She neglected to mention that the death panels already exist: they are called "insurance companies", and people like Trig are routinely denied insurance and care all over the USA because Down Syndrome is a pre-existing condition.

I get accused of being paranoid of health care reform because I talk about abusive DHHS tactics during the Reagan era. I would bet that in a public plan, we would see similar abuses under leadership of both parties. I can tell you we have seen Democratic state governors try similar antics.

You know DB, very often I don't agree with you, because of your "My Israel, right or wrong" attitude. But you hit the mark here.

Catholics are much maligned. Because they're an easy target, not bothering to hit back. But Jews, non-believers, and others would do well to heed their warnings.

catholics are generally pro-life, pro-innocent, pro-underdog. Children matter, children's lives. So do the elderly, defenseless, retarded, and all other forms of life hanging in there day to day (see the Shiavo sister, and daughter.) but essentiall without money, power or wealth.

When the Jews were systematically being killed in WWII, it was individual catholic people, who remembered Jesus' teachings, who tried to shelter a child here and there, save a life where and when you can...

Ditto the anti abortion fight. Susan Estrich has an article up today: it's sad that so many of these women in their fight for "choice" won't admit that their choices for a better life have spelled the systematic elimination of a lesser species of life: Downs syndrome babies (or those erroneously linked to be.)

My beef about mandatory health payments is that the young and healthy will be forced to subsidize those who wish to dabble, systematically, with their own individual choices for good health. No qualms here if they can pay for it ... and no elimination of innocents is wrapped up in an individual expressing his or her health "choice", but I'll be damned if I be mandatorily forced to participate. That's Unamerican, and it's anything but unamerican to protest loudly before you get roped into paying for the systematic choices of others.

That's why I think the Jews, nonbelievers, and others ought to have a bit more respect for the catholic faith. Someday, you or those you love might just be lumped into those life forms called for systematic destruction. And you'd surely welcome a Schindler, or an adoptive parent, to step up and provide for that life form before it is systematically destroyed?

Same thing with the innocent Palestianian refugees, or the Iranian children sure to be slaughtered when Israel bombs with the purposes of stopping future nuclear proliferation (nevermind that countries like Israel are capable of possessing, but not using the technology.) Life is life. Mine, yours, your daughter's, my son's ... the catholics are right about the value of life, and have the track record to prove it. Thanks for an honestly refreshing post.

So the fact that Paul Blanshard supported eugenics in 1949 means that eugenics had "strong support on the Progressive left, more recently than some might imagine"?

That eugenics had strong support on the Progressive left in its 1920s heyday is a widely known fact. That this support continued in "liberal" circles after WWII is not so widely known. The fact that Blanshard, a best-selling, highly respected author, thought that his liberal Protestant audience would react favorably to the argument that the Catholic Church was bad because it opposed coercive sterilization does indeed suggest that support for coercive eugenics was not an isolated phenomenon in "progressive circles" as late as 1949.

That doesn't mean that eugenics was as popular in 1949 as in 1929, but it also strongly suggests that it retained a substantial body of support.

All of the Catholics I have lived with in Spain and Italy have been for the pro-life position: universal public health care. I bet the Pope is on the same page.

I am a pro-life conservative on this one I guess: I side with the Catholics and with the country of Israel, which also has universal public health care for all its citizens. I guess Mr Bernstein is against Israel on health care. And I guess Mr Miller is against the Catholic church on this one, too.

I guess Mr Bernstein is against Israel on health care.

Israel wants the U.S. to pass the Democrats' version of health care reform?

David,

Eugenics had support across the political spectrum in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. It was an elite consensus that went well beyond the Progressive left. And surely you know that William Jennings Bryan opposed it for the same reason he opposed Darwinism and evolution, because of its application to society known as Social Darwinism.

Stephen Jay Gould, a man of the left and a scientist, wrote about this in at least two of his essays, one of which I believe is on the web.

So let's recognize that eugenics is very much discredited these days, and properly so. And I would bet we'd find most liberals and progressives against eugenics in any event.

Pyrrho, where do you think the "controlling costs" portion of health care "reform" comes from? Underpants gnomes? it comes from denying care to people.

This has a certain illogic to it, in the sense that denying or delaying care are not the only ways to control costs.

One way to control costs while expanding care is to reduce the deadweight costs associated with drug and medical device patents. I don't think that this is on the table, but one proposal to do that would be to use a reward system.

Another way to reduce costs is prevention. Yes, people will get sick and die someday anyway, but given the time value of money, later is better.

Another way to lower costs is to make use of medical IT in a much more efficient manner. How many tests are repeated because medical professionals do not have access to the full health history of the patient?

Another way to reduce costs is to streamline the process by which doctors bill insurance companies. Instead of having a different procedure for every insurer, it would reduce costs if procedures were made more uniform as much as practicable.

Another way to reduce costs without rationing care is to increase the number of slots in medical and nursing schools.

Another way to reduce costs without rationing care is to search for a more efficient way handle issues of health professional carelessness than inefficient medical malpractice lawsuits.

These are just possibilities off the top of my head. As you can see, it would be false to categorically assert that reducing costs MUST imply rationing, especially extreme rationing. (If rationing means you have to wait 2 weeks to see a specialist instead of 1 week, that it less extreme rationing compared to saying to someone they cannot get care they need otherwise they die.)

Eugenics had support across the political spectrum in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. It was an elite consensus that went well beyond the Progressive left.

True, but
(1) the Progressive left especially interested in the coercive/government-controlled aspects of it, because it dovetailed with their ideology;
(2) It's the left, not the right, that is pushing health care reform right now; and
(3) the most substantial opposition to coercive eugenics came from religious Catholics and evangelical Protestants, who nowadays are primary constituencies of the "right," so one could expect less paranoia about a conservative government's desire for coercive eugenics than a liberal government's.

* And I guess Mr Miller is against the Catholic church on this one, too.*

That's Ms. Miller to you (assumptions, assumptions!) and yeppers, I believe this catholic here (referring to myself) is choosing something different as an American than the Pope might choose for himself. Funny, I doubt he'd give much support to any of the 5 proposed American plans, if the mandatory healthcare payments means subsidizing somebody else's abortion...

(See, when I intentionally don't cap the c, it means catholic position universally and not the lockstep with Rome one. Which is probably why you compounded your error in assuming I was male, eh? *only male Catholics are fit to express a view on such weighty issues as the value of life, and healthcare policy.*)

Don't abort the Down syndrom girls, or boys. It's a life you're killing, not just a meaningless choice. *Would you like fried with that?* or *Vanilla, chocolate, or swirl?* That's a life. INtentionally bringing to end a potential child's life just because they "suffer" from Down syndrome: that's a selfish murder really.

I agree with DB that the paranoia about death panels is justified. Here is what is happening in today's America.

That's Ms. Miller to you (assumptions, assumptions!)

Sorry, ma'am!

It's the left, not the right, that is pushing health care reform right now; and

Bush's Tax Cuts were all about Eugenics! The only reason to cut taxes and privatize social security is so that those who are weaker will die on the streets! Its all about Social Darwinism!

Would this be a "reasonable" position coming from the left? Absolutely not.

Look, nothing you say can make a paranoid unreasonable position into a reasonable position. Period.

*Wow, the Church leadership supports this bill so much they are willing to overlook its coverage of abortion (which Obama pledged to reduce) for the time being. That's amazing.*

Not really.
We've got our out-of-touch liberals hiding in leadership positions here too, though more and more they're being rooted out... Remember folks, for most catholics, the Church is the people sitting in the pews. We respect life. No lobbying or negotiating is going to change that. (See Roe, these many years on...)

Maybe wait until you actually pass the abortion-funded thing before you start bragging of the catholic buy-in, friend? Even with a stacked Supreme Court, one day we shall overcome Roe too! Lose a battle or two, ultimately win the war. The voices of all the dead innocents -- future Trig Palins or otherwise -- are calling us to continue the fight. And you know what they say about those on the side of life and morality. They never lose because there's always another to pick up the flag and defend the innocent being systematically destroyed.

catholics are generally pro-life, pro-innocent, pro-underdog. Children matter, children's lives.

