Whatever my differences with Ted Kennedy – and when it came to personality and outlook on life to say nothing of politcs, there were many – I had to admire the guy during this past year. The guy lived quite a life – and, at 77, was still actuarially a tad young to go. And he probably knew it.
So he fought like hell. He attacked his illness head-on; he threw all of his resources – and, being a Boston Brahmin from a phenomenally wealthy family, he certainly had the resources to throw – at trying to push back his brain cancer. By all accounts, he fought like a lion, living his life to the best of his ability in the meantime.
I was about to write “let’s hope we can all be so lucky” – but of course, his colleagues in the Senate are waving Kennedy’s barely-cool body in front of the media and the people to ensure that you (but not, as it happens, they) can not:
“Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration,” Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.
Pelosi underlined that Kennedy’s death one year after the cancer-stricken liberal icon climbed on stage at the Democratic National Convention of August 2008 and declared health care reform “the cause of my life.”
“Today, we pick up the torch and recommit ourselves to health insurance reform,” said Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen, who leads the party’s efforts to maintain or enlarge its majority in the 2010 mid-term elections.
Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, who like Kennedy has missed some votes this year due to illness, mourned “by best friend in the Senate” and called for the health overhaul legislation to be named for the late Massachusetts lawmaker.
“In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American,” said Byrd.
The contradiction that none of them mention; the treatment options for a 77 year old man with a long history of alcohol abuse would be much, much more restricted than they were for Kennedy.
“Heathcare Rationing” is practiced all over the American healthcare industry, in both the private and public sectors, today. HMOs adopted “Case Management” from their inception. “Case Management” is all about answering, for a given person with a given condition, the question “For a person of a given age and with a given medical history and in a given overall condition, what will be the most cost-effective treatment option, given the limits in the amount of resources available?” Of course, behind the scenes there is a formula – how many years will a treatment likely buy a patient – and, where resources are scarce, a question: to whom should a limited set of resources go?
For a seven year old girl who develops leukemia, it’s moderately simple: aggressive, intensive treatment – say, a bone marrow transplant and intensive chemo – the $200,000 worth of treatment will likely buy 70-75 years of life span; the procedures are becoming moderately common. Approved!
For a 65 year old overweight alcoholic and two pack a day smoker with terminal cirrhosis of the liver? He has uncontrolled high blood pressure and all sorts of alcohol-related pathologies? He might get the liver transplant, if there’s a liver of his type available – and if there’s not a 30 year old marathon-running father of four with a congenital liver condition who needs it first; a smoker with hypertension and alcohol-related kidney trouble and high cholesterol might have a life expectancy of seven more years, should he get the liver and the cool half mill in supportive care; the marathon runner could get you fifty years and change. Again – a simple choice; if there’s one liver that matches both, the 30 year old will live, and the Case Manager – or the team that manages the case, perhaps – will put the 65 year old on palliative care, and medication to try to coax the liver function along, and tell him they’ll try to find another liver but to get his affairs in order anyway.
By the way – you may not call the Case Manager or CM team a “Death Panel” – but if you’re the 65 year old in the example above, the difference is only rhetorical.
So how much money did Ted Kennedy spend to eke out this past 15 months or so? It’s his money, and it’s his life, and I won’t begrudge him a dollar or a day.
But if a 77 year old man with highly-advanced brain cancer, plenty of chronic conditions related to decades of heavy drinking, and a good 60 pounds overweight went into a doctor’s office in Sweden or the UK or Canada, what do you suppose the prognosis, course of treatment, or results would have been? Not just for any given 77 year old man, mind you, but 100 of them whose profiles match each other fairly closely?
Naming a health rationing system after a man whose struggle the system would have made impossible makes sense – in the curious little world of Democrat social policy.
Rest in peace, Ted Kennedy.
Die in pain, Obamacare.
The U of MN Vet school has successfully treated a dog for the kind of brain cancer that Kennedy suffered, resulting in, if not a cure at least remission for approximately a year. The treatment, part of a joint project between human and veterinary medical researchers, is scheduled to continue as other dogs with this kind of brain tumor present to the University.
While some people object to providing thousands upon thousands of dollars in free care to a pet, this is a case where the success in treating one species has a clear application in treating humans. I can only hope that the demise of Senator Kennedy will promote the continuation of this particular study in an environment of decreasing funding for just about everything.
Pingback: Stark Raving Love » Nailed it.
