Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Okay, wtf is going on?Follow

#27 Nov 02 2009 at 9:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Spankatorium Administratix
*****
1oooo posts
Can someone, not overly biased, explain exactly what is going on with the health care crap? I hear several things and nothing even remotely the same from either side. My gram is pissed as hell but I have friends that are excited.
____________________________

#28 Nov 02 2009 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Sure. But this is one of those "perception versus reality" situations, where when you ask people if they think their own health care coverage is fine as it is, 80% will say yes, but if you ask if "health care overall" is fine as it is, 80% will say no. The majority of people in the US are happy with their health care, but assume due to the volume of information they see on the news that they must be the one of the few lucky ones. It's always very telling when you see a gap that large between self reported condition and assumed general condition.


Couldn't possibly be that people, fine with their own healthcare, instead of being terrified into supporting, even only nominally, change, do it from kindness and empathy. Never crossed your mind.



It crossed my mind. It's kinda irrelevant though. It's reasonable to assume that the perception of a need for reform is directly related to the perceived number of people adversely affected by how things are currently set up. The motivation to want to help others isn't really the issue here. The question is one of degrees. Why do we need reform "now"? Presumably, people didn't magically become more caring about their fellow man in just the last couple years, so what changed? I propose that it's purely the perception of the number/degree of "need" that changed.

We could assume that the mass of media coverage and political focus on the issue itself in no way influences or affects the public perception of that number and by extension their own perception of the need for reform, but that would be a tough position to take. We could also assume that some other external force creates that discrepancy, but that would also be pretty random and hard to support.

No. I'll stick with the most likely explanation: The perception was changed by a specific set of actions designed to make the perception change. Kinda simple and obvious, but there you have it. And if the degree to which people actually reported failings in their own health care were even remotely similar to the rate of perception of failure in the health care system, I'd say that the campaign was one of information. Given the massively disparate numbers though, I'm going to go with it being a campaign of mis-information instead...


Unless you have some other explanation?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Nov 02 2009 at 9:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
MDenham wrote:
The "80% of people think their health care is okay, but 80% of people think health care in general is going down the tubes" looks to be something along the lines of "94% of people think they're above average" (I don't remember what the exact number on that statistic is, just that it's 90% or higher).

In other words, self-reporting is full of bias because you're trying to justify to yourself that you made the right decision.


If they're reporting something about themselves, sure. But in this case, they're reporting something about a service that affects them. Period.

A statement about how something affects you directly is *always* going to be more accurate than a statement about how you think something affects others. Think about it. The "80% believe we need health care reform now" is in the latter category. They are responding to an assumption about how others are doing, not about how they are doing.

Let me give you a simple example:

Let's say you run a cafeteria, and you serve a specific meal (lets call it "roast beef"). You want to know whether the people eating at the cafeteria like that meal. You run a survey and ask two questions:

1. Do you like the roast beef dinner?

2. Should we replace the roast beef dinner with something else?


You should expect to get similar numbers when you run the poll, right? If 80% of the people like the roast beef dinner, you should expect that somewhere near to 80% of the people will answer "no" to the second question.

If you got 80% of the people answering "yes" to the first question, and 80% answering "yes" to the second question, you'd likely think something screwy was going on, right? Clearly, a large majority of the people like the roast beef dinner. You should obviously keep it on the menu. Yet, for some reason, 80% of the people want you to chuck it and serve something else. That's kinda strange isn't it? Yet that's exactly the kind of response we're seeing from polling on health care.


That would *never* happen. It should never happen, I should say. And it doesn't, until politics gets involved. Those kinds of numbers pretty much only happen if someone makes a concerted effort to make it happen. If a group of people who don't like roast beef want it taken off the menu, they could run a campaign to convince people that the roast beef dinner is bad. Of course, they can't convince someone that they don't like it. But they can convince those people that most people don't like it. See. The 80% who like it don't necessarily know that 80% like it. If you can convince them that most people don't like it, then they'll likely agree to allow it to be taken off the menu for the good of the whole. Each of the 80% thinks they're in the minority and is willing to sacrifice the meal they like for what they think will be a meal more people will like.


