Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

I'm glad it works down there.

In addition, Australia has a smaller population, and probably less ethinic diversity, so accurate direct comparisons would be difficult to make.

G&P

---

I agree direct comparisons are difficult, and it doesn't work here all the time; sometimes hospitals have been found to be negligent. Population isn't the question, that's just a matter of scale, the issues are really about who's going to pay and how. Truth is you can't have government based health care and no change in the tax regime, sooner or later it will catch up, but if, for say 2% surcharge, you were guaranteed care anywhere in the country and additional insurance was optional to cover the extras, is it a bad deal? I think you might have paranoia about taxes over there when really your taxes are relatively low. From an outsiders point of view there seems to be a real issue of cost and only government can deal with that. Implemention of a government scheme certainly put a cap on costs here by providing the public with a benchmark on what is a reasonable charge. We are very much into keeping the bastards honest.

As to ethnic diversity, I think we are possibly the most ethnicly diverse nation on Earth. If by ethnicly diverse you think that we don't have a large african or hispanic population you are right, but we have migrants from everywhere and refugees too as well as an aboriginal population, and a high proportion of New Zealanders/pacific islanders. Who would have though we would have had Somali's planning a terrorist attack, but that's another story. We even have multi-lingual publication of government advisories. Many of the workers in our health system, particularly doctors, are of ethnic background. I really don't see how ethnic diversity is an issue when providing health care unless you have a very large illegal population, when I suppose other issues cut across health delivery.

In I haven't had insomnia for a long long long time. A natural plant took care of that. I do my best to stay away from really any pharmaceuticals. That's not to say I don't take an antibiotic when I have an infection. My mom was a hippie and cooked all weird natural stuff for me when I was a kid. I never had mac and cheese until I was 20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

In I haven't had insomnia for a long long long time. A natural plant took care of that.

---

Yeah, I can see that working.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._flowering.jpg

:D

Elliot

I hate to say it but that's a good looking plant.

That is a good looking plant!

Getting back to "big questions about health care," CBS of all media outlets is helping argue the point we've been making for some time now:

Quote:

---

One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details.

---

McCullagh misses the point that many of the details are yet to be worked out by the enormous bureaucracy created by the legislation, but nonetheless he catches another troubling aspect of the current bill:

Quote:

---

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

---

I agree with McCullah that maybe this is bad or maybe not. But I also agree that "this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted so rapidly as its backers would have you believe." The fact that it gives an agency carte blanche to nose through the records of people who haven't asked for anything is not good.

Now we have it from Howard the Deaniac on why tort reform isn't in the reform plan, they're afraid of trial lawyers...

Quote:

---

Whatever else he said Wednesday evening at the town hall hosted by Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate Howard Dean let something incredibly candid slip out about President Obama's health-care reform bill in Congress.

Asked by an audience member why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (aka "Tort reform"), Dean responded by saying: “The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years.".

---

Hello again, Steve:

Correction, 228 years!

I've said it before. Your outrage is too little too late. I don't understand how you're SOOOO bummed that the IRS is going to disclose your tax data, but you don't give two hoots if the NSA reads ALL your emails and listens to ALL your phone calls?? Don't make no sense to me...

Of course, the Wolverine will argue lamely that they don't read ALL the emails, as though that makes it just fine that they collect them... He'll also tell you that if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear from the government tromping through all your very personal and private data.

So, I wonder why it bothers you so much about the IRS.

excon

Well, at least Dean is being honest about it. Got to give him credit for that much at least.

I wonder, though, how much this statement is going to endear him to those same trial lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Correction, 228 years!

I've said it before. Your outrage is too little too late. I don't understand how you're SOOOO bummed that the IRS is gonna disclose your tax data, but you don't give two hoots if the NSA reads ALL your emails and listens to ALL your phone calls???? Don't make no sense to me...

Of course, the Wolverine will argue lamely that they don't read ALL the emails, as though that makes it just fine that they collect them.... He'll also tell you that if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear from the government tromping through all your very personal and private data.

So, I wonder why it bothers you so much about the IRS.

excon

---

You sit there and talk about the problems of government looking at your private documents. So your solution to the problem of a lack of privacy is to give them more ammo.

What a brilliant solution.

Whether I agree with you or not on the CIA or the NSA is irrelevant. Forget what I think. What I think is irrelevant to YOUR position. YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE BIGGEST PRIVACY ISSUES AND COMPLAINTS ABOUT GOVERNMENT VIOLATING YOUR RIGHTS. You never stop complaining about it, even when it is justified. And your solution is to give them more of a chance to do so.

And you can't even recognize the craziness of your position.

Elliot

What Elliot said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

And you can't even recognize the craziness of your position.

---

Hello again, El:

The GOVERNMENT already HAS your tax data. What the government DIDN'T have before the dufus, and your unabashed support for his policies, was your EMAILS, your PHONE CALLS and the very posts you're making right now.

And, you call me crazy. DUDE!

excon

Hello again:

Although I have found the right to health care in the Ninth Amendment, lots of you don't think so... Maybe the sick fall under the civil rights act.

Should a sick person be discriminated against?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Yeah, I can see that working.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._flowering.jpg

:D

Elliot

---

I knew you were smoking something Elliot:)

Can you hear that? It's the sound of your feet marching in unison with your neighbors in line to your "re-education" camp.