Except, of course, when those children have been molested by Catholic priests. At that point, the Catholic hierarchy is prepared to declare itself to be an underdog, victimized by an intolerant populace -- a populace that unreasonably expects that a leader made aware of an employee's propensity to abuse children would not merely reassign that employee to "serve" a different group of children.

Seriously -- the Catholic Church needs to exercise some humility and shut the hell up on anything pertaining to children or innocence, for a little while. I'm not saying "OMG the Church is made of kiddie fiddlers", just that it would do well to recognize when its moral authority is momentarily and topically nonexistent.

So something Paul Blanshard wrote 60 years ago justifies Palin's lies and those of other conservatives? Wow. That's a pathetic argument.

In fact, of course, a Down Syndrome child is likely to fare much worse under our current scheme - "pre-existing condition, you know, tragic but how to explain it to the shareholders?" - than under a govt program.

Re: Eugenics:

Perhaps someone would like to define "left" and "right" for me. Certainly many of us would consider the NSDAP to be more "right" than "left." Wilhelm Reich considered it so in "Mass Psychology of Fascism."

It isn't clear to me that these are particularly meaningful terms any more than "liberal" (which by international usage would mean the GOP) and "conservative" (which is almost useless in describing high ranking political candidates today).

a Down Syndrome child is likely to fare much worse under our current scheme - "pre-existing condition, you know, tragic but how to explain it to the shareholders?" - than under a govt program.

C'mon, man. Aren't you reading? When the free market does it, it's not death panels. What's not to like about:
If you are not wealthy enough, you are not fit to survive? Of course, we all know given our overwhelmingly positive interactions with insurance companies that sobeale's experience is an isolated one-of-a-kind rarity that is a complete and total exception in today's America.

especially "bad people" like Sarah Palin

Perhaps I havent paid enough attention, but I've never heard anyone imply Palin is a bad person

The left tends to think of itself as "good people" with "good motives." They can't understand why other people, especially "bad people" like Sarah Palin, would have the gall to question their motives.

Sarah Palin is not a bad person. However, she was not qualified to be the President of the United States and therefore was not qualified to be the Vice President of the United States either.

I don't particularly think she has the brains to be governor. But then I compare her to other politicians, and I have to concede that a lot of them don't really have the brains to be governor either...

I also think she is a quitter, which is not a great quality to have in a politician.

I was very much disappointed in John McCain when he chose her. I think she would have been better off if she had never been chosen. She wasn't ready.

"left" and "right" for me. Certainly many of us would consider the NSDAP to be more "right" than "left."

If you go far enough in either direction, it pretty much meets (at complete control of people's lives) with the other

Stevie Miller:

"Try independence, friend. Harder route, but trust me, you'll never go back to asking other people to pay your way, and in the end, you'll end up a healthier creature indeed."

So much self-righteous ideology. As others have said, it's a good thing Stephen Hawking wasn't born in a country with government run health care. I have a son who has been completely disabled since a drowning accident 26 years ago. Do you think he has private insurance or is he covered under a government program for the disabled? In your truly "free market" world, he (or Trig Palin) wouldn't be around because he can't "pay his own way." Talk about eugenics....it's all around you right now, except it's run by the "market".

So we would expect to see lots of examples of "death panels" and their ilk in all the other democracies that have some form of national health, right? Just like we've seen lots of legalized man-dog sex in the jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriage.

And it's not like last Fall you didn't see various modern "progressives" writing some truly awful things about Palin's decision not to abort Trig!

Maybe because we reserve the right to an independent moral judgment -- to wit, that bringing a child into the world that has no hope of full participation in the human experience is an act of cruelty.

Or is moral judgment only appropriately expressed by those on the right?

[ I'm sure many disagree on the substance of the moral judgment, I hardly believe anyone is going to be convinced to change his mind at this point. I only want to make clear that the Right does not have the unique privilege of expressing a moral opinion that thinks poorly of others actions. ]

* I have a son who has been completely disabled since a drowning accident 26 years ago.*
Damn shame, friend. Sorry he drowned. Or did he live, as a disabled person?

Too bad you couldn't have been a better parent and prevented such an accident. But don't blame yourself. Was the kid drunk and diving, or otherwise caused such an accident himself? Did you have him in an unsupervised pool before he was capable of looking out for himself?

Glad you are financially capable of supporting your son, and not asking innocent others, with their own cares and financial responsibilities, to pay for his care. (Or did he drown? -- I suspect you've made up this example, actually) There's also plenty of churches and charities that could step up to help, if you kindly ask and don't assume something is owed your family because of your personal misfortune.

Absent national health care where we're asking somebody else to pay for your son and daughters, I do suspect plenty of parents would cover Down syndrome babies on private policies. And I do also suspect that Sarah and Todd would not have put Trig down for cost reasons, absent this promised national health care plan that will pay for children like him.

Nice try though.

Comparing your son though, to innocent lives aborted in the womb, sorry .. that's no comparison.

By this standard, heck, even Hitler isn't guilty :)

YEah, I was playing off teh McDonald's marketing signs: over 99 billion served.

Glad you didn't let that stop you from seeing the forest from the trees.

Try independence, friend. Harder route, but trust me, you'll never go back to asking other people to pay your way, and in the end, you'll end up a healthier creature indeed.

This is a grievous misstatement. With independence the average will end up better not because they are improved, but because the weak will have died. Each individual will not be healthier, they will be as they were or dead.

@ RPT

That is just heartbreaking about your son. Thank you for sharing that and bringing the ideologues back to the human reality. It's stories like that which make me certain, as a person and not as a partisan, that universal care is the only moral choice.

How many Down's Syndrome's babies and handicapped people did liberals kill or put in concentration camps?

No need to build any infrastructure like camps when you have abortion clinics.

And what are those numbers up to now? Surely billions aborted since the liberal campaign for "choice" that allows women to discard of medically inferior products like they would dispose of unfertilized monthly eggs.

You might not want to see those deaths, or compare them to the fully formed Jews killed in the Holocaust, but a life is a life is a life. And by interferring early on, you kill that life without having to dispose of the bones, teeth, or personal belongings.

Plus, nobody sees.

Does that make it somehow go down easier? Not for true catholics, who are known for their respect for life. Not such a bad practice of faith really...

they resort to the petty emotionalisms like that of the blog post pot meet kettle just linked. It's positively juvenile to analyze health care from the vantage point of insurers just wishing to deny claims out of greed

I agree. Invoking death panels, and involving your mentally challenged, son, Trig, is the right way to do.

What I'd like to see from the Left in the health-care debate: This legislation will address problem XX by doing YY under theory ZZ. I'd love if we could all debate in simple declaratives like that. Of course we have to sort through what constitutes a valid "problem", and what constitutes a valid "theory". But that's generally what I'd like to see.

Ms. Stevie, the tone you using with RPT is repellent and callous

Now, now, Danny. Catholics are known for their respect for people. Ergo, Stevie's position is the right one to take.

[off-topic post deleted--ed]

I have no problem conceding that there is moral complexity involved with abortions. Which is more than you do, but I am still confused. What does optional abortions have to do with eugenics? Or state-mandated death panels?

Oh, there's complexity all right. But after you've wrestled with it, you see there's only one option that lets the innocent child live.

And I can't help your other confusion. If this national healthcare bill is going to force all of us to cover other people's choice to abort ... and if somebody is going to make decisions whether medically defected people are worthy of care ... I'd just prefer we stick with what we have and pay as we go.

You want to kill your kid after you've wrestled with your complexities, well that's currently legal. But don't do it on my dime. And ditto asking me to throw in my lot with those of you who are cool with the gov't, and not the competitive free market, determining who gets what when.

I mean, if you like the idea of some rabbi counting kidneys for profit out in New Jersey somewhere, you'll probably support Obamarama health care. If you value life, you'll just say no to putting all our "choices" in gov'mint hands.

