Is Obama a socialist? What's your stance on health care reform?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ I read it. Four times now. As I see it you are saying (good ol’ numbered points again):</p>

<p>1: The segment of the population that has insurance has a certain rate of ER visits.</p>

<p>2: The segment with no insurance has a higher rate of ER visits than segment #1.</p>

<p>3: If segment #2 were to get insurance, their rate of ER visits would drop.</p>

<p>4: It would drop by more than 4.75%, the number I said was the max in post #253.</p>

<p>For this to be true, the (now insured) uninsured would have to have a much lower rate of ER visits than the (still insured) insured people had before we changed anything.</p>

<p>Going back to my example, for the rate of ER visits to drop by 10%:</p>

<p>Before law: 1000 people, of whom 160 are uninsured. 100 go to the ER, of whom 20 are uninsured.</p>

<p>So, just like before:</p>

<p>840/80 = 1 in 10.5 insured people.</p>

<p>160/20 = 1 in 8 uninsured people.</p>

<p>Now, suppose we think making the uninsured people get insurance will cause the number of ER visits to drop to 90. The insured people haven’t had anything changed, so we will still have 1/10.5, or 80, of them. That leaves 10 that can come from our formerly uninsured group, which numbers 160. So…</p>

<p>160/10 = 1 in 16 people from the formerly uninsured group go to the ER.</p>

<p>But 1 in 10.5 of the people who had insurance before go to the ER! So this must mean that the formerly uninsured people are only 2/3 as likely to go to the ER as the rest of the population! This is absurd, unless you think having lacked insurance in the past improves your health once you get it.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>Or the fact that a large portion of the insured are the elderly, and that it would be silly to model the health of the uninsured on the health of such a skewed portion of the population…</p>

[schaden]

<p>

schaden: Yeah, the country was founded on capitalism and yeah the healthcare bill somewhat goes against it, but isn’t it the ethical thing to do? Many people are struggling to pay their day to day bills and can’t afford insurance. Providing insurance for them would be the morally correct thing to do. You can’t force someone to pay for their life. It’s not right.

</p>

<p>No…and that’s the point. We can either start giving people entitlements and give up our prosperity or stick to principles.</p>

<p>Are you a people person or a principle person?</p>

<p>

Bahahaha. You’re kidding right? </p>

<p>That’s about as educated as a criticism as those who scream our democracy is being taken away…

</p>

<p>Yea, that makes a lot of sense.</p>

<p>Oh wait, are you referring to reconciliation?</p>

<p>

What about the people that worked their whole lives in the auto industry and are now homeless because we shipped jobs oversees? What about children who have never had the chance to work? What about soldiers who are disabled and can’t work? What about people who were disabled in other ways? What about the people that own the mom and pop shop that’s been in their family for generations and now can’t compete or get health care because of the WalMart that opened down the street? What about the students who can’t afford healthcare because they’re choosing to get an education and can’t get a full-time job at the same time?

</p>

<p>TOO BAD</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Or the fact that a large portion of the insured are the elderly, and that it would be silly to model the health of the uninsured on the health of such a skewed portion of the population…

</p>

<p>Can you cite anything to support that? I’ve been unable to find a percentage for the distribution of insured people by age.</p>

<p>EDIT: Found a table from 1997… But it’ll take some number-crunching to turn it into anything useful.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09emergency.html?_r=1[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09emergency.html?_r=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

As increasing numbers of the unemployed and uninsured turn to the nation’s emergency rooms as a medical last resort, doctors warn that the centers — many already overburdened — could have even more trouble handling the heart attacks, broken bones and other traumas that define their core mission. . . .</p>

<p>The number of patients coming to emergency departments has been steadily increasing. Helping push up that volume have been the growing ranks of the uninsured, because emergency rooms are legally obliged to see all patients who enter their doors, regardless of their ability to pay. But even insured patients who have no quick access to regular doctors are also showing up — among them older people, who represent the fastest growing population of emergency room visitors. So far, there are no firm figures on the recent influx. . . .</p>

<p>Now the recession, whose full impact is yet to be seen, threatens to make conditions even worse, emergency doctors say. Hospitals are absorbing increasing amounts in unpaid medical bills, and some are already experiencing much higher numbers of patients without insurance.</p>

<p>For example, Denver Health, a public hospital system, had a 19 percent increase in emergency visits by uninsured patients in November — to 3,325, up from 2,792 a year earlier. . . .</p>

<p>Some patients are people who have delayed seeking medical care as long as they can, like those who arrive during an asthma attack after deferring treatment. . .</p>

<p>But as the recession continues, many officials of the college of emergency doctors predict it is only a matter of time until the rising number of uninsured and the delays in getting primary care create a crisis.</p>