“Thank you all for your kind words of condolence…we are all stunned at the loss of such a generous man…….Let’s win this one for Teddy! Senator Lieberman; let’s do it for Teddy! You there, Senator Mcconnell; let’s get out there and pass this thing for Teddy! We’re going to pass this thing and then we’re going to pass that thing, and we’re going to do it all for Teddy Yeeeaaaargh!”
Actually, I do think the Democrats should rename Obamacare for Teddy; he’s the living embodiment of their Socialist dream….grandiose, inchoate and doomed to fail.
We’ll hear of of that and more over the next few weeks, Swiftee. But notice the one thing that we wont hear.
We wont hear that Sen Kennedy evaluated his life according to the VA pamphlet on end of life choices, and decided to stop being a burden to others.
We wont hear that Sen Kennedy has been meeting with his doctor on a yearly basis to plan for the end.
We wont hear about him ‘just taking a pill’ instead of having more expensive surgery.
Any one of those would have given the Dems a solid argument for pushing forward with health care. ‘Do it for Teddy, because he did it for you.’ Or ‘ Sen Kennedy demonstrated the logic of Obamacare and that your fears were unjustified’.
I will never revel in someone’s death like the left does for conservative figures (Tony Snow for instance), but I’m not sure I agree with Mitch that you have to admire the man for what he did in his last year. Yes, he ‘fought’ his illness, but he did so in the manner of a wealthy, East Coast elitist. He held on desperately in hopes of casting the deciding vote on health care reform, but the irony is that he spent millions of dollars on his own health care in his last year of life to advocate a plan that would attempt to spend only thousands on other people’s last year of life.
But if a 77 year old man with highly-advanced brain cancer, plenty of chronic conditions related to decades of heavy drinking, and a good 60 pounds overweight went into a doctor’s office in Sweden or the UK or Canada, what do you suppose the prognosis, course of treatment, or results would have been?
With Swimmer’s connections, he would end up at Mayo – on taxpayer’s dime. What we need to ask, if OabamaSwimmerCare is passed, where would they go then?
A couple of weeks ago, I heard a liberal commentator, or was it Kennedy himself?….say that with this cancer, he appreciates the urgency of gov’t run healthcare. I had to think…..her is a man who lived like a king for 77 years. Big boats, numerous vacation homes. Private planes, etc. And now he wants the gov’t to fund his health care?
Mitch,
You left your final question unanswered. That means we will all answer it ourselves by applying our own mindsets. That does not get us closer to truth.
“But if a 77 year old man with highly-advanced brain cancer, plenty of chronic conditions related to decades of heavy drinking, and a good 60 pounds overweight went into a doctor’s office in Sweden or the UK or Canada, what do you suppose the prognosis, course of treatment, or results would have been? …”
A similar question was posed a week or so ago by another writer/speaker/blogger/pundit type. Instead of “77 year old man with highly-advanced brain cancer, plenty of chronic conditions related to decades of heavy drinking, and a good 60 pounds overweight,” it was “Stephen Hawking.” That question had a more direct and less biased answer since Mr. Hawking does indeed live in the UK.
In fact, as I recall, Mr. Hawking answered the question himself (From the UK).
Yes, Leslie Hittner, because “Stephen Hawking” isn’t a special case.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/disability
“In 1980, we changed to a system of community and private nurses, who came in for an hour or two in the morning and evening. This lasted until I caught pneumonia in 1985. I had to have a tracheotomy operation. After this, I had to have 24 hour nursing care. This was made possible by grants from several foundations.”
Yeah, just your typical dude who gets foundation grants to cover his health care costs.
By the time he was diagnosed with ALS, Hawking was already on his way to the top and no money was going to be spared to “keep him alive” whether it was NHS or a private insurance. He was not treated as a “commoner”. Hawking’s own claim that NHS saved him is rather disingenuous.
I really dislike conversing with people who hide behind foolish “playnames” and I won’t engage again, but I’ll clarify a couple of points as I see them; (1) Hawking was not yet a Ph. D. when he was diagnosed – long before he was “already on his way to the top,” and (2) It’s unlikely that you know enough about his personal situation to assert that he is being “disingenuous” and to do so with any credibility.
My central point – that tossing questions into the blog that are heavily laden with inuendo and light on facts and then not offering an answer only allows people to reinforce their own opinions and stereotypes. It does not motivate people to change their minds or look at things in a different way.
And I can make that statement irrregardless of my personal political position.
I’m new to blogs, having been drawn to “Shot in the Dark” by Mitch’s excellent posts on charter schools. I guess I thought people wrote to persuade.
Perhaps I am wrong.