Each individual will not be healthier, they will be as they were or dead.

Defending innocent life does not mean people don't die. It means they die when their bodies shut down.

Sorry, but children are neglected and drown every day.

Babies are born medically defected and die. But ... plenty will live, absent any intervention to deliberately kill them.

I know it's hard to face life's reality, the cruelness of nature. But when you deliberately act to put down an innocent, that's different than just letting nature run it's course.

And sorry for those who think the lives taken in the Holocaust are somehow more worthy than all the potential lives snuffed out before they even took a breath via abortion practices.. They're not. A life is a life is a life ... no more, no less. Eventually the anti-abortion marketing arm will catch up to the Holocaust marketing, and maybe then you'll see the continuing tragedy in the numbers killed.

Eventually the anti-abortion marketing arm will catch up to the Holocaust marketing, and maybe then you'll see the continuing tragedy in the numbers killed.

What about the poverty marketing arm?

And sorry for those who think the lives taken in the Holocaust are somehow more worthy than all the potential lives snuffed out before they even took a breath via abortion practices.. They're not. A life is a life is a life

What beautiful preaching from someone who just flippantly insulted the parent of a disabled child, calling him/her a bad parent and a parasite. I think your credibility has already been irretrievably damaged.

How many Down's Syndrome babies did liberals kill abort?

These were all by liberals?

You might not want to see those deaths, or compare them to the fully formed Jews killed in the Holocaust, but a life is a life is a life.

Sorry, but for a lot of us, you just offered a good argument for the opposite of your position. Sorry, but I do assign a higher (that is, much higher) value on a fully formed person than a couple of dozen non-sentient cells.

Meanwhile, can we end the abortion debate and get the discussion back on track to the subject of the post? Prof. Bernstein says:

I'm not arguing that the right's "paranoia" is justified, just that it's "not as irrational" as some have made it out to be...

If he stopped there, I think he'd have a good point. It's the part about pinning this on the Progressive left where he loses me. Just because some guy on the left (or right) said something somewhere or sometime does not necessarily mean the entire left (or right) subscribes to that notion.

I consider myself to be on the left but some of the viewpoints I'm supposed to have based on comments I read here, leave me speechless.

You might not want to see those deaths, or compare them to the fully formed Jews killed in the Holocaust, but a life is a life is a life.

And ditto asking me to throw in my lot with those of you who are cool with the gov't, and not the competitive free market, determining who gets what when.

So... a life is a life is a life, unless the free market decides that the life can't pay for itself?

Re:pot and John Moore

Liberals? Apparently abortion tends to be more popular in conservative red states overall than in blue states
Top 10 (2008 statistics):
# Alabama
# Alaska
# Arizona
# Arkansas
# California
# Colorado
# Connecticut
# Delaware
# Florida
# Georgia

Just like there are far more abortions in the "pro-life, center-right" USA than in those liberal countries like the Netherlands and Sweden. Maybe because teens who have comprehensive sex education don't get knocked up as often.

If someone can understand why the Tuskegee experiments might make some blacks overly paranoid about government and health care, one should should be able to understand why the history of American eugenics would give some religious conservatives pause when they here modern liberals talking about saving money on health care by making tough choices etc.

Sure, I agree, but it would be much easier to grant your somewhat esoteric historical point if you, yourself, would just admit that this "death panel" business is complete bullshit. Just say it. The section of the house bill in question simply guarantees coverage of costs to educate people about living wills and such, with ultimate decisions about such things left in the hands of the patients and their family. I just witnessed such a document on behalf of a loved one so I'm familiar with the process. It's difficult to discuss death with your loved ones, but it's also important. It's also insanely easy to demagogue, as we're seeing. Given the state of the current public debate on health insurance reform, your pedantic little post is somewhat insulting.

The section of the house bill in question simply guarantees coverage of costs to educate people about living wills and such, with ultimate decisions about such things left in the hands of the patients and their family.

And isn't the government encouraging you to take responsibility for your decisions, especially the important ones, a fundamental conservative idea?

you, yourself, would just admit that this "death panel" business is complete bullshit.

That will be the day.

Oh pot. Go smoke yourself.

I think Ben Stiller plays for your team, not mine. Despite his mother's background ... he definitely play for the other team.

Maybe you should do a little less preaching to us on who to save with our $$, and a little more private fundraising. You know, start a charity, or a religion even, so you can back up your talk with your actions.

After all, the free market is killing so many already. You'd think you'd want to do something, other than pushing the burden on the rest of the American taxpayers. (Maybe take out a good life insurance policy, than voluntarily put yourself down?)

Maybe take out a good life insurance policy, than voluntarily put yourself down?

Ah, the true catholic now advocates suicide if it is done by those whom she does not like! Now, that is religion, and principle, and morality, if I've ever seen it! Ms. Miller, I think we understand you clearly now.

I know it's hard to face life's reality, the cruelness of nature. But when you deliberately act to put down an innocent, that's different than just letting nature run it's [sic] course.

Wait a second. In nature, defective newborns are abandoned and left to die of starvation/exposure/predators. Are you suggesting that we "just let nature run its course" in that fashion?

Afterally, is a dead jew child then worth less than a dead jew adult?

As a matter of Jewish law, absolutely yes. Until crowning, the "partial life" of the fetus is morally inferior to the life of the mother (and hence can be aborted if does so would have her life). After crowning, the child's life has equal worth to any other.

The More You Know (R)!

Grr, s/have/save/ it too, while you are at it.

I'm not going to address Blanshard any more, except to point out that I used him as an "Example," (that's what "For example" means), and provided the additional evidence that state eugenics programs continued for decades after WWII, contrary to the view that eugenics was completely discredited by Naziism.

When African Americans express paranoia about the origins of the AIDS virus or the crack epidemic, sympathetic liberals explain that this paranoia is understandable given the Tuskegee experiments.

i'd point out what the conservative response to this belief was, but i suspect you'd ignore it since it doesn't support your hackish position.

When African Americans express paranoia about the origins of the AIDS virus or the crack epidemic, sympathetic liberals explain that this paranoia is understandable given the Tuskegee experiments. Perhaps a little understanding of the paranoia that arises from the history of eugenics in this country would be in order.

When a poorly-educated black person from Alabama expresses paranoid delusions about AIDS, I am sympathetic. When an influential, well-educated black person starts promoting paranoid delusions about AIDS, thereby inducing more people to believe them, I am not remotely sympathetic. If there were enough powerful and influential people promoting paranoid delusions about AIDS that there was a serious risk of it changing our AIDS policy, I would be even less sympathetic. I would be even less sympathetic than that if they didn't believe it, but were just promoting misinformation for political gain.

Either Sarah Palin and e.g. Newt Gingrich are suffering from paranoid delusions (without the excuse of poor education and lack of access to high-quality information) or they're actively lying. Neither looks good.

There you go again danny. Didn't you notice that your list is alphabetized? Isn't that odd?

Anyways, CDC has the facts on their website, it matches your list somewhat.

It's alphabetized too.

Eugenics is historically overwhelmingly a right-wing pursuit, if we are going to compare body counts. It has usually been a tactic of racist/fascist regimes which insist on genetic purity. Yes you can probably find one or two "liberals" who spoke positively of it in history, but painting it as "liberal" is as disingenuous as saying that the North was the pro-slavery side in the Civil War because of the NY Draft Riots

Danny:

Re:pot and John Moore

Liberals? Apparently abortion tends to be more popular in conservative red states overall than in blue states

And from this *correlation* you infer a *causation* and then imply what it is.

Logic not your strong point?

Just like there are far more abortions in the "pro-life, center-right" USA than in those liberal countries like the Netherlands and Sweden. Maybe because teens who have comprehensive sex education don't get knocked up as often.

And again, conclusions from correlations without support.

I side with the Catholics and with the country of Israel, which also has universal public health care for all its citizens.