<p>“I think we’re seeing the tip,” said Dr. Nicholas J. Jouriles, the group’s current president. Patients, he said, will have no choice but to come to the emergency department when they have no money or insurance. “They will get turned away elsewhere,” he said.</p>

<p>One of the doctors’ major concerns is the long waits by patients requiring a hospital bed. The doctors group, surveying its members last year, learned of at least 200 deaths related to the practice of “boarding” — in which patients on stretchers line the corridors until they can be moved into a bed. . . .</p>

<p>Dr. Gardner, of the emergency doctors’ group, said the question now is whether the emergency room safety net will break — how often people with heart attacks will not be able to get care in time to be saved. Her group’s report, she said, is meant to alert people to the precarious nature of the system.</p>

<p>“What they don’t understand,” she said, “is that the system is fundamentally flawed and will fail.”

</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

We can either start giving people entitlements and give up our prosperity or stick to principles.

</p>

<p>False dichotomy.</p>

[NoliMeTangere]

<p>Since the current recession has taken place after a public option has been instituted in many European countries, instituting it here will cause a second depression</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>@TCBH: Ok, thanks. That is an exellent example of the problem, but says nothing about the question we are talking about: Are people who willingly forgo insurance a major cause of clogged ERs.</p>

[schaden]

<p>

False dichotomy.

</p>

<p>You’re going to have to explain what that means if you wnt me to respond.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>[Dichotomy</a> | Define Dichotomy at Dictionary.com](<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dichotomy]Dichotomy”>DICHOTOMY Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com)</p>

<p>

That is an exellent example of the problem, but says nothing about the question we are talking about: Are people who willingly forgo insurance a major cause of clogged ERs.

</p>

<p>It illustrates why the numbers you used above are too simplistic to measure the effect of the bill.</p>

[MaleToTheCore]

<p>I fully disagree with Obama on 95% of his policies, certainly including this “health care” reform. I must say, I am glad he resigned the Patriot Act though!</p>

<p>I’m ultraconservative, and I don’t mind that label. However, I’m aspiring to an Air Force ROTC cadet, and we cannot speak ill of the president in public. This will be hard for me.</p>

[schaden]

<p>

division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action

</p>

<p>How is not giving out more entitlements versus sticking to principle a dichotomy?</p>

[HarveyLewis]

<p>

No…and that’s the point. We can either start giving people entitlements and give up our prosperity or stick to principles.</p>

<p>Are you a people person or a principle person?

So your reasoning is that the ‘Founding Fathers’ said so and therefore we should follow it for all eternity? Genius.</p>

[schaden]

<p>the founding fathers were more genius than you I can tell you that.</p>

[HarveyLewis]

<p>^Which has no bearing on my argument whatsoever. Also, ‘more genius’?</p>

[schaden]

<p>I wasn’t aware you had an argument? Geniuser?</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

How is not giving out more entitlements versus sticking to principle a dichotomy?

</p>

<p>Your argument seems to essentially be that we face a choice between, to use your word, entitlements and following our principles, hence a dichotomy. My point is that it isn’t a dichotomy. In other words, the entitlements are not violations of this nation’s founding principles. I would also dispute that the founding principles should be the only guide in governance, but that’s a separate debate. </p>

<p>The issue here really is, in my opinion, your flawed view of what those founding principles are. In an earlier post you said that this country was founded on capitalism - that’s not true. The real issue was self governance, with the main spark being taxation without American representation in Parliament. Other non-tax related issues, like the Quartering Act or Proclamation of 1763, really had little to do free market economics. Furthermore, with the publication of The Wealth of Nations coming in 1776, many of the most important steps to revolution (e.g. the Boston Tea Party, the Battle of Bunker Hill) had already happened before the idea of capitalism had even been fully conceived.</p>

[HarveyLewis]

<p>^^Sorry if I didn’t make my argument clear: doing something just because the Founding Fathers said so is **** stupid.
Geniuser sounds bad as well. :/</p>

[schaden]

<p>

In other words, the entitlements are not violations of this nation’s founding principles.

</p>

<p>Principle 7 - The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.</p>

<p>

In an earlier post you said that this country was founded on capitalism - that’s not true.

</p>

<p>Principle 15 - The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.</p>

<p>from </p>

<p>the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Founding Fathers which they said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desired peace, prosperity, and freedom.</p>

<p>

Sorry if I didn’t make my argument clear: doing something just because the Founding Fathers said so is **** stupid.

</p>

<p>That doesn’t sound like an argument, it sounds mostly like you’re a dumbass</p>

<p>Wow it feels great to be right for once.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>Are you seriously quoting some ultra-conservative guy as though anything he says is established fact?</p>