| 0 |
Subject: HR 3200 Line-By-Line
Posted by: Boldwin
- [376192015] Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 16:44
This thread is limited to posts specifying which specific section and line of the bill they refer to and a link to a serious discussion of that language.
No cheerleading. No jeering. You either link to a competent discussion of a specific section of the bill or you will be asked to delete your post. |
| 1 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 16:50
|
A look at how the sausage will be made.
A discussion of:
DIVISION B—MEDICARE AND MEDICAID IMPROVEMENTS
TITLE IV—QUALITY
Subtitle C—Quality Measurements
SEC. 1441. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.
PART E
How the assigned treatment you will receive will be decided.
[hint: you are not one of the stakeholders in the decision]
|
| 2 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 16:58
|
This is the cited section of the Social Security Act refered to in the previous discussion.
|
| 3 | sarge33rd
ID: 16738612
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 16:59
|
I need proof of this statement from your link Boldwin:
Then we assign a cost. Doing nothing is cheap, just lots of morphine if the Government even allows that. The Brits then rank each treatment by the $/QALY and permit the lowest cost treatment only! That means often doing nothing!
To me, "often doing nothing" would mean more frequently than doing anything of the other 2 options mentioned. Without proof that the Brits prohibit care/treatment of prostate cancer at least as frequently as they treat it; this statement and thus the entire position espoused....is empty, fear-mongering.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 17:06
|
Your problem with that is the same as your problem with so many things. You presume that the use of standard of care will be utilized in a particular, bad, way (in your case, to "ration" care).
In February FactCheck.org did an extensive and thorough spanking of Betsy McCaughey on this very problem of presenting speculation about the future as though they are mandated in the text of the law.
Among other choice bits: The HHS secretary, she told us, "is not simply measuring the frequency with which physicians ... simply enter health care data into the electronic database. No, they’re going to be measuring more than that." Perhaps so, but the idea that this will lead to federally mandated treatment guidelines is her supposition. The fact remains that law does not impose any federal treatment guidelines or require that the government do so.
The bolded section applies to just about everything you've said on this issue.
I realize that using facts to determine what treatments actually work on actual patients in similar situations is far too scientific for you, but asking for a stop to comparative effectiveness research (which is already going on, both with private insurance companies and, since 2003, at the federal level) is a little too head-in-the sand to be of much help.
|
| 6 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 17:16
|
Find a competent commentator with a contrarian take on those specific lines and delete your posts.
If you want to jeer from the sidelines you already have a thread for that.
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 17:19
|
Find a competent commentator with a contrarian take on those specific lines and delete your posts.
FactCheck's points are not "competent" enough? I've followed your rules. Your problem is that you don't think anyone you disagree with is competent, and everyone you agree with is.
|
| 8 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 17:28
|
If that is true please cut-and-paste their line-by-line discussion of the relevant HR 3200 sections.
|
| 9 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 17:38
|
A bench grunt electrical engineer with a hard-on for Obama and a flower fetish is not competent to expound. Please delete post #1.
|
| 10 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 20:38
|
I did not expect liberals could handle actually looking at the bill line-by-line.
Please pursue whatever else it is you do elsewhere.
|
| 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 21:06
|
Oh, we can certainly handle the reading part. It is difficulty that the wingnuts have separating science fiction from fact that we can't handle. Too much and for too long we've heard alarmist nutjobs screaming about "marxism!" "rationing!" and "Canada!" as though their certainty can overcome the speculative nature of their reading.
They treat HR3200 as a "living document," ironically enough, reading into it their fears of a socialist planet.
Your attempt in this thread was admirable, but completely done in by your first link which was not a serious discussion at all, but a speculative look at the effect of a section of the bill taken out of context (and time).
|
| 12 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 10:47
|
The guy in post#1 is an MIT grad with degrees in practically every field of human knowledge including a degree in medicine, and the author of 14 books...
...but I should only post stuff by serious commentators.
*roll*
|
| 13 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 11:23
|
He doesn't have a degree in medicine, and he hasn't published on any topic in a peer reviewed journal in a decade or two.
As far as I can tell, he knows little about health care or policy, gardens by day, and expounds pompously on topics he's not qualified to discuss by night.
BZZZZT! Try again.
Just trying to keep you within your own absurd rules.
|
| 14 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 11:43
|
From his bio:Terry received his education from MIT, amongst other places, and has a PhD in EECS, amongst a bunch of other degrees, studying engineering, medicine and recently botany and returning to genetics.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 11:47
|
That doesn't say he has a degree in medicine, Boldwin. Only that he "studied" it.
|
| 16 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 11:57
|
Didn't George O'Leary have that same bio?
|
| 17 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 12:05
|
Really? This guy is a non-serious commenter on health policy?