It's not just Israel. Every Western democracy has universal health care, except the United States. Some do it through government employing doctors (Britain) some do it through government payment to doctors in private practice (Canada), some do it through private insurance (Netherlands) and some combine public and private systems (France) but the United States is the only Western democracy where dying because you can't afford health care is a regular and accepted occurrence.

It's even funnier John Moore, Danny's list is from the CDC report, and it's alphabetized not sorted by rate. California doesn't even report it's abortion data from what I can tell.

DB: Stevie Miller (as an example) posted 30 times. why does Pot get cut off after 25?

Okay, Stevie is cut off, too. I just didn't happen to notice.

Didn't you notice that your list is alphabetized? Isn't that odd?

Oops, I did not realize that. Hehe. I had heard anecdotally that "liberals" had fewer children and abortions, so I googled for some statistics and read them too fast.

These statistics indicate a correlation between red state and abortion, while these show an inverse relationship, although it is not clear whether this is due to choice or lack of access (red states have fewer clinics and more legal restrictions) so it is not so clear.
This peer-reviewed study suggests a correlation between abstinence education and abortion (or an inverse correlation between sex education including contraception and abortion rate)

In any case, I strongly suspect that real "liberals" have fewer abortions just because they have more education and more money

Instant Experts, that's what we are all becoming. Not sure this is a good development.

(And it's not like last Fall you didn't see various modern "progressives" writing some truly awful things about Palin's decision not to abort Trig!)

Actually, it's not. I'm steeped in a fair amount of what I'd call the mainstream modern progressive blogosphere, and I never once saw such a thing. TPM, TNR, Balloon Juice, Yglesias, 538, various Atlantic bloggers. Not once.

This idea is just as wrong now as when Michael Barone wrote (spoke?) that liberals hated Palin because she chose not to abort Trig. I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of liberal motivations and point-of-view.

If, Mr. Bernstein, you can point to one instance of a mainstream (even online mainstream) liberal writing such an awful thing, I'll stand corrected. One condition: if it's from Kos, it has to be from one of their editorial staff, not some "Bush is Hitler" idiot. Maybe that's an unacceptable caveat...

John [Moore]

While your point about the difference between correlation and causation is a good one, I think it is an unreasonably high bar in this context. My point is, this is a blog, not a peer reviewed study. If someone finds evidence on the internet to support their point, how would you expect them to prove causality? Find a carefully controlled study that proves causality? Conduct a carefully controlled study in the 30 minutes that blog posts are "fresh"?

On the other hand, if they get the data wrong, that's a different issue.

just sayin'

So we would expect to see lots of examples of "death panels" and their ilk in all the other democracies that have some form of national health, right? Just like we've seen lots of legalized man-dog sex in the jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriage.

Good point. And along those lines...

What I'd like to see from the Left in the health-care debate: This legislation will address problem XX by doing YY under theory ZZ. I'd love if we could all debate in simple declaratives like that. Of course we have to sort through what constitutes a valid "problem", and what constitutes a valid "theory". But that's generally what I'd like to see.

While there is certainly a practical line drawing in life, we are arguing about and from differing foundational principles and I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the logical outcomes of the other side's arguments/positions in order to expose their principles in the abstract - even if, due to the practical concerns of reality, those logical outcomes will not likely occur.

This post was a mistake. The basic argument is: the right is no more irrational than the left. Or, more charitably, that the mainstream right tolerates its irrational, paranoid extreme, just as the left tolerates its own.

It would have been better to say: there are some citizens and some politicians on the right who are behaving irrationally. Full stop. There are no good justifications, no history, and no excuses for it. The now forgotten history of left-wing eugenics isn't an excuse, just as the Tuskegee experiments are no excuse for claiming that the government created AIDS.

Instead, this post has the strong feel of a smear against contemporary progressives, trying to tie them to Blanshard's anti-Catholic bigotry. The idea is that progressives today oppose the Catholic Church's ethical views -- just like Blanshard did in the 1940s. That argument hardly needs a response.

Also: Bernstein says that Blanshard criticized the Catholic Church for opposing coercive eugenics after WWII. But this conceals that the Church had an ambiguous history with respect to non-coercive (so-called "positive") eugenics. The Church generally opposed contraception, abortion, and sterilization, but its position on the principle of eugenics was muddled. I'm not sure how that ought to affect this apology for conservative paranoia, except to point out that the history of eugenics is being used here rather selectively.

One other thought: Ilya has been telling us for years about political ignorance. Bernstein is probably alone in suggesting that progressive links to eugenics help explain or excuse contemporary conservative paranoia. Perhaps that's because this history isn't part of conventional wisdom today (as Berstein admits). It can't be motivational if people are ignorant of it. And if it isn't motivational, then it can't be an excuse for irrationality.

Sorry David. Most liberals and progressives after World War II were in the forefront of passing laws to protect those initially called "handicapped" and later "disabled." I don't recall many conservatives lining up to support those laws, except when some including Bush I were shamed into supporting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991.

Your argument is just as fallacious as your view that if I support unions, I'm somehow a racist because in the first decades of the 20th Century, plenty of white union members were racist. Racism was a common sentiment among white folks up and down the class line, just as eugenics was a common view among the elite.

Danny and John Moore:

Interestingly American Catholics are more likely than Protestants to have an abortion..... (Catholics are about as likely as average to have an abortion, Protestants are somewhat less so, unaffiliated individuals are moreso.)

Dan Bernstein:

I don't think there is a question if the paranoia on the "right" (meaning GOP-leaning) is justified. The Reagan Years saw witch-hunts* over Medicare/Medicaid fraud and doctors haven't forgotten these. Nor have Democrats been blameless in that area either.**

The bigger issue though is that although the rhetoric is sometimes over the top as you point out, the paranoia exists for real reasons which have historical validity in this country. The fact of the matter is that public plans in this country do not have a history of being fairly administered, and often have very high refusal rates.

The question of whether the Left or Right (by whatever meaningless definition) is worse as to paranoia does nothing but obscure the issues. The issues need to be discussed not the ad hominems.

* The Reagan (R) Administration instituted a bounty program which lead lawyers to redefine fraud and prosecute doctors not for overcharging but just for making billing code mistakes. Doctors were pressured into making plea deals. I suspect the resulting organization of doctors is a major reason for the drastic increase in Medicare reimbursement rates.

** Governor Locke (D) in Washington instituted policies which accused all doctors charging more per Medicaid patient than median of fraud. He backed off after legal challenges on behalf of doctors were filed.

bernstein:

I'm not arguing that the right's "paranoia" is justified

I think you're sidestepping the more relevant issue, which is that the Right is lying. Even if the paranoia was fully justified, paranoia is not an excuse for claiming that the bill says things it doesn't say.

As fnook said: "it would be much easier to grant your somewhat esoteric historical point if you, yourself, would just admit that this 'death panel' business is complete bullshit. Just say it."

=================
pyrrho:

what were these "truly awful things" that progressives wrote about Palin's decision not to abort Trig?

Add me to the list of people who are hoping to hear an answer to this question.

=================
nieporent:

where do you think the "controlling costs" portion of health care "reform" comes from? Underpants gnomes? it comes from denying care to people.

Welker demonstrated the illogic of your remark. And I'll add another item to his excellent list. One more way that costs can be controlled, without "denying care to people," is to find executives who are willing to get their job done even in the absence of a $1.6 billion compensation package (link, link).There are probably many qualified applicants who would be willing to do that person's job, even if the compensation was somewhat more modest.

=================
bernstein:

one should should be able to understand why the history of American eugenics would give some religious conservatives pause when they here modern liberals talking about saving money on health care by making tough choices etc.

What is really giving "conservatives pause" is the realization that the rest of us are realizing that "saving money on health care" can be accomplished, in part, by finding executives who are willing to work for less than $1.6 billion. Conservatives are indeed worried that this will lead to "tough choices" for the people who are used to earning that kind of money. After all, if their pay was slashed by, say, 98%, they might have to sell 5 of their 10 or 20 houses. Which ones to sell? Which ones to keep? Yes, the agony of "tough choices."

