Caffeinated Thoughts - Latest Comments

Re: Latte Links (7/16)

Wickle — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:26:50 -0000

I don't know enough to say.

But lots of people get online and start declaring that one thing or another looks faked when it's not.

Then again, other times people fall for fake stories (like the Bigfoot one from a year or two ago). Who knows? I'm certainly not going to go look for it in person.

Re: Hellcare

M.Hovda — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:49:29 -0000

Oops! sorry I failed to mention you can put the title of Steven Crowder's video on You tube "Obamacare yea or nay? the truth about Canada" in the search engine.

Re: Hellcare

vandie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:06:20 -0000

I can't say that I would accurately speak for them, LOL.

Re: Hellcare

vandie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:04:43 -0000

You are right, if they went to pg. 19, that would be explained - http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/81987/.

However according The Foundry (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/16/does-the-ho...

neglects to see the importance of the phrase “Exchange-participating health benefits plan” in the passage he quotes above. In order to qualify as an “Exchange-participating health benefits plan,” all health insurance plans must confirm to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all drive up the cost of health insurance. Furthermore, all these new regs would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage. Until, of course, it becomes too expensive and they just dump you into the government plan.

So IBD is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed. But it will be effectively regulated out of existence… which is effectively the same thing.

Re: Hellcare

kansasbob — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:48:58 -0000

But what would the universalists say? Would they believe in this kind of hell?

Re: Hellcare

Pither — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:33:27 -0000

The House bill does not make private health insurance illegal.

The bill does add various legal requirements for health insurance, for example, that they not withhold coverage from individuals with pre-existing conditions. Instead of simply immediately requiring that all insurers change their structures and conditions, the bill allows existing coverage schemes to be grandfathered in.

Thus, if you already have an individual plan that excludes people with pre-existing conditions, you can keep that plan. But new enrollees cannot choose that plan. New enrollees can enroll in private individual plans, but they will have to meet the new requirements.

In short, the editorial is, at best, extremely misleading.

Whatever you do, don't bother to let the facts get in the way of a good fear-mongering rumor!

Re: Hellcare

vandie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:41:20 -0000

Will have to check it out.

Re: Latte Links (7/16)

vandie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:38:15 -0000

There was a guy on Twitter who thought the fish looked fake, what do you think?

Re: Latte Links (7/16)

Wickle — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:23:32 -0000

#3 - So, she caught the one that got away from everyone else? There goes a whole generation of fish stories!

Re: Hellcare

M. Hovda — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:14:39 -0000

Shane, well put. "Hell Care" I would suggest everyone watch Steven Crowder's Video "Obamacare yea or Nay? the truth about Canada" Crowder is now with Pajama's T.V. and he posts on Big Hollywood. Crowder is a Dual Citizen U.S. and Canada. He goes undercover with his Canadian friends to expose the ills of socialized medicine.

It is MUST VIEWING for ALL imho.

Re: Hellcare

vandie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:54:55 -0000

"The idea of having uninsured crawl off to the woods to die is not a option nor is one in which preventative care isn't provided"

Really? I thought that would be the way to deal with it.

Come on! Nobody is advocating NOT doing something. The ideas you list later in the comment are pretty good. Also how about Tort reform so doctor's liability insurance isn't so sky high.

Re: Rekha Basu, Remember, Darwinism Isn’t Fact

Argon — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:26:58 -0000

Correction: The American Scientific Affiliation URL is www.asa3.org

Re: Rekha Basu, Remember, Darwinism Isn’t Fact

Argon — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:24:39 -0000

I've been involved in online debates about evolution since about 1991. I followed the creation/evolution debate about fifteen years before then. I've followed the rise of the modern ID movement since Philip Johnson's first book on the subject and read the papers of most of the major contributors to Discovery Institute's effort.

This 'no scientific merits for macro' comment is way off. There is evidence for evolution at many levels in the past. The 'fossil record would back it up', wouldn't it' claim is simply unsupportable. For some groups there are very good evidence of when and how they originated. For other groups, consistency with morphological and genetic characteristics (nested hierarchy that also tracks with time) are often confirmed. This blog is probably not the place for an extended discussion of the merits of evolutionary biology but if you'd like, I can direct you to discussion groups where you could present your questions or arguments.

"That number of Christian biologists and scientists are relatively small."

The number of Christian biologists and scientists that support evolution is small? I'd like to see the metrics. From where I'm sitting, I could bounce a ball off the windows of about a dozen Christian biologists that support evolution over ID/creationism, and this isn't an academic site. I know biologist who doesn't support evolution but he's a Raelian.

There is a large group of professional scientist-Christians called the American Scientific Affiliation (www.asa.org). This group doesn't have a statement of faith about evolution but the large majority of member biologists and scientists support evolution. I've been active on their ASA reflector in the past (years ago). Archives are here: http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/

(Not a bad, Christian-friendly group in which to begin one's research into the area).

Re: Punishing Success To Pay For Obamacare

Argon — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:02:35 -0000

A public option doesn't nationalize health care. It sets a floor for the system.

Re: Punishing Success To Pay For Obamacare

Argon — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:00:28 -0000

Myself? I'd be happy to contribute greater than I do now. I could readily manage 20% more with the assurance of more comprehensive health care or one that could follow me through unemployment, disability or a new job.