You asked for change you've got it.. now wipe those tears and stop sniveling wondering how you could possibly be living in a time when Martial Law is in effect and curfews are enforced.. BECAUSE this is the future you voted for..

All hail, "CHANGE"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

The GOVERNMENT already HAS your tax data.

---

And you're going to give them our medical records too.

What a smart idea for a guy who's afraid of the government knowing too much about him.

Quote:

---

What the government DIDN'T have before the dufus, and your unabashed support for his policies, was your EMAILS, your PHONE CALLS and the very posts you're making right now.

---

ECHELON, the computer program that monitors phone calls, e-mails and electronic communications has been around since the 80s with various upgrades. Hate to tell you this, excon, but the government has been "listening" to your phone calls since the 80s... long before Bush was President. The only thing that Bush did wa make that practice both publicly known and LEGAL in certain circumstance. Bush didn't create the system. You're still stuck in BDS.

Quote:

---

And, you call me crazy. DUDE!

Excon

---

Yep. Because anyone who claims to be afraid of the government knowing too much about them, but who then advocates giving the government MORE INSTANTANEOUS (REAL TIME) INFORMATION about your bank accounts, brokerage accounts, AND medical records, IN ADDITION TO THE ACCESS TO YOUR TAX RECORDS THEY ALREADY HAVE is just plain nuts.

If you feel that the government has too much access, why on Earth would you want the government to have MORE access than they have now? That is the question you refuse to answer. You keep trying to deflect the question. If what the government has access to right now is TOO MUCH, then why do you condone giving them MORE ACCESS?

I suspect you cannot answer this question, and I suspect it bothers you as much as it does me. But you drank the koolaid, you're stuck on the bandwagon, and you can't admit that your position on the health care bill is untennable with your general philosophy and political bent. You painted yourself into a corner by both supporting Obama and ranting against Bush. And now you can't admit that your position on government-run health care and your libertarian/anti-government-interferance/privacy-rights bent don't jive with each other.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The only thing that Bush did wa make that practice both publicly known and LEGAL in certain circumstance. Bush didn't create the system. You're still stuck in BDS.

---

Hello again, El:

You're WRONG, of course. FISA is really a law, and the dufus really broke it. He said so himself. I think he called it quaint, and said that it didn't work any more. So, he did something else... I'll document it for you again, if you like...

I notice above, that you JUSTIFY the NSA snooping, and you're not bothered by it, no matter WHO started it... THAT was my point... So, if I'm crazy because I don't mind the government sharing my tax information with ANOTHER part of government, then you're just as crazy because you don't mind that they gather up your emails and phone calls.

However, one must weigh the craziness with the seriousness of the privacy violations... If one did that, you're 25 times crazier than me.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

You're WRONG, of course. FISA is really a law, and the dufus really broke it. He said so himself. I think he called it quaint, and said that it didn't work any more. So, he did something else... I'll document it for you again, if you like...

---

Actually, he didn't break the law, because under the war powers act, he had the authority to do as he did during times of a declared war. I know you don't want to admit that Congress voted for a war declaration, but they did so TWICE. FISA goes out the window when it comes to fighting a war. It has no application to war-time law.

Now... if Bush had used ECHELON to listen in on the Mob and used that information to prosecute the Mob, he would be in violation of FISA. But he didn't do that. He used it to defend the country.

Keep in mind that FISA is about arresting criminals and prosecuting them. Bush wasn't trying to ARREST or PROSECUTE anyone. He was fighting a war, capturing or killing enemies of the USA, and setting up a defensive strategy (so far an effective one) to stop any terrorists from attacking the USA. FISA doesn't apply.

And then, there's the USA Patriot Act, which gave Bush the specific powers that he used. A law passed by Congress. A law that has EQUAL STANDING with FISA. And a law that is applicable to RUNNING A WAR rather than CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

Ergo, Bush didn't break any laws.

Quote:

---

I notice above, that you JUSTIFY the NSA snooping, and you're not bothered by it, no matter WHO started it... THAT was my point... So, if I'm crazy because I don't mind the government sharing my tax information with ANOTHER part of government, then you're just as crazy because it's just hunky dory with you that they gather up your emails and phone calls.

However, one must weigh the craziness with the seriousness of the privacy violations... If one did that, you're 25 times crazier than me.

Excon

---

Again, you are avoiding the question.

I am OK with the government having information about me. They already have the information and haven't abused it. They COULD abuse it, I guess, but I haven't seen a single example of them doing so. So I'm OK with it.

YOU are the one who is against them having information about you.

So why are you in favor of giving them MORE information?

My position is in COMPLETE AGREEMENT ACROSS THE BOARD.

Yours is contradictory and you can't explain it. But you keep saying that I'm the crazy one.

Please explain the contradiction in your positions:
1) You are against the government having your personal information.
2) You are willing to give the government access to your personal information.

I don't care who is crazy. That is not the point. I admit to being the crazier of the tqo of us... otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time with you this way.

I just want you to explain how you justify these two mutually exclusive positions. And if you cannot, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate those positions.

Just answer the question. Or admit you can't.

Elliot