=================
dave d:

Mr. Obama's Science Tsar, John Holdren, coauthored a book in 1977 in which he recommended forced abortions

You've been spending too much time listening to Glenn Beck. But Politifact can help you.

=================
tim j:

I like how everybody's just ignoring Dave D.'s pointing out that at least one figure in the current administration has written in favor of both forced sterilizations and forced abortions.

Another Glenn Beck fan. Are you dialing in from a FEMA camp?

=================
pot:

One person A opposed positions of group B 50 years ago; person A is clearly a member of group C; let's posit that person A was influential, because, hey, why not, that's what's in today's soup; therefore, group C clearly opposed positions of group B; group B are considered conservative today; clearly, B must hold the same positions today as they did 50 years ago; ergo group C must be eugenicists. Voila, madames et messueirs! Bon Appetit!

Thank you for that excellent summary of Bernstein's 'analysis.'

=================
danny:

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out against excessive capitalism at the expense of the poor. He would regard the American adoration of unmitigated unregulated socially insensitive capitalism as a form of idolatry.

Indeed. The GOP contains many cafeteria Catholics who selectively ignore what the Church says. Especially on subjects like war, poverty, and the death penalty. This subject has been discussed in detail in a prior thread here.

=================
oren:

bringing a child into the world that has no hope of full participation in the human experience is an act of cruelty

I think the real issue with Trig, and one that is much overlooked, is that it was irresponsible for Todd and Sarah to get pregnant again, given that neither of them is willing to stay home and care for an infant (let alone one who needs extraordinary care). Untimely, irresponsible pregnancy is a recurring theme in this family; Todd and Sarah got pregnant before they were married. (I hold both parents jointly responsible, but only one is a political figure.)

I would normally look at all this as personal business that has no relevance to my evaluation of a political candidate. But there are two reasons the Palin situation is different. One reason is that Palin makes a big deal about her family life. Therefore it's reasonable to take a look at her family life. Another reason is that the GOP makes a big deal about 'family values.' Therefore it's reasonable to judge GOP leaders on their "family values.'

=================
stevie:

Too bad you couldn't have been a better parent and prevented such an accident.

Too bad you're such a jerk.

You have no reason to assume this parent didn't go to extraordinary lengths to try to prevent the accident. You also are forgetting that the accident could have happened to an adult child, which is another reason to not hold the parent responsible.

I suspect you've made up this example, actually

I suspect you are going to continue to give us examples of what a jerk you are.

true catholics, who are known for their respect for life

I have a feeling you are the kind of "true catholic" who remembers "respect for life" when thinking about abortion, and disposes of it when thinking about issues like poverty, war, and the death penalty.

if a potential parent knows they won't be able to provide for their child, they might always choose LIFE and put the child into the arms of adopting parents who would gladly raise a "lesser" child born with medical defects.

The Palins are unable to provide for Trig what every child deserves (and even more so a special-needs child): the full-time attention of at least one parent, for at least the first few months (and if you are shocked to hear this view, consider that the same view was expressed by a pro-life conservative who voted for McCain). So I guess they should have "put the child into the arms of adopting parents."

=================
cato:

the Right offers constructive solutions towards a more free-market system

What I see the Right offering are lies.

By the way, the GOP used to be in charge. And they didn't give us "constructive solutions towards a more free-market system." With regard to health care reform, they gave us nothing. Which indicates that the sudden interest in allegedly "constructive solutions towards a more free-market system" is simply for the purpose of stalling.

When the GOP was in charge, they gave us nothing on health care reform because they are ideologically opposed to health care reform. If they were not ideologically opposed to health care reform, they would have given us "constructive solutions towards a more free-market system" when they were in charge and had the power to do so.

What I'd like to see from the Left in the health-care debate: …

What I'd like to see from the Right in the health-care debate: stop lying.

=================
malvolio:

he [FDR] put 110,000 people into concentration camps

A better term is internment camps. Jews and others who were killed in concentration camps might prefer for that term to be reserved for places where people are killed.

juke,

With regard to health care reform, they gave us nothing.

actually, they gave us medicare part D. or, rather, they gifted it the insurance companies .

Based on DB's failure to respond to requests for examples,

For $450 an hour, a fair billing rate I think, I'll engage in just about any research project you request.

For $450 an hour, a fair billing rate I think, I'll engage in just about any research project you request.

Should take you about half a minute to google a couple examples, given how many there were. I'd gladly paypal you the $3.75.

Suggesting that the modern left are potential crypto-eugenists is seriously beyond the pale.

Which part of "I agree it's a bit paranoid" and "I'm not arguing that the right's 'paranoia' is justified" eluded you? There's a substantial difference between explaining that people who are described as a "bit paranoid" might worry "that the modern left are potential crypto-eugenists" given that the modern left's predecessors were OPEN eugenicists, and stating or even suggesting that they are, in fact, potential crypto-eugenicists.

Just do it yourself: Google liberals hate trig, and I'm sure you'll find at least a few good examples, though the worst ones were in the comments sections of blogs, which there is no easy way to search.

DB, give me a break.

[http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb --ed. if only commenters coudl be excluded so easily!]

David -- you still haven't addressed the point about political ignorance. It's hard to see how the history of progressive eugenics works as an apology for conservative paranoia if no one in today's debate knows about it. [Do some Googling re Planned Parenthood and eugenics or racism, as suggested in the post. This is widely known, indeed exaggerated, among even lower-level political activists on the religious right. It's not widely known among liberal Ivy League graduates who stock the Obama Administration and Volokh blog comments.] That's not true in the AIDS analogy, where knowledge of the Tuskegee experiments is widespread and a prime example of government racism. So you have a difficult disanalogy in your argument. And that disanalogy is premised on a claim that you concede -- i.e., widespread ignorance of this dark episode in progressive history.

I think your claim that eugenics is primarily a feature of the left is demonstrably false, especially by the time that Blanshard is writing after the war. But whatever the history, your argument above has a deep conceptual problem. Time to come to grips with that.

For what it's worth, I'll second dr: I also did some googling, including for the string DB suggested, and I can't find any examples of liberals saying any "truly awful things about Palin's decision not to abort Trig."

I'd say if you're going to try to implicate your political opponents in eugenics, and your argument relies in part on things your opponents have supposedly said, the onus is on you to substantiate your argument.

Finally, if anonymous comments on political blogs suffice to implicate an entire half of the political spectrum in eugenics, I'd hate to think what we could pin on conservatives after digging through a single day's worth of freeper comments. You name it; advocating outright genocide of basically any minority you can think of would be a start.

Would you accept an argument of that form from someone on the left?

Geez, this is a much milder version of what you can read every day on any number of leftie blogs. And it does in fact go a long way to explaining why even blacks who are personally ideologically conservative overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in national elections.

For that matter, a lot of Jews in my experience seem to think that Republicans are crypto-anti-Semites, in the face of polling data showing Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans, and despite the fact that I doubt there has never been a period in American history where Republicans as a group were clearly substantially more anti-Semitic than Democrats.

And Jews certainly do believe, contrary to all available polling data, that conservative evangelicals are more anti-Semitic than is the public at large. A bit paranoid? Yes. Explicable for a host of cultural and historical reasons? Yes. If I were an evangelical trying to win Jewish allies, would I be better off dismissing these views as wildly irrational, or trying to understand and overcome them? Clearly the latter.

Danny, in response to this lie:

Mainstream Catholic organizations like Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic Health Association -- which some assume speak for the bishops -- have also voiced their support.

Please refer to the Catholic Charities website. It only takes a second.

In response to inaccurate online media reports, Catholic Charities USA states unequivocally that it does not support any plan to reform health care and/or any proposed legislative provision that allows or promotes the funding of abortions or that compels any health care provider or institution to provide such a service. In fact, Catholic Charities USA will continue to work with the Catholic Health Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to ensure that any health care reform legislation will not include such provisions. All media accounts or public comments that misrepresent this position are inaccurate.