And as we all know, a 77 year old living on his retirement savings would have no problem getting the same care as Kennedy without a public option. Only if the government gets involved would he be denied care.
Hello Leslie! A belated welcome to the world of ‘shot in the dark’. I am one of the few female voices to regularly post here among the predominantly male commenters.
Excellent posts; I have a feeling we may be kindred spirits here. Especially, I applaud your entire second paragraph above.
I am comparatively new to blogging, less than a year; someone should perhaps warn you that in its own way, it is addictive. I came to SitD because of knowing Mitch for a number of years, and while we disagree on some things, he is a person I respect and for whom I feel a sincere loyalty. Here I bumped into an old acquaintance, Penigma, which led to my joining another blog as author and moderator when commenting alone no longer satisfied me.
Mitch’s posts on charter schools ARE excellent, among the best things he has ever written (which is saying something, he writes very well). You also write and reason very well, and I will be looking forward to more of your comments.
If you ever decide commenting is not enough for you, and you want to do more, by all means let me know.
Dog Gone, Does that invitation stand for all of us, or just moonbats like Leslie?
Leslie opens up her liberal piehole one time and she gets thoroughly bitch slapped by Troy and jpa. Hawking gets the elitist treatmetn, he always has.
Hawking as no doubt a brilliant man, but he does not rank among the top physicists. His books are bestsellers because he gets to go on TV and talk through his machine to talk about them.
I have no doubt that Hawking would have survived under ObamaCare, we should be concerned about those would not.
Stephen Hawking in not a household name because he is brilliant or because he has a disease. It is because he has both.
“I really dislike conversing with people who hide behind foolish “playnames” and I won’t engage again, ”
It’s pretty much the norm on blogs to use what you refer to as “playnames”. Few people do this to hide, and most of the frequent commenters on SITD do not attempt to hide their real identities. Some do.
Tossing unanswered questions into a blog is a good way to foster discussion. I’m glad that you decided to participate in the debate.
justplainangry sez:
“no money was going to be spared to “keep him alive” whether it was NHS or a private insurance. ”
From Hawkings website http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/disability
“Up to 1974, I was able to feed myself, and get in and out of bed. Jane managed to help me, and bring up the children, without outside help. However, things were getting more difficult, so we took to having one of my research students living with us. In return for free accommodation, and a lot of my attention, they helped me get up and go to bed. In 1980, we changed to a system of community and private nurses, who came in for an hour or two in the morning and evening. This lasted until I caught pneumonia in 1985. I had to have a tracheotomy operation. After this, I had to have 24 hour nursing care. This was made possible by grants from several foundations.”
Certainly the personal assistance and 24-hour nursing care was not provided by the NHS, and probably would not be available to the average citizen.
From “Stephen Hawking A Life in Science”
“Help arrived from an American foundation aware of Hawking’s work and international reputation, which agreed to pay £50,000 a year toward the costs of nursing. Shortly afterward several other charitable organizations on both sides of the Atlantic followed suit with smaller donations. Jane feels bitter about the whole affair. She resents the fact that, after paying a lifetime of contributions to the National Health Service, they were offered such meager help when the need arose. She is very aware that if her husband had been an unknown physics teacher he would now be living out his final days in a residential home.”
“Certainly the personal assistance and 24-hour nursing care was not provided by the NHS, and probably would not be available to the average citizen. ”
NOTE: The above is an OPINION, not a supported fact, whether or not it is true.
And here’s another example of opinion being tossed out as fact. My middle name is Donald. Dog Gone it Mr. Right you’re not!
While it may be “normal” to hide behind playnames, my experience is that doing so does not promote respectful and meaningful public discourse. That has been the case with my local newspaper on-line edition and I now find it to be true on these blogs.
MinnPost – not a blog in the exact sense – requires the use of names. The discussions are more respectful, more helpful in making decisions about public policy, and tend not to waunder into episodes of Ad Hominum tirades far from the subject of the article being commented.
The playname environment establishes a cyberspace illusion that seperates the players from reality. I don’t view these blogs as a “game.”
So, Mr. Right, I may be a moonbat, but I’m flying higher than you and guess where my dung rests?
“NOTE: The above is an OPINION, not a supported fact, whether or not it is true.”
From “Stephen Hawking A Life in Science”
“After the tracheostomy, Stephen would need round-the-clock nursing. The best the National Health Service could offer was seven hours’ nursing help a week in the Hawkings’ home, plus two hours’ help with bathing. They would have to pay for private nursing.”
Do you have any facts that the NHS would pay for 24-hour nursing care in home?