That's how you get poll results like that. As I said, it pretty much can only happen if there's some concerted effort to convince people that the reality of the situation isn't real. Everyone knows their own reality, but they have to be told the reality of others. If you work hard to tell them that everyone else hates the roast beef, they'll respond "yes" when asked if roast beef should be replaced with something else.


It's not rocket science, and it certainly does not require a degree in psychology to understand this. It's one of those incredibly obvious things to see, if you bother to open your eyes and look at the world around you...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Nov 02 2009 at 10:27 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
But then, in Gbaji posts, you can always count on stupidity working for you.


Say what you really mean. And yeah, that was me calling you an idiot right off the bat. Your kind isn't even worth arguing with. Stupidity of that magnitude is irreversible.
#31 Nov 02 2009 at 10:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji will twist himself in knots trying to convince himself that the GOP party line is correct and all those people who want to see health care reform or who think that getting universal coverage is a pressing issue are deluded fools, tricked by politics and the media.

Circumstances had it that I had to take Flea to the doctor today for some stuff. Now, Flea works in a hospital and so we have pretty good insurance but it was still ridiculous the amount of bureaucracy we had to go through for even trivial tasks. Need blood work? Well, you need to see this guy and he's in this town at this center but before that you need to see this guy and talk to this person for a referral which will take 24-48 hours before you can set up an appointment which will be another however many days after that and... Anyway, it was a joke. It reinforced how fucking stupid the whole "the government will get between you and your health care!" is where there's already a massive looming wall between my doctor and myself.

Be that as it may, was I "satisfied" with our insurance? Sure, in that we at least have insurance and can get this stuff done. Do I think my satisfaction means the system is fine as is? Fuck no. Ignoring everyone else in the country and their problems, I'm fully aware that I've basically lucked into a better plan than what I get through my own work. And that our being insured relies 100% on us keeping our jobs. And that if she lost her job, the stuff she saw a doctor about today (which was nothing drastic) could result in my job's insurance refusing to cover her or charging us a shit-ton of cash for it. I'm aware that her carrier could decide tomorrow to change coverages or shift networks or otherwise fuck with our coverage and there's jack all we could do about it. As a matter of fact, they're doing just that to some extent, forcing us to travel much further now if we want to continue seeing the doctors we've established a relationship with because they're dropping one medical plaza from their coverage while keeping a different one, despite the same doctors being in both groups. Once again, "Oh no! The government might get between me and my doctor!" Smiley: rolleyes

So, yeah, it's entirely possible to say you're currently "satisfied" while realizing that the system needs an overhaul. Or, hey, maybe stick your fingers in your ears and chant "Lalalalalalala!!!" really loud until the scary poll numbers go away.

Edit: Also, the numbers are: 41% "Very Satisified", 37% "Somewhat Satisfied". I would guess that most, if not all of the 37% feels the same as I do and that a fair number of the 41% does as well -- happy with their current condition but cognizant of the fact that it could easily change for the worse.

Edited, Nov 2nd 2009 10:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Nov 03 2009 at 12:07 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
gbaji wrote:
Unless you have some other explanation?


Without even reading the rest of your post.

Probably dozens to indefinitely high amounts depending on what ever you're saying. I will read that post now, and see if my conclusion was made with strong inductive force, or weak.

gbaji wrote:
Presumably, people didn't magically become more caring about their fellow man in just the last couple years, so what changed? I propose that it's purely the perception of the number/degree of "need" that changed.


You sir, are a sick and pessimistic, twatwaffle, and execration of venom into your grinning visage before immolating you in flames of a pyre kept burning forever by the plumes of phoenix down is still too damn good for you, and the cowardly and impotent political beliefs you hold. You probably deserve ignorance, but I can't even give you that due to pride.

This isn't the last couple of years, you insufferable chameleon

You seriously don't believe that humans have "magically" gotten nicer to each other is possible... It's not unlikely either. We see a lot of backsliding in a lot of history, but we also see true and focused progress in all sorts of ways. Laws change. Is racism dead in the USA? Of course not. Can a black man still register to vote? Yes. And there is no reason to let the defeat besmirch the triumph, so long as we don't do something stupid like forget it. It sucks, and its slow, and you're probably going to die well before you get a reward.

You don't stop the @#%^ing fight. Just because you can win the fight of the universal human spirit doesn't mean you are allowed to not participate. Now get your white entrepreneur *** up and start fighting, hmmm? Thats what you're supposed to be best at.