Please don't speak for the Catholic Church or other Catholic organizations. Your arguments are not only fundamentally dishonest, but they are incredibly offensive from a Catholic perspective.

Shorter Bernstein:

If pigs were horses, cows would fly

and since it does not link to anything on the aerodynamics of bovines even that is an epic fail.

Truth is Eli started to read this crud without knowing who wrote it, and said to himself "A Berstein troll"

If this post is really about helping progressive understanding the sources of conservative irrationality, I think it's fair to say it didn't read that way. It read like a weak apology. And I don't see why you're still on the fence about this. It is wholly irrational to think that liberals today want to establish "death panels" for the elderly. No history of eugenics in this country -- left or right -- would make that belief at all rational. It might well explain the views of some anti-abortion activists, especially those who have studied anti-Catholicism on the left -- a very distinct minority. But it doesn't make them rational.

But the bigger problem with this way of spinning the argument is that it's implausible to think that this is the source of conservative fear (and fear-mongering). The hidden history of post-war eugenics -- known to some activists (maybe?) -- just isn't a compelling explanation.

A very obvious way to save money is to simply stop giving care, or putting practical obstacles to giving it. Why wouldn't people be worried? Focusing on extreme expressions of the worry doesn't make the general worry irrational.

If people are rich and their insurance is good hospitals have incentives to provide as much care as possible, including over-aggressive and unnecessary care. But if people are poor and their insurance is bad hospitals have incentives to limit care, particularly if they can get people to agree (or to sign something which says they agree) not to be treated aggressively.

Both sides of the coin are real problems. Undoubtedly focusing attention on the first problem makes the second more likely to happen (and vice versa).

From the (social) conservative point of view, the job of government is to help police hospitals to lessen the second problem. When government starts taking up the same mantra as hospital executives about saving money and encouraging people to refuse care, why wouldn't people be worried?

It's a similar reaction as liberals had when the EPA started talking about the need to reduce regulations and costs. One doesn't want to hear the regulators saying exactly the same things as the regulated, because if that happens one starts to fear they've been taken over by the people they're supposed to be regulating and they've forgotten their general responsibility to society. This situation isn't really any different. This is true even when the regulators are mostly right — the EPA may have needed to reduce the costs of environmental regulation, and health care may need to reduce costs here as well. Liberals made dire predictions about the EPA cozying up with industry, neglecting their responsibilities, and screwing the public health. The predictions being made now really aren't all that different.

I think health care reform advocates would be much better off offering concrete public protections - requiring disclosure of health care options, ensuring people aren't coerced or induced or misrepresented into signing away health care rights, ensuring that "counseling" sessions aren't just propaganda, and generally ensuring that people aren't being bamboozled into giving up their health care rights just because a hospital wants to save money.

This would go much farther than simply waving away the concerns as irrational. They're not irrational. Representing them as irrational is foolish. Trying to wish the issue into non-existence by focusing on the most extreme exponents simply doesn't help anyone. One might as well dismiss all environmentalists as irrational extremists by playing back and focusing on the most absurd sound bites one can find and pretending they are typical of the whole viewpoint. This type of dismissal works great in an echo chamber -- pro-business conservatives did a great deal of it in the day, and it helps raise money with the base - but it doesn't help anyone achieve a policy goal.

Promoters of Obamacare seem to effortlessly shift between 3 different responses:

1. "Death panels" means forcible euthanasia... how paranoid, insane etc.

2. Oh no, the Obamacare committees would never conceivably deny lifesaving or life-enhancing care to anyone even though Obama talks about it constantly. Why wouldn't you trust us? Just give us all this power because we are good good people. No need for "checks and balances".

3. Yes there will be such committees, but it's unavoidable. Happens now anyway. The fact that you can sue your insurance company, or at least have some chance of out-of-pocket or charitable recourse must be sacrificed to 2 absolute goods: bringing down all non-civil servants to the same mediocre level of health care and giving more power to the state

And a historical footnote: Contrary to common belief, the Supreme Court's 1942 opinion in Skinner v. Oklahoma wasn't meant to override Buck v. Bell's endorsement of coercive sterilization, as Justice Douglas's contemperaneous notes reveal.

Nor did it - the North Carolina Board of Eugenics, for example, wasn't abolished until 1977.

Holy Strawmans Batman!!!!!

Only "2." was really a strawman. I would actually support responses #1 and #3.

1 - it's so ridiculous to think that "death panels means euthanasia" that I don't even see the point in arguing with it.

3 - There will certainly be committees of doctors deciding what treatments the government health insurance will cover, and yes, this is what insurance companies already do anyway. The post was a strawman to the extent that I don't see how anyone will be stopped from paying for a treatment out of pocket with their own money or charity. It's like arguing that social security outlaws IRAs. Sure, it takes away money that might go to them, but only up to a point and it doesn't stop you from doing anything with the rest.
Being able to sue your insurance company is certainly one way to fight back when the care you need is denied, but there's no reason why a government insurance plan couldn't consent to be sued (to a greater or lesser extent), to the extent they still already wouldn't be vulnerable under constitutional claims.

When are you going to respond to those asking for links to the "various modern "progressives" writing some truly awful things about Palin's decision not to abort Trig!"?

That is a horrible slur. If you can't back it up then you need to delete it.

bernstein:

polling data showing Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans

I wonder what "polling data" you're thinking of. I have a feeling you have no such data other than the Malhotra/Margalit study (link). Conservatives have been making a big fuss about this (example).

That study was discussed at VC. As several people pointed out (link, link), the conclusion that Kristol (and you, apparently) are promoting should not be considered valid, because the study apparently did not control for other factors, like race, income and education.

Do you have some better "polling data?"

==================
dunbar:

Danny, in response to this lie:

Mainstream Catholic organizations like Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic Health Association -- which some assume speak for the bishops -- have also voiced their support.

dunbar, you're amazing. The words you are calling a "lie" were not written by danny. They were written by Deal W. Hudson, a conservative Catholic who is the director of InsideCatholic.com.

And his words are true. The one who is misrepresenting the position of Catholic Charities USA is you. You provide no link, I guess because you don't want us to see that they say this:

Health Care Reform: We can't wait! …

Health care is a fundamental issue of human life and dignity. Catholic Charities USA has adopted the Catholic Health Association’s Vision for Health Care. …

Read The Foundation for our Commitment for Health Care for All. …

Letters to Congress
From Catholic Charities USA:
Rev. Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities, USA urges Congress to make comprehensive health care reform a top priority for our nation. …

Read Rev. Larry Snyder's Letter to Congress
From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Bishop William F. Murphy, Diocese of Rockville Centre, outlines the USCCB's policy priorities and expresses hope that Congressional efforts will bring life-affirming reform to the nation’s health care system. …

Read Bishop Murphy’s Letter to Congress
From the Catholic Health Association:
The Catholic Health Association urges Congress to make comprehensive health care reform, especially health care coverage for all, a top priority. …

Nice job demonstrating that the GOP can't manage to attack the bill without telling a bunch of lies.

==================
ReaderY:

A very obvious way to save money is to simply stop giving care, or putting practical obstacles to giving it. Why wouldn't people be worried?

Because "stop giving care, or putting practical obstacles to giving it" is exactly how insurance companies currently operate. How do you think they find the money to pay a CEO $1.6 billion (link, link)? So you have pointedly failed to explain why you are suddenly "worried." It's like suddenly discovering that you've been speaking prose all your life, without knowing it.

DB: Polling data shows that Democrats as a group are more anti-Semitic than Republicans.

Jukebox: That polling data didn't control for demographic characteristics. We don't know that upper middle class Norwegian Lutheran Democrats are any more anti-Semitic than upper middle class Norwegian Lutheran Republicans.

Conclusion: Polling data shows that Democrats as a group are more anti-Semitic than Republicans.

Right, which is why the evil Republicans will continue to remain the party of "No" and "obstruction" for the remainder of this debate. You may rest assured in your sanctimony.

