various snippets, but I see no amendments to Section 3403 that change this language. However, as I read it starting on page 184 in the amendment PDF file on line 20, the subsection (d) of Section 3403 has only minor tweaks that do not affect the language in question. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that this is indeed language in the bill.
I've copied the text in question and the amendments to it
HR3590 Section 1304 subsection (d)
‘‘(d) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.—
‘‘(1) INTRODUCTION.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—On the day on which
a proposal is submitted by the President to the
...[snip 3 pages of text]...
‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLA
TION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or
the House of Representatives to consider any
bill, resolution, amendment, or conference re
port (other than pursuant to this section) that
would repeal or otherwise change the rec
ommendations of the Board if that change
would fail to satisfy the requirements of sub
paragraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS
SUBSECTION.—It shall not be in order in the
Senate or the House of Representatives to con
sider any bill, resolution, amendment, or con
ference report that would repeal or otherwise
change this subsection.
(Senate) Amendments to Section 1304 subsection (d)
(2) in subsection (d)—
(A) in paragraph (1)(A)—
(i) by inserting ‘‘the Board or’’ after
‘‘a proposal is submitted by’’; and
(ii) by inserting ‘‘subsection
(c)(3)(A)(i) or’’ after ‘‘the Senate under’’;
and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘the
Board or’’ after ‘‘a proposal is submitted by’’;
"Be excellent to each other."
The most non-heinous of all golden rules.
From:
To:
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 7:56:10 AM
Subject: Fw: tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid - This scares me
D
Go to this CNN link to download the document (http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/18/hcbill.pdf) which shows up in an CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/health.care/index.html. Once you have the PDF go to page 1020 in the PDF, starting on Line 7 that text indeed appears. This is the House bill that passed (HR3590). The Senate bill was essentially the same bill with 350+ pages of amendments (link to download http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf). It's somewhat harder figure out what the final bill looks like until you piece together the various snippets, but I see no amendments to Section 3403 that change this language. However, as I read it starting on page 184 in the amendment PDF file on line 20, the subsection (d) of Section 3403 has only minor tweaks that do not affect the language in question. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that this is indeed language in the bill.
I've copied the text in question and the amendments to it
HR3590 Section 1304 subsection (d)
‘‘(d) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.—
‘‘(1) INTRODUCTION.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—On the day on which
a proposal is submitted by the President to the
...[snip 3 pages of text]...
‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLA
TION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or
the House of Representatives to consider any
bill, resolution, amendment, or conference re
port (other than pursuant to this section) that
would repeal or otherwise change the rec
ommendations of the Board if that change
would fail to satisfy the requirements of sub
paragraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS
SUBSECTION.—It shall not be in order in the
Senate or the House of Representatives to con
sider any bill, resolution, amendment, or con
ference report that would repeal or otherwise
change this subsection.
(Senate) Amendments to Section 1304 subsection (d)
(2) in subsection (d)—
(A) in paragraph (1)(A)—
(i) by inserting ‘‘the Board or’’ after
‘‘a proposal is submitted by’’; and
(ii) by inserting ‘‘subsection
(c)(3)(A)(i) or’’ after ‘‘the Senate under’’;
and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘the
Board or’’ after ‘‘a proposal is submitted by’’;
The most non-heinous of all golden rules.
From:
To:
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 7:56:10 AM
Subject: Fw: tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid - This scares me
So much of this internet email stuff is total crap - do you know anything about this??
----- Forwarded Message ----
From:
To:
Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 8:59:50 PM
Subject: FW: tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid - This scares me
From:
To:
Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 8:59:50 PM
Subject: FW: tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid - This scares me
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Uncle Myral
Subject: tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid - This scares me
| All - Read this, then contact your federal representative (thanks, Pablo). What they are doing is unconstitutional. where the hell is the Supreme Court now? Dan T.
|
Thursday, August 27, 2009
More impudent thoughts on health care
- Pres. Obama is claiming to anyone who'll listen that the Democrat's health plan will squeeze hundreds of millions of dollars of waste and inefficiency out of the Medicare & Medicaid systems ("I've also proposed saving another $313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending in several other ways."). How about you start with that. Make those changes and only those changes. Once you've saved $300B (materially, not just as an accounting trick) maybe we can talk. Don't promise me you'll save that money *after* you spend it on something else -- that's just a great way for you to screw me twice.
- I need to do some research and some math, but everyone on the other side loves tossing numbers around that are refutable. Like 50M uninsured, and U.K has better health care because they have longer life expectancies. 20M of the 50M are illegal immigrants, let's start with that. Life expectencies are very close, about 1 year difference. Are homicides and car accidents health care failures? In the USA, we drive much farther on average than they do in the UK, you can get statistics on vehicle deaths per 1000 miles driven, and you can work out how many additional deaths per year are due simply to more fatal car accidents per capita due to more miles per capita. Similar math for homicides.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Impudent thoughts on health care
- Why not simply expand Medicaid to cover more of these "poor" people who can't afford health insurance?
- Why not build some hospitals, hire some doctors & nurses, then open the doors to anyone who wants "free" health care?
- Why are so many of the same people who are crying about our carbon footprints and how humans are killing the earth also trying to get health care for everyone? Wouldn't it be better if fewer people survived to continue to rape the planet?
- If health care is a basic human right, where was my right to an MRI fifty years ago?
- There's a name for forcing other people to provide for your wants and (so-called) needs...starts with an 's'...
- Why is there a plan to tax soda and other junk food, ostensibly to fight obesity and reduce health care costs when it's made with corn syrup, which we subsidize farmers to grow?
- Health care as we know it is a recent invention (see MRI above) and heavily dependent on technology. If a "fundamental human right" can attach to something that was invented last decade that we've decided is simply too important to live without, what's next? Public option iPhone?
- If it is a "fundamental human right" don't we have a duty, responsibility, obligation to render this to all humans? There's more than 6B people outside the US that we owe this to, too?
- If I can force others to provide me with health care, as is my "right", can I force others to pay for my arms--as in right to keep and bear? Please deliver my taxpayer funded M-16 and supply of ammunition.
- Everyone dies. It's folly to expend resources in a sky's-the-limit attempt to get each and every person a few more minutes, hours, days, months or even years.
- Presumably, a "fundamental human right" comes without limits, so my "free" health care will be all-I-can-eat. So maybe I'll be able to eat all-I-can-eat and smoke and drink all I can too, after all, the financial consequences of doing so will not be mine to bear. Once you admit to some limits, we're just arguing over degrees*.
- If technology someday soon provides a pill that will provide 100% cure for and prevatative against contracting cancer, HIV, hep, and a slew of other diseases but costs $500,000 each dose (say it's made from comet dust, just that it costs that much even with the manufacturer making zero profit), will it be covered? For everyone? What if the pill is only good for one year, and you need a booster every year at another $500k per?
- The phrase is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...
- If a) Congress's new plan will not force me to buy insurance and b) will forbid any insurance company from denying me coverage for a preexisting condition, why shouldn't I wait until I got sick or hurt before signing up and paying premiums?
* There's an old joke:
He: "Would have sex with me for $1 million?"
She: "Yes."
He: "Would have sex with me for $10?"
She: "No way! What do you think I am?"
He: "Oh, we've already established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)