Quote:
Unless you have some other explanation?


There are thousands, one of which I have just ranted, but you see, this was very clever mildly interesting of gbaji. He made his reader think that offering a counterexample would get an atypical response. Then, the reader asked himself,"'hmm Reader? What happened the last time you provided counterexamples for any argument with this guy ever?' 'Well self, he either pretends to not see the post, sees a few terms that he can whack on (futility), or tries to shift the burden of proof."

So ya ain't getting any more.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2009 1:10am by Pensive
#33 Nov 03 2009 at 12:56 AM Rating: Decent
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
A Gbaji-esque retort to Gbaji


Like I said...

Quote:
Your kind isn't even worth arguing with.
#34 Nov 03 2009 at 3:11 AM Rating: Good
*
61 posts
I always hated the entire idea of insurance. It's gambling without machines and without waiters shoving drinks into you. If the company is doing things right, they will make more than what people put into it.

Of course the real problem with the medical field is the cost, which brought up the need for insurance. Pay for all your medical bills in increments over the course of your life seems reasonable in an ideal situation. But with private insurance it's obviously in the benefit of the company, not the individual.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Under government healthcare, all that will change is the name of the employer and the removed need to make a "profit", which will be replaced by taxes. On average, people will get back the equivalent to what they put into it. The money that gets put into it simply takes a different route. That's all. It just seems more logical to me.
#35 Nov 03 2009 at 3:48 AM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
OMFG! Gbaji hates babies!! Especially fat ones!!!


Anyway, I'm just recovering from the flu'. Not a heavy cold, oh no. The Flu'! Real full on Influenza! Don't know if it was H1N1 or the regular type 'cos i didn't bother getting tested. Why? 'Cos I wasn't going to take Tamiflu either way, thats why.

I've only had it once before, and I'd forgotten how all-over sick it makes you. I've been in bed for 2 days alternating sweating, cold shivering, joint pains, stabbing pains in the gut and the most disgusting volume of sticky green mucous...

But you'll all be happy to know that my immune system has pulled me thru with no need for vaccines and all that palaver, and my place of work has been happy for me to stay away for the last week and don't want to see me again till next week!

Cool eh?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#36 Nov 03 2009 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yeah, I had / have had it as well. Not tested either, since they don't really care at this point since whatever it is, it's everywhere.

I didn't have muscle aches, which is good. But the congestion was just nasty.

Think I'll get a t-shirt made with "I survived the pig flu" on it.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#37 Nov 03 2009 at 9:10 AM Rating: Good
Smiley: lol at the Roast beef dinner analogy. It encapsulates the healthcare debate so perfectly and accurately! Remind me why you're not running for office with insights such as these?

Anyway, thanks gbaji, I needed a laugh today.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#38 Nov 03 2009 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,053 posts
My oldest just started a job at Target and only did one day of training, when she came down with the flu.

Thankfully, HR is working with her and she going back to work tomorrow evening.

Since my son-in-laws first job, he has made having health insurance a condition of taking each job he had. The first 2 start ups he work at both gave it to him, just to get him to work for them. Now he has a job with a government contractor and they only had a small disruption between policies.

Jonwin employers, also gave him health insurance so he would stay with them.

My sister has to keep working though she is suffering from chronic pain, so to keep her insurance policy.

Finally Jonwin and I are staying single, since there is no way we could afford to pay for my health care under his plan.

Universal Health Care would benefit all of us and allow people like my sister freedom to retire early due to their health.

Many employers would also benefit from a Universal health coverage, as the taxes needed to pay for it, would be lower then what it currently cost them to give emplyees coverage. The raising cost of insurance has cause many companies to cut coverage or change plans on the employees. Often requiring them to have to change doctors suddenly and creating more red tape to go through.

Knowing that the good health care coverage you have now can suddenly become too expensive or get less coverage each year as their employers face higher costs of covering them, is reflected in the fact that so many are happy with their current coverage, but due to worry that they could lose it suddenly feel that there is a great need for reform.

The argument is what type of reform we will get. While I don't see how we'll get the universal coverage a Government Health Care would solve, I also know that Congress can go back and make new laws if whatever reform passes this time, can be fix if there is the grass roots pressure to do so.