As several people pointed out (link, link), the conclusion that Kristol (and you, apparently) are promoting should not be considered valid, because the study apparently did not control for other factors, like race, income and education.

That's not invalidity. That's just explanation. If more Democrats are anti-semitic because more Democrats are X and X are more anti-semitic, that doesn't mean that the connection isn't there. Yes, it could mean that X are attracted to being Democrats for other reasons, but it could also mean that the greater tolerance of Democratic anti-semitism is one of the things that appeals to them in the first place.

If someone were to conclude that Republicans tend to favor big businesses, would it really be correct to reply "you failed to control for income--Republicans tend to be richer, and richer people tend to favor business"?

I wonder what "polling data" you're thinking of. I have a feeling you have no such data other than the Malhotra/Margalit study [showing Democrats are anti-Semitic] .... the study apparently did not control for other factors, like race, income and education.

Why would you control for those?

Let's say well-educated people are more likely to be anti-Semitic and more likely to be Democratic (I don't know if either is true, but just for the purposes of explanation). It would clearly be true in that case that Democrats are more likely to be anti-Semitic. "Controlling" for education would only hide that fact.

Only "2." was really a strawman.

"#2" was argued by Ezra Klein in this post (titled "It Is Democracy, Not Health-Care Reform, That Is Sick"):



For example he says: "In other words, the questions reformers have to answer is not "when did you stop beating your wife?" It's "what will prevent you from beating your wife?" Given that there is no such thing as a "death panel," nor any policy provision that would establish such a thing, it is hard to explain the institutional checks that would prevent a "death panel" from coming into being. "

Note that Klein is asserting that there will be no rationing - in the sense of deciding that someone's life is not worth a large expenditure. But he thinks it's objectionable that someone insists on "checks and balances" and doesn't just trust him to run things in accordance with his divinely inspired progressive wisdom.

Ben P, that would be a valid criticism of the study, if it were true. But that's not what JB said, his argument is that you can't say that D's are more anti-Semitic than R's without taking differences in race, education, etc., into account. The points he's making is really that being a Democrat doesn't cause you to be anti-Semitic, it's just that demographic groups that are more anti-Semitic tend to be Democrats. That's what's known as a strawman, because I haven't seen anyone claim that being a Democrat causes anti-Semitism, or even that anti-Semites are attracted to the Democratic Party because the party is a haven for anti-Semites. The point is that Jews seem to think that the GOP is infested with anti-Semites, but the poll, if accurate, suggests that they are barking up the wrong tree.

She neglected to mention that the death panels already exist: they are called "insurance companies", and people like Trig are routinely denied insurance and care all over the USA because Down Syndrome is a pre-existing condition.

Nice try, Danny. The costs of delivery and post-natal care are still covered. The parents are still free to seek insurance elsewhere or to self-insure and pay health care costs themselves. Group coverage to the family, of one is an employee or other group member, cannot be denied. HMO's have an annual open enrollment for high risk patients.

Under Hillary's health care bill, it was a felony for a patient to pay or offer to pay a provider for private care, and for a doctor or hospital to accept or offer to accept private payment. This is a feature of other single payer systems as well. And other nations' experience (as well as Oregon's) demonstrate that government plans, in order to conserve resources, inevitably move toward eliminating certain kinds of care.

Imperfections in the current system are a silly justification for making those same imperfections even worse.

Say, I have an idea. The constitution guarantees the right to counsel in felony cases. We know that some private lawyers screw up, and some people can't afford a lawyer but don't qualify for a public defender. Why not make EVERYONE use a public defender, and then, to keep costs down, the government will mandate when the PD can and cannot plea bargain, when they must plead the defendant guilty, and what defenses they can and cannot present? And to keep everything honest, these global decisions will be made by a panel of prosecutors, accountants, and political cronies of the president, with no input from defense attorneys! After all, the present system is imperfect, so why not?

Brief comment on the mostly off-topic comparison of blacks and unions. Mitchell Freedman is exactly right, and I will just add that DB's anecdotes about some black folks he knows that are suspicious of unions are the exception rather than the rule, given that in the U.S., blacks are a greater percentage of the unionized workforce than they are of the workforce in general or of the population in general.

I side with the Catholics and with the country of Israel, which also has universal public health care for all its citizens.

My stepkids live in Israel. You are mistaken. There is no coverage unless you pay into one of the kupat cholim (helath insurance plans). And plenty of Israelis come to the US for treatment that is unavailable there, or not covered by kupat cholim. I know because the Jewish community in the US helps them raise the funds from private sources. Anyone on this thread who has had meshulachim (fund raisers) come to his home or shul (synagogue) can tell you the same thing.

That's why I think the Jews, nonbelievers, and others ought to have a bit more respect for the catholic faith. Someday, you or those you love might just be lumped into those life forms called for systematic destruction.

FWIW, last year I had the privilege of advocating -- with several Rabbis -- for leaving a comatose elderly Orthodox Jewish woman on a respirator after her doctors had concluded she would not recover. Fortunately she was in a Catholic hospital, and we prepared by reviewing a relevant apostolic letter about end of life care. We met with the doctor and the chairman of the hospital's ethics committee. They were very receptive and respectful, and agreed to leave the patient on the respirator until medically contra-indicated (which would occur several days later, when risk of infection would mandate removal), at which time Jewish law, under the particular circumstances of this case, would permit her to be removed from the respirator and expire naturally. She passed away about a day later, still on the respirator.

I had been prepped by an attorney in another city who had a great deal of experience in this field. He was surprised at how accommodating the hospital had been, and I got the impression that we would have encountered a lot more resistance from a hospital that did not adhere to Catholic teachings.

Also, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, so Republicans are the natural party that supports AAs today.

No, I'm pretty sure Lincoln, too, would have opposed affirmative action as immoral and counterproductive racial discrimination.

the United States is the only Western democracy where dying because you can't afford health care is a regular and accepted occurrence.

As opposed to the UK, where accepted occurrences include higher rates of preventable hospital-borne infections, patients being left to wallow in their own urine and feces because their nurses can't be bothered, long waiting lists for both routine and life saving treatment, and blanket denial of various treatments for patients beyond a specified age, with no option except -- for those who can afford it -- being treated abroad. And somehow despite all of the defects in the US's system, we still manage to have survival rates for cancer and heart attacks that compare favorably with those of other western nations, including those with socialized care.

I like the prevailing philosophy behind Obama care -- let's take all the flaws of the existing system (with the possible exception of the inefficiency of different forms and payment procedures for different insurers) and make them even worse.

Hey, pre-Castro Cuba had a system where those who could afford it got excellent health care, most got pretty good health care and the poor got lousy care. Through the miracle of socialism those inequalities have been eliminated, and now everyone gets lousy care. Let's try it here.

jukeboxgrad:

"Indeed. The GOP contains many cafeteria Catholics who selectively ignore what the Church says."

The point is that Roman Catholics are obligated to follow Church Teachings and Doctrine - and not pronouncements by individual Bishops, nor UCCB statements, nor pronouncements by the Pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. Of course, this does not mean that Bishops cannot make changes to how their dioceses operates, as long as it conforms to Church Teaching.

I looked at the thread you provided for a citation. The Roman Catholic Church has a history that is based in part on the belief that the Pope receives the divine assistance promised by Christ to the Church when he defines infallibly a doctrine of faith or morals (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 880-882).

The Pope was not defining doctrine when he made his comments concerning the war. That is not to say his comments were wrong. But there are essentially two ways to make such binding pronouncements upon the Church. One is to convene an ecumenical council with the Pope along with the College of Bishops determining doctrine that would be binding on the Church. The second (even more infrequent) is a Pope exercising papal infallibility to make doctrinal pronouncements (e.g. Pope Pius XII regarding the Assumption of Mary). Pope Benedict XII made no such pronouncement concerning the Iraq War (mentioned in the thread you cited), nor did an ecumenical council convene and make such a pronouncement. If they did, Church members would be obligated to be obedient to such doctrine.