Do you have any proof that your real name is Leslie Hittner?
Master of None, Thanks for supplying supporting evidence. That is exactly what I have been saying.
Oh, by the way, in the interest of fairness I must admit
“The playname environment establishes a cyberspace illusion that seperates the players from reality.”
is an opinion as well. I did not state it as such.
“Do you have any proof that your real name is Leslie Hittner?”
Yes, as a matter of fact.
http://www.winonadailynews.com/opinion/otherviews/article_be164e30-a396-5ebc-989c-a6325bde374b.html
The author oif that article be me. I can give you more if you are not convinced.
Might I ask the same of you or is this a one-way street?
Gee leslie you’re a sensitive little thing aren’t you? You drop by the playground and suddenly we should all play by your rules or (heaven forfend) you’ll belittle us all then take the ball and go home?
Grow up! Participate if you want, but Stop Whinging!
Leslie, many people use pseudonyms because it’s safer. Some of us have been threatened and have had personal information published in an effort to intimidate us into silence.
If you don’t believe this, just ask Mitch.
P.S. Kermit is my real name, and I’m not hard to find. I just know individuals too inexcerable to engage, and I haven’t always been that lucky.
Right Says:
August 27th, 2009 at 2:59 am
“Dog Gone, Does that invitation stand for all of us, or just moonbats like Leslie?”
The invitation is extended because of the quality of writing; the subsequently provided link confirms my initial assessment of that writing.
“Leslie opens up her liberal piehole one time and she gets thoroughly bitch slapped by Troy and jpa. Hawking gets the elitist treatmetn, he always has.”
I disagree that Leslie has been thoroughly bitch slapped; and that writing is not of an equal quality.
Leslie, I agree with what Kermit has written about pseudonyms.
“Might I ask the same of you or is this a one-way street? ”
I’m not sure how that is proof of who you are. Anybody could use that name. But that’s not my point. My point is that any name, “playname” or not is still nothing but a name, if you don’t know the person.
BTW, my real name is just two clicks away from any of my comments.
Click on “Master of None”, and then click on “By The Master of None”.
My true identity is hidden worse than superman’s.
I choose not to use my full name, though a little research would probably reveal it.
I sometimes comment on land and political issues in Hawaii. The organization I work for is occasionally involved with land issues involving the state and pseudo-state entities that believe that they have a legal interest in the same issues. An opinion written under my name might be taken as the position or opinion of the people I work for.
Hey, Leslie, “Master of None, Thanks for supplying supporting evidence. That is exactly what I have been saying.
What exactly have you been saying? MoN proved, with two excerpts, that your assertions are patently false. That Hawking was genuinely disingenuous when he said “NHS saved my life”. Do you agree with that?
Oh, I am sorry, I forgot. It is beneath you to reply to me, the great unwashed.
I really dislike conversing with people who hide behind foolish “playnames” and I won’t engage again, but I’ll clarify a couple of points as I see them; [snip] (2) It’s unlikely that you know enough about his personal situation to assert that he is being “disingenuous” and to do so with any credibility.
You are such a stereotype of a “holier then thou”, “I am better then you”, “you know nothing” lib, it is to laugh! I bet you believe your s*** don’t stink either! No wonder DogNabbit found you a kindred soul. Got any more insults for me?
As far as anonymity, come on up to the next MOB party! If I am in town, I’ll be there. In person! Clinging to my guns and religion…
plainangry wrote:
“No wonder DogNabbit found you a kindred soul. Got any more insults for me?”
I made the kindred soul comment to Leslie after a cogent, on-topic comment, no insults. I don’t engage in the level of insults and name calling that some others do on SitD.
Nor did Leslie, until AFTER Right’s ‘moonbat’ name calling, “liberal pie hole” and “bitch slapped” comments. No one called you ‘great unwashed’ except you yourself. Fairly, before you jump all over Leslie I suggest you look at the chronology.
After clearly expressing that he was new to blogging, and giving reasonsable explanation for being uncomfortable with pseudonyms, the reasons for using pseudonyms were provided.
I like comments that stay on topic; I like writing that focuses on fact and sources, not insults and name calling and emotional over-reaction.
I think you asked a good question; I was going to seek a clarification of one of the comments Leslie made also. After that….you start to go off, foaming at the mouth just a little.
Had your rabies shots? I have (prophylaxis – exposure to dog bites); although might be a good idea to look into a booster with this blogging hydrophobia….
Leslie, this may be picky but irregardless isn’t a word. Anyway welcome on board.
DogNabbit No one called you ‘great unwashed’ except you yourself.