Why do I bother coming around here?
|
| 18 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 13:12
|
Okay, I'll give you he messed around with it 16 years ago. First, things have changed a lot in 16 years. Second, that paper doesn't make any sense. It's some libertarian gobblygook, with fancy terms and nonsense models tossed in for good measure. I have no idea if his company was trying to get some consulting work for which they had no experience, or what, but it's just bizarre.
"We first develop a model for the demand side of health care and demonstrate that demand can be controlled by pricing,..."
Uh, yeah. If I can't afford a pace-maker, I guess I won't get one.
As for his company, it sounds like their revenue currently comes from bullshitting in front of judges as an expert witness to uphold medical malpractice lawsuits. Your kinda guy.
So yeah, I think he's non-serious.
As for why you bother coming around here, I have no idea.
|
| 19 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 13:58
|
... but I assume it's the same reason I do. Let me know what it is when you figure it out, will ya!?! ;)
|
| 20 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 16:05
|
"We first develop a model for the demand side of health care and demonstrate that demand can be controlled by pricing,..."
I have not read a paper like that in a while...it is full of non-sense then again most academic papers are.
Uh, yeah. If I can't afford a pace-maker, I guess I won't get one.
or...
I am not on the list for a Pace-maker, I guess i won't get one.
Until you address the issue of how you want medical care to be rationed, Bili, then you are making no better an arguement than Boldwin. He at least admits that he would rather go with out because he can not pay for it.
|
| 21 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 16:20
|
Well, I've always been for rational rationing, instead of rationing by pocket book. I would get together a panel of elite docs by field and let 'em hash it out.
|
| 22 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 16:21
|
And, as far as I can tell, it's not an academic paper. He would have been an idiot to try to get that by any reviewers with actual expertise.
He was trying to sell himself to people who didn't know any better, is my guess.
|
| 23 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 16:39
|
He's a member of the National Academy of Science which is an honor the top 2000 scientists in the country recieve, one in ten being Nobel Prize winners. They are in there specifically to advise the country pro bono on any matter of science. This is not just some guy with a soldering iron, the way you tried to flip him off.
And if some guy whose job were 'an engineering bench grunt' could write that cogently on the subject I'd still link to him.
|
| 24 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 17:00
|
I would get together a panel of elite docs by field and let 'em hash it out.
if only every person's case was the exact same that would work great. but in theory i am not sure how that would really work.
And, as far as I can tell, it's not an academic paper. He would have been an idiot to try to get that by any reviewers with actual expertise.
possibly, i did not read it in full or much detail but it came off much like 100 other econ papers i have read.
|
| 25 | Biliruben on iffyone
ID: 52052916
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 17:14
|
You know the membership in Nas is something you can look
up, right?
|
| 26 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 18:51
|
Dr. McGarty is currently
Vice Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Board on the
Internet.
|
| 27 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 18:53
|
I guess your strategy is to raise roadblocks to discussing the bill's particulars until it can get rushed thru unexamined in detail?
|
| 28 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 19:05
|
Man, this blowhard has you wrapped around your finger.
There is this thing called a membership list on the NAS website. Can't find him.
The more I read about him, the more of a failure and wanna-be he becomes.
No, I have little interest in discussing this pretentious imposter's spin on the bill, as it's spinning so fast it's losing electrons.
|
| 29 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 19:22
|
Which explains why the NAS made him vice chairman of their board.
Really the guy is serious enuff to at least hear his views. This guy is at the very least Madman on steroids. The idea that you could treat someone with those credentials like he were the village idiot is just obscene forum tactics. It just goes to show you what you can get away with on a forum where only 5/100 of the participants aren't fellow lockstep liberals.
|
| 30 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 19:34
|
What credentials?
A cached google page of a forum where someone claimed he once participated in committee on the internet?
A puffed-up web-page where he infers he is a bunch of things that he's not?
A desk in some basement at MIT given to him by some old college chum who felt sorry for him so that he can claim a prestigious affiliation that he hasn't done anything to earn?
Madman actually succeeds in life. Your comparison is a pretty big insult, I would guess. This dudes a serial failure, as far as I can tell. Except maybe his success in pollinating a red lilly with a white lilly and making a pink lilly.
Can't waste my time arguing about the opinions a glorified gardener spewing fantastical interpretations of something he clearly doesn't understand.
|
| 31 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 19:41
|
If haven't figured it out by now, I took exception to your rules:
You either link to a competent discussion of a specific section of the bill or you will be asked to delete your post.
So I decided to hold you to them.
|
| 32 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 21:56
|
This forum and perhaps political discussion in this country in general is dead if someone of such stirling and impecable credentials can be mischaracterized in such an halucinatory way, such an ends justifies the means denial of reality.
There is literally no one on the planet qualified enuff that you would give a fair dispassionate hearing to if they didn't pass your pro-socialism litmus test.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|