You also cited Bishop Gregory and made a comment "...we're still waiting for you to explain what you know about Catholicism that he doesn't.". It's up to each Roman Catholic to carefully consider what Bishop Gregory says and to weight it against Scripture and Catholic Doctrine. In any event, the statement by Bishop Gregory is informative and is intended to help provide insight to the laity on this particular issue.

I also saw your comments concerning the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith here. Their statements are also not binding on Catholics. Their mission is to promote and safeguard doctrine.

Just a quick question: how many of you understand the difference between insurance pools and welfare? Those who advocate taking the money of those who join in insurance pools to mitigate the distress of those holding short straws, raise your hands. True, that style was the way Robespierre balanced the French budget after the "revolution". Yet another outstanding totalitarian success, and France has that pile of headless bodies, Tyrants and thugs to prove it.

Cornellian: In fairness, I should clarify that when I said "the states where women are most likely to abort their pregnancies are blue states in the Northeast," I should have said "the states whose residents are most likely to abort their pregnancies are blue states in the Northeast."

I think health care reform advocates would be much better off offering concrete public protections - requiring disclosure of health care options, ensuring people aren't coerced or induced or misrepresented into signing away health care rights, ensuring that "counseling" sessions aren't just propaganda, and generally ensuring that people aren't being bamboozled into giving up their health care rights just because a hospital wants to save money.

ReaderY--Add "insurance companies" to "hospitals" in the last sentence and this is exactly what health care reform is all about.

Failure to comply with demand that I draft the required essays got me branded a poisoner of public discourse.

The lesson here, I think, is not to point what what the abbreviation "Nazi" stands for unless you are prepared for heads to explode and hysterical attack.

Or unless you're prepared to bother explaining arguments you imply when you say things like that.

If someone makes or even adopts the pretty outlandish comparison that contemporary American democrats are equivalent to the Nazi party and supports it with "well, Nazi did stand for "national socialist." I would say that is bringing down the level of discourse unless you are prepared to provide some sort of support for it that's beyond "I needed a way to connect democrats with something most people view as intrinsically evil."

In a recent thread, a commenter asked why some people at town hall were carrying swastikas with lines through them, and I answered that it was likely because they opposed National Socialism.

Of course--in the same way that if you wanted to protest a policy of the Catholic Church, it would be perfectly logical to carry a sign reading "666" with a line through it.

(1)comparing and contrasting socialism and national socialism

If you don't understand the difference between socialism and national socialism (Nazism), perhaps you shouldn't be talking about either.

My guess, is that Americans have are becoming socialist. And she [Palin] knows this. She can't get people to stand against it on these grounds.

Hence, she resort to Utilitarian arguments which have weaknesses in general.

I suspect Palin thinks a "utilitarian" is somebody who runs a power company.

The progressive movement also has some disturbing ties with forgettable moments in modern psychiatry, which remains a sacred cow of the left today.

See, for example, Rosemary Kennedy, a completely normal but precocious girl who was involuntarily lobotomized and turned into a drooling imbecile simply because she was somewhat of a "wild child" by the standards of the time. When Eunice Kennedy Shriver died this week the media went to great lengths to detail her compassion for her poor disabled sister but I didn't see one word that mentioned that her sister was intentionally disabled because Papa Joe didn't want her Britney Spears-like lifestyle to jeopardize his sons political ambitions. Disgusting really.

Right-wing sadism is odious. Sometimes it seems like every one of their positions, from opposing abortion to limiting health care to foreign military intervention, are intended to increase the amount of suffering in the world.

It's extremely hard for me to humanize conservatives for this reason, because if demons were real, and did walk among us, it's hard to see how they'd act much differently.

"Or unless you're prepared to bother explaining arguments you imply when you say things like that."

I wasn't implying a thing when stating the obvious: If someone is holding a sign featuring a swastiska with a line through it, that person is likely opposed to National Socialism. I have never attended a town hall, and I have never accused anyone of being a National Socialist. Stating an obvious inference implies absolutely nothing about my position on Obama or his supporters.

You make my point for me: It is irrational, to say the least, to attack someone simply for stating an obvious inference that is escapable from the facts. It doesn't take a genius to understand the sign holder's position, and it requires no sympathy towards that person's position to understand it either.

Again, the surest thing to make some people's head explode and prompt irrational attack is to simply point out what the abbreviation Nazi stood for.

"If you don't understand the difference between socialism and national socialism (Nazism), perhaps you shouldn't be talking about either."

So take your objection up with the people holding those signs. I wasn't one of them.

It's extremely hard for me to humanize conservatives for this reason, because if demons were real, and did walk among us, it's hard to see how they'd act much differently.

If you truly view conservatives that way, it would be unreasonable to expect them to trust you.

I'm not a conservative myself, but I know a fair number of them. Most of them would disagree strongly with your characterization of their intentions. In fact, some would characterize your intentions exactly as you have characterized theirs.

There is a serious gulf in communications. I think a large part of that is a difference of belief in how the world works.

Guest14:

I consider myself conservative (small c) in the sense of staying anchored to old ways. In many ways I am more conservative than most Conservatives since I have no problem with the widespread ancient practice of exposing unwanted newborns to the elements and hence think the liberty interest in pregnancy almost always outweighs the fetus's life interest.

However, at the same time, I have SERIOUS concerns about the current direction of health care reform. I could probably live with the Senate bill, but the House bill is odious to me because it removes important controls we have now on the quality of insurance. Given past abuses from both parties involving medicare and medicaid providers, I have no doubt that a public plan will lead to witch hunts against "fraud" (through some definition expanded to the point of losing its meaning) simply because this has been a repeated pattern regardless of which party is in office.

Yankev responds to the claim: "Also, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, so Republicans are the natural party that supports AAs today" with

"No, I'm pretty sure Lincoln, too, would have opposed affirmative action as immoral and counterproductive racial discrimination."

Actually, I'm guessing the original poster meant AA to stand for African-Americans, not Affirmative Action. The "s" at the end of AA is the clue.

It's hard to see how the history of progressive eugenics works as an apology for conservative paranoia if no one in today's debate knows about it.

There's a difference between not being able to name specific incidents and not knowing about it. If they have a general idea that progressives are into eugenics, and this idea ultimately traces back to actual progressives being interested in eugenics, that should count. A half-remembered history is not a no-remembered history.

It's extremely hard for me to humanize conservatives for this reason, because if demons were real, and did walk among us, it's hard to see how they'd act much differently

Funny, that's how I see liberals. Using fear mongering, promoting mob rule and using brute force to gain immoral powers to seize private property, literally suck the lifeblood out of what was once the most successful country in the history of the world.

Health care is not a right. It's a commodity.

Modern Eugenics Movements:

The man Obama has as his science czar wrote papers advocating forced involuntary sterilizations through the water supply.

Wake up.

The history of eugenics, like most history, is very complex. It contains a great deal that has the potential to embarrass people on all points of the political compass. For a recent, complete account of the case of Buck v. Bell cited above, see
Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court and Buck v. Bell.

&supporting documentation at BuckvBell.com

I wonder if the decline in eugenics is the cause of all the imbeciles we seem to have in Congress?

Where's Sarcastro when you need him, he would certainly point out how much such death panels completely rule socialized medicine in western countries nowadays.

I'm no Sarcastro, but I asked for examples of death panels in all the other countries that have nationalized health care waaaaaaaaaaay upthread (8.12.2009 9:44pm), and got no response.

Joseph Slater wrote: I'm no Sarcastro, but I asked for examples of death panels in all the other countries that have nationalized health care waaaaaaaaaaay upthread (8.12.2009 9:44pm), and got no response.

Sorry for not pointing it out!

Documentation indicates some third world countries apply birth control policies as a way to deal with overpopulation and its related problems, but it seems "death panels" in western countries, as of today, are yet to found.

@ Yankev

According to Wikipedia and other sources, there is no such thing as an Israeli citizen with no health care coverage, and they "pay