Did I put great unwashed in quotes? If you do not find I really dislike conversing with people who hide behind foolish “playnames” and I won’t engage again, but I’ll clarify a couple of points as I see them; [snip] (2) It’s unlikely that you know enough about his personal situation to assert that he is being “disingenuous” and to do so with any credibility. condescending, you are starting to suffer from RatioRick comprehension disease.
I think you asked a good question; I was going to seek a clarification of one of the comments Leslie made also. After that….you start to go off, foaming at the mouth just a little.
Thank for the lecture, DogNabbit. Very on-topic… Oh, and what’s a “blogging hydrophobia”? Very clear expression that is.
dog says:
After that….you start to go off, foaming at the mouth just a little.
If you (a self advertised representative of the Penigma blog ) want foaming at the mouth absolutely incoherent ranting you should go back a ways and read some of the vituperative, ad hominem posts your Prince Of The City penigma/peeve/pb used to leave on SITD before you deign to lecture us on our comportment. Peeve pretty much set the standard for foaming at the mouth posts.
This caught my eye:
“My central point – that tossing questions into the blog that are heavily laden with inuendo and light on facts and then not offering an answer only allows people to reinforce their own opinions and stereotypes.”
In response to:
I’m not seeing where the heavy innuendo is. Obviously, he DID have brain cancer. How is it innuendo to state Kennedy is 60lbs overweight? Anyone with eyes can see that for themselves. In addition, it is a well known and documented fact that Kennedy has had numerous issues with alcohol over the years. There is a poetic irony in the fact that his father was a bootlegger.
Maybe you mean the innuendo is that Sweden, the UK, and Canada have inferior health care to the US? Again, that is not a debatable point. That is a fact reinforced by both statistics and thousands of anecdotal stories.
Finally:
It does not motivate people to change their minds or look at things in a different way.
Maybe not to someone who is unfamiliar with the way the blogosphere has evolved over the last several years. Since you apparently are a member of the mainstream media (albeit a 3rd tier market), the fact that you don’t:
A) “get” how blogs work and flow
B) don’t accept “playnames”
C) As kel said, “drop by the playground and suddenly we should all play ball by your rules”
…does not surprise me a bit. This is the way Mitch rolls. This is the way his commenters play by the rules Mitch (THE OWNER OF THIS BLOG) has established. If you can’t accept the blog proprietors rules, exercise your freedom of choice and choose to waste your time somewhere else.
How typically illustrative of the liberal mindset to see something they disagree with and turn into an “agent of change”.
dammit, missed the end tag somewhere.
Actually, I missed a whole paragraph in there. Copy/paste epic fail. I’ll try again.
This caught my eye:
“My central point – that tossing questions into the blog that are heavily laden with inuendo and light on facts and then not offering an answer only allows people to reinforce their own opinions and stereotypes.”
In response to:
“But if a 77 year old man with highly-advanced brain cancer, plenty of chronic conditions related to decades of heavy drinking, and a good 60 pounds overweight went into a doctor’s office in Sweden or the UK or Canada, what do you suppose the prognosis, course of treatment, or results would have been? …”
I’m not seeing where the heavy innuendo is. Obviously, he DID have brain cancer. How is it innuendo to state Kennedy is 60lbs overweight? Anyone with eyes can see that for themselves. In addition, it is a well known and documented fact that Kennedy has had numerous issues with alcohol over the years. There is a poetic irony in the fact that his father was a bootlegger.
Maybe you mean the innuendo is that Sweden, the UK, and Canada have inferior health care to the US? Again, that is not a debatable point. That is a fact reinforced by both statistics and hundreds if not thousands of anecdotal stories.
Finally:
It does not motivate people to change their minds or look at things in a different way.
Maybe not to someone who is unfamiliar with the way the blogosphere has evolved over the last several years. Since you apparently are a member of the mainstream media (albeit a 3rd tier market), the fact that you don’t:
A) “get” how blogs work and flow (since you are admittedly new to the concept of blogs)
B) don’t accept “playnames”
C) As kel said, “drop by the playground and suddenly we should all play ball by your rules”
…does not surprise me a bit. This is the way Mitch rolls. This is the way his commenters play by the rules Mitch (THE OWNER OF THIS BLOG) has established. If you can’t accept the blog proprietor’s rules, my advice would be to exercise your freedom of choice and choose to waste your time somewhere else. Mitch allows anyone to comment who wants to. He isn’t as open to people telling him how he should write.
How typically illustrative of the liberal mindset to see something they disagree with and turn into an “agent of change”.