I for one am going to help defeat as many of the Congressmen and Senators who vote against the Health care plan that makes it to the floor.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#39 Nov 03 2009 at 2:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Geez Pensive. Switch to decaf. Seriously...


Does anyone honestly believe that the bills the Dems are pushing right now will make health care "better"? In what way? Will it be less expensive? No. Will it have less bureaucracy? No. Will the medicines and shots you get become more potent? No.

We can go back and forth about the reasons for the polling numbers, but I don't think it's a stretch to assume that everyone polling in favor of reform assumes that said reform should result in something "better" than what we have now. What we're getting though, isn't better for the consumer in any way. It's better for the politicians. It's better for the health care industry. It's better for the health care insurers. It's *not* better for you though.


It's not that we conservatives blindly oppose any and all change or reform. It's that we don't blindly support any and all change or reform. Which appears to be a common ailment among liberals. It's better to not pass a bill than to pass a bad one. It's staggering to me that so many of you seem to get that completely backwards.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Nov 03 2009 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's better to not pass a bill than to pass a bad one.
I'd agree with you on most bills, but sometimes, it's better to get something passed, so it can later be modified as modifying is often easier than getting something in place, in the first place.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#41 Nov 03 2009 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
It's not that we conservatives blindly oppose any and all change or reform.


Mmm hmm. Sure.
#42 Nov 03 2009 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What we're getting though, isn't better for the consumer in any way.

I disagree.
Quote:
It's not that we conservatives blindly oppose any and all change or reform

In this case? I disagree again. The GOP actions over the past six months have shown through their "torch the fields and poison the wells" tactics that they have no interest in seeing any reform bill pass. You can't possibly be so naive as to believe that the GOP has a sincere desire to see something pass.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2009 3:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43REDACTED, Posted: Nov 03 2009 at 3:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Draxyl,
#44 Nov 03 2009 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
All a public option does is kill competition between health insurers. Competition is what keeps prices down.

And it's worked swimmingly so far, huh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45REDACTED, Posted: Nov 03 2009 at 3:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#46 Nov 03 2009 at 3:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
As opposed to the god awful alternative?

So... I can watch "competition" jack up my rates or the "God awful alternative"... jack up my rates?

Color me terrified.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Nov 03 2009 at 4:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's better to not pass a bill than to pass a bad one.
I'd agree with you on most bills, but sometimes, it's better to get something passed, so it can later be modified as modifying is often easier than getting something in place, in the first place.


And the modifications are thus even more likely to not represent the interests of the people. You're just kinda setting yourself up for failure there. It's really not that hard to come up with health care legislation that a large majority of the population would support. Not hard at all. However, the legislation would not be beneficial to the political powers that are at work here, so that's not what they're doing.


You get that right? If it was just about doing what was "right", they'd be doing it and everyone would be happy. What's making things tricky is that they want to do things that benefit themselves politically and which aren't what people want. So they have to play games to try to get this done. Letting them pass a crappy bill and then hoping they'll "fix it" later is really really foolish IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Nov 03 2009 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Letting them pass a crappy bill and then hoping they'll "fix it" later is really really foolish IMO.
Really? Because that's what's worked in most other countries with National Healthcare.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#49 Nov 03 2009 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's really not that hard to come up with health care legislation that a large majority of the population would support.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

I had a sudden flash to people who post on MMORPG sites saying "It would be SO easy for the developers to add flying motorcycles that shoot laser axes which transform into a phoenix!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Nov 03 2009 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
All a public option does is kill competition between health insurers. Competition is what keeps prices down.

And it's worked swimmingly so far, huh?



Lol... You think what we've been doing for the last 40 years counts as competition? Want to take a wild guess as to which party has fought against any real competition in the health care industry over that time period?


It's a pretty standard pattern. Create a problem. Use problem to push agenda. Profit! How's that working for ya? And in 10 years from now, after trillions of dollars more have been spent and health care is no better than today, will you still be blaming those evil conservatives for the failings of the system? It's just so sad and predictable...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Nov 03 2009 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Want to take a wild guess as to which party has fought against any real competition in the health care industry over that time period?

Umm...... REPUBLICANS! You were going to say "Republicans", right? That was the answer? You were going to blame it all on the Republicans?

Ok, that was my guess. What do I win? Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 329 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (329)