Shane, you mentioned that one of your family members could be facing health care coverage issues. What percentage of their income or savings might they burn through?

You mention that the UK and Canada have nationalized medicine and suggest that it's a disaster. First, I don't think so. Some of our private plans may be better (if you or you employer can afford them), but on the whole, these countries do a far better job of covering their populations.

Still, nationalization isn't even on the table. US plans lean more toward a public/private coverage hybrid like France or the Netherlands and they too seem to have quite fine systems despite paying a fraction of the cost. Better than the US.

I'd pay extra tax for that assurance.

Re: By The Way, Abortion Isn’t Healthcare

Foxfier — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:51:32 -0000

Argh, spell check is not my friend:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/

Re: By The Way, Abortion Isn’t Healthcare

Foxfier — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:50:11 -0000

Shoot, Obama already breeched the subject, too. (Ironic, because he referred to his late grandmother to do so-- and she did get the replacement surgery he suggested shouldn't be done.)

How many folks will fall into despair when doctors refuse to replace their painful knee, or do thumb-movement surgery, because they won't get "much" out of it? Both of those, my mom got-- she got beat up pretty bad because she was a high school all star-- and the amazing improvement for being able to use her hands almost like new, and her knee not hurting nearly as much as it use to, is amazing. That's for a woman in her 50s.
My granny in her late 60s-early 70s got cataract surgery; it made it so she was able to live at home, read her Bible and large-print books, watch TV.

I imagine that Professor Hawkins' medical bills are pretty big, too.

And research is expensive-- worth noting that the US is the one footing the bill for the world's medical advancements.

Me, I'm a far cry from someone who thinks that anything that can possibly be done to keep someone's heart going, should be done. My grandfather passed with leukemia; once he made sure he'd be likely to survive until my little brother was born (diagnosis was the same day) he refused anything but pain-care. His choice.
My husband's grandfather recently passed with a blood disorder that could have been treated by regular blood infusions, and he could have lived for several more years-- he was type O. He refused any more than it took to make sure his sisters got to say good-bye. His choice.
Both of these are examples of bravery, in my eyes-- the notion of someone else choosing this "for" someone else is horrifying. They didn't lose their will to live, or commit suicide, they just chose not to use as much health care as they could, possibly, have asked for.

The notion of setting people up to live in horrible pain, to be isolated, and offer to pay for their physician induced suicide-- oh, sorry, "death with dignity"-- turns my stomach.

Re: Hellcare

Argon — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:43:14 -0000

I would add: I'm not sure we can afford to *not* have a government option to help contain costs.

Re: Hellcare

Argon — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:41:45 -0000

One priority is to ensure that everyone has access to health care when needed. The idea of having uninsured crawl off to the woods to die is not an option nor is one in which preventative care isn't provided.

Another priority is to ensure that people don't get ejected from a plan simply because they develop an expensive condition. Pooling must be all inclusive and non-selective (essentially random).

Bankrupcty due to medical costs must be contained. Everyone should be covered with some form of catastrophic insurance.

Costs must better align with that of other countries that have similar outcomes. We currently pay 2-4x more and have worse outcomes (even factoring for demographics). Medicine provided should be evidence-based.

Other directives: Universal medical record and billing databases. Transparent cost tracking and contracts. Medical rating systems for doctors, hospitals and insurers.

It may be nice to hope that health care can be managed as an open, free market but unfortunately, it will not meet the conditions necessary to perform as such and nor will it provide the broad, comprehensive coverage we want.

Re: By The Way, Abortion Isn’t Healthcare

Mel — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:26:11 -0000

Death is very much the center of this bill...Abortion will be one thing and Euthanasia will also arrive, even in the form of rationing...the fact they want to vote on this nightmare before the August Break is horrible.

Re: By The Way, Abortion Isn’t Healthcare

vandie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:12:44 -0000

Ouch, redefining preventative medicine.

Re: Rekha Basu, Remember, Darwinism Isn’t Fact

vandie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:11:04 -0000

There are no scientific merits for macro, we came from primordial soup, evolution.

None.

I'll give you micro evolution, as that has been well documented. Macro-evolution, as far as, it comes to our origins is conjecture. I mean, the fossil record would back it up wouldn't it? It doesn't.

That number of Christian biologists and scientists are relatively small.

I know things like cellular biology, looking at the molecular machines within a cell... junk science.

Looking at the laws of physics, and how they are balanced in order for life to occur... junk science.

Looking at what the universe's source is... junk science.

Re: Hellcare

vandie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:59:59 -0000

There will always be some form of government involvement (regulation, etc.), but does that mean our government should be so involved at such a cost? No. We simply can't afford this as a nation. Even with increasing taxes on the rich, they still don't have enough money to cover it.

"but government is necessary to set the appropriate priorities" that statement gave me chills, but instead of assuming what you mean by that, could you explain?

Re: By The Way, Abortion Isn’t Healthcare

Foxfier — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:57:36 -0000

Sure it is health care! Sort of-- think of it as prevention.

Babies are expensive; babies that aren't born are very affordable.

See also: old people are expensive.
Very sick people are expensive.
People in a coma are expensive.

Re: Hellcare

vandie — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:56:10 -0000

I think it was done by House Republicans, and no unfortunately it isn't a joke.

It's your government at work.