Oh my God. Peev has a sister.
Wow. You people have been busy whilst I was at work.
I’ll begin here:
Bill C says:
Maybe not to someone who is unfamiliar with the way the blogosphere has evolved over the last several years. Since you apparently are a member of the mainstream media (albeit a 3rd tier market [OUCH!]), the fact that you don’t:
A) “get” how blogs work and flow (since you are admittedly new to the concept of blogs)
Yep, but I’m learning…
B) don’t accept “playnames”
Obviously I accept them (After all, I’m conversing with ALL OF you.) I just don’t happen to believe they are the best way to do business. I’ll practice what I believe and you can do whatever you like. And you are right. It is Mitch’s blog (and a darned nice one at that).
C) As kel said, “drop by the playground and suddenly we should all play ball by your rules”
I don’t expect you to play by my rules. I just expressed my opinion. Isn’t that what this blog is all about?
Now…to the topic at hand. The Kennedy example and the Hawking example were both tossed out on conservative blogs. They are both examples of questions left unanswered. They both allowed conservative readers to answer the question any way they want to. However, they both allow left-handed readers to answer those questions quite differently. Thus, they reinforce positions. Each reader is allowed to become more entrenched in his or her own beliefs (My opinion).
The same can be said of Bill C’s statement concerning the undeniable fact of the quality of those “other” systems. I have read statements (by libs) that assert quite the opposite. The result is a “he says, she says” endless debate and nothing happens except people get upset or angry with each other.
There seems to be a serious inability to reach out and compromise in this debate and I’m afraid there is too much as stake to do this without a collaborative effort.
From my perspective, neither side is listening to the other. Unfortunately one side (the libs in this case) have a considerable amount of power. If they muck it up, and they will if we can’t all get together and work out a better plan, they will get kicked out of office. But by then it will be too late to close the barndoor. The cows will already be all over the highway.
And LearnedFoot, please read the posts. Peev does not have a sister (unless you are not talking about me).
Leslie wrote:
“And LearnedFoot, please read the posts. Peev does not have a sister (unless you are not talking about me). ”
Actually, Penigma DOES have a sister, but she doesn’t post to any blogs.
Am I correct Leslie, in understanding that you are male, not female, from your comment that your middle name was Donald? (Could be a family name…). Just clarifying, as I have known both males named Leslie and females named Leslie.
It might be helpful to clear up any remaining confusion on that point.
Kel wrote:
“If you (a self advertised representative of the Penigma blog ) want foaming at the mouth absolutely incoherent ranting “.
I am essentially half of the Penigma blog, Kel, as well as having affiliations with other blogs, where I write and/or have editorial responsibilities. I have not advertised anything; I have responded when other people bring up Penigma, as you have just done.
The references to foaming at the mouth was meant as both a very mild comment about over-reacting, and an attempt at a humerous reference about the fact that I have actually had rabies shots. I doubt many who read or comment here have.
Terry said: “I choose not to use my full name, though a little research would probably reveal it.”
Here’s a search string for anyone who’s interested:
“terry + hawaii + “volcano lair” + (plate w/2 head) -sensible -normal -rational”
Yes, I am a male, although I frequently receive USPS envelopes addressed to Ms Leslie Hittner. It makes it easy to sort the junk mail…
Actually, I am an old fart – probably way older than most of the blog participants – but I’ve been buried in technology all of my live. The cyber culture, however…That is new for me.
I supposed I’ll get used to the playnames, but the Ad Hominum that the custom seems to encourage…that is too bad.
“I supposed I’ll get used to the playnames,”
Do you think maybe the use of the phrase “foolish playnames” is an ad hominem attack?
If so, if you review the history of this thread, you’ll see that you were the first one to start getting a bit pissy.
Whatever.
If you are right than I was the first one to get pissy.
Leslie, Nancy, Donald, or Whatever, you still did not answer my question:
What exactly have you been saying? MoN proved, with two excerpts, that your assertions are patently false. That Hawking was genuinely disingenuous when he said “NHS saved my life”. Do you agree with that?
Justplainangry,
Quite simply the question you want me to answer has nothing to do with my point. The author of the question about Hawking clearly intended readers to conclude that Hawking would have never made it if he had lived in the UK. The question backfired, though, because he in fact did and does. But that is not the point.
We will ALWAYS be able to find someone who is sick enough that the system cannot meet the medical needs without additional private money. I believe the logical error is in taking such examples and using them to imply that one system would have failed whilst the other would not have failed, and vice versa.
I did not ask the question about Hawking. Some conservative blogger/pundit did. I do assert, however, that the Hawking question was similar to the one Mitch asked about Kennedy and that such unanswered questions do not contribute to the search for truth.
Has any of this changed YOUR mind?
Now, what “assertions” are you referring to? Frankly, whether or not Hawking was disingenuous is not the point. If the NHS has ANY role in his health care, he can candidly say so, as he apparently did. At any rate, it’s not what Hawking said that concerns me. It’s those “unanswered” questions in the articles.
I’ll bet your response upon reading Mitch’s article was , “Yes, you betcha. He would have never made it in the UK,” and I’ll bet that has been your position all along. On the other hand, a liberal reader would likely think, “What a bunch of lies! He (Mitch) is saying Kennedy would have died in the UK and that’s simply not true.” In reality Mitch did NOT say that. He merely posed this unanswered question within a heavily-laden context.
I see that as counter-productive to the discussion because it increases polarization rather than bringing people together to work out a solution we can all live with. I really am concerned about what the results might be if the right refuses to seriously enter the discussion.
What are the deal breaking issues on the left? What are the deal breaking issues on the right? How many of the other issues is the left willing to give up and what are the issues the right is willing to give in on?
The right wants tort reform. Frankly it won’t happen unless the right is willing to settle on something that the left wants.
Obama has stated that there are unnecessary and wasteful expenses in the current system – that’s a window to negotiate for tort reform. But the key word is “negotiate” not “confront.”
I don’t see that happening. The right and the left are in their own corners and every day they come out fighting!
It’s as simple as that.
Leslie, you are in fine company among the Mitchketeers, where gender-ambiguous names abound. Witness “Terry” and “Tracy.” But your thoughtful posts mark you as an outsider. Also, your name rhymes with “Hitler,” which is really kind of weird. Seriously, your name is this far from being “Les Hitler.” So what’s up with that?
Leslie
The best outcome of this contention between left and right would be the complete collapse of this initiative. It would force the stakeholders to come back to the table with proposals that did not commandeer 16% of the GNP with an ill disguised wealth redistribution scheme that leaves in place a rapacious tort environment and predatory insurance culture.
Leslie
You can ignore angryclown – he’s the pet troll for the site, whose puerile, often racist jibs are meant to drive away people who don’t know to ignore him.
Kel,
First, seeking that outcome seems terribly risky. If the right loses – and it’s possible – the right gets NOTHING it values into the reform effort. It just seems to me that a compromising approach is a better way to evolve to an improved – perhaps not perfect – healthcare system.
Second, financing the healthcare system on the backs of nearly every industry in the economy began after WWII. With healthcare costs spiraling out of control – especially during the past thirty years – and with those costs impacting the overhead of nearly every contributor to the nation’s economy, it seems to me that the result has been a positive feedback loop that prevents workers from realizing actual pay increases. It makes sense to me to disconnect health care from other economic development. How can we do that in a way that is acceptable to the left and the right? I believe that is a FUNDAMENTAL question. I am not a cynic by nature and I happen to believe that the left’s plan has breaking this positive feedback loop as one of it’s goals. That goal is articulated by them as cost containment.
Third, why is it that as other technogies improve, the costs of services DECREASES while medical technologies come with INCREASED pricetags? Computers have spiralled down in costs – My first “IBM compatible” computer cost me $2,400. It ran at 16 MHz, had a wopping big 60 MByte hard drive and 640 MBytes of RAM memory. It had a mono-colored screen (Orange on black) and super graphics (so bad I can’t remember). The computer I am using to make this post cost me $600. It runs with a 3 GHz clock, has a 250 GByte hard drive and 4GByte of memory and has a super high resolution flat-screen monitor. Why isn’t that happening in health care? What role does tort reform play in that reality? How does our current system encourage such run-away upward spiralling of costs that even offset the efficiencies offered by technologies?
These are the sorts of questions both the right and the left should be asking. Somewhere among the complex answers are ideas we can all sign on to. It sdeems, however, that both sides merely repeate their talking ploints which are simplistic answers to complex problems that do not take in to account the complex systemic nature of the problem.
Every day, we come out and toss the same punches at each other, over and over again. And that behavior is observed from the highest levels of government right on down to the town halls. I believe both the left and the right are locked into an ideologic battle rather than seeking pragmatic solutions to real problems.
And the country is going to pay for that mistake…
Oh, Angryclown, I don’t know how to answer your question. My name is what my name is. Perhaps you shouldn’t be so angry.
It might clear up your vision.
That’s Angryclown’s real name, Leslie Hittner. And you’ll find that Angryclown is the only one with clear vision around these parts – the three-eyed man in the land of the blind.
Leslie, good point about breakthroughs in medical technology not reducing costs, while in other areas, computers for example, costs go down while quality and features improve. Consider this:
What if you needed “computer insurance” to help you absorb the cost of keeping up with this essential technology, and a system of third party payers – insurance companies offering computer plans, say as an employee benefit – had emerged as the dominant method for paying these costs. As an individual you’d pay a montly premium and then a small deductible every time you needed a computer repair or a new CPU. The computer manufacturers get paid by the insurance companies based on what the insurers can afford/will pay and, with that layer between them and the end-consumer, it’s easier to claim that improvements make the “product” better and therefore it should cost more. The costs keep going up and get passed on to the consumer but not on a direct basis; the consumer knows he’s paying more but doesn’t have a viable option for taking care of his computer needs. Then when he loses his job and his employer-based computer insurance he can’t afford that $3,000 RAM transplant.
That’s ridiculous in our world today; computer companies aren’t paid through insurance but by attracting customers to their product and differentiating it from those of other computer comopanies. Price is a competitive factor even though people have shown they’ll pay more for something that’s the latest and greatest – as long as the competitor’s latest and greatest isn’t significantly cheaper. The thing is, the marketplace drives the price and the computer companies generally do very well financially, even with the millions they spend in advertising to convince consumers that new, improved Brand Z is better than the old Brand Z and of course still much better than Brand Y, and the consumer is happy.
The conservative position (or at least, this conservative’s position) is to put the individual back in his place as the driver of the market through individual and portable health insurance; remove the third-party payer system (whether private or government) and let consumers choose the health insurance and benefits they want, just as they do with auto insurance. Let the insurance companies and healthcare providers compete to attract our interest and dollars the way auto insurers do. Give me the option of paying out-of-pocket for smaller, manageable expenses (including wellness) with a catastrophic coverage layer of true insurance for major illnesses or injuries or chronic conditions. Prices will come down, affordability and access will improve and the health providers still have a strong profit incentive to develop new technologies and treatments, priced to appeal. It works now for computer technology, auto insurance and even healthcare. Look at what’s happened with the costs of elective surgery that’s not covered by insurance: facelifts, augmentations, lasik surgery – these costs keep getting lower even as the technology advances.
Unfortunately, there is no compromise possible between this health care model I’ve described and what we currently have or with what is being proposed. The nationalized option only exacerbates the market dysfunction of the current system and further insulates the providers from the consumer. True, if the government becomes the ultimate consumer it comes into a position where it can dictate price but this flattens the incentive for the providers to go beyond what they offer or produce; supply becomes stagnant because it’s dictated by the government’s “demand” while the demand from individual consumers continues to rise; the only way to distribute the supply then becomes rationing with the government as arbiter instead of the marketplace.
Markets work and are efficient; even when there are excesses the market punishes. Enron and Global Crossing aren’t around today not because of government sanctions but because no one would put their money there; a similar thing is happening with AIG now. Government is never efficient, even in the things that “conservatives” say it does well, such as defense, where feather-bedding and over-runs are the norm.
Has any of this changed YOUR mind? and I’ll bet your response upon reading Mitch’s article was
Your mind reading skills are rather lacking. I wish you would stop putting your betting words into my mouth.
I do assert, however, that the Hawking question was similar to the one Mitch asked about Kennedy and that such unanswered questions do not contribute to the search for truth.
The question Mitch raised was what happens to the 99.9% under Socialized Medicine who are NOT Kennedy. YOU are the one who dragged Hawking into this thread. Both Kennedy and Hawking are privileged class. Your dragging Professor into the discussion was a non-sequitur from the get-go. And since MoN’s excerpts pretty much proved that NHS did NOT save Hawking, but a private American foundation, your assertion is proved wrong, and Hawking’s statement is disingenuous. QED.
Third, why is it that as other technogies improve, the costs of services DECREASES while medical technologies come with INCREASED pricetags? Computers have spiralled down in costs
Leslie, bad analogy.
#1 – If computers had to be FDA certified, their cost would be 1000x and we would still be on 8088 chip.
#2 – Medical filed technology is not iterative, but revolutionary. Hence every “breakthrough” is more expensive then the last. It does not follow Moore’s law.
#3 – With ever increasing bans on basic chemical building blocks, not just medical, but all industries need to do a lot more with a lot less. Environmental compliance is a big cause in driving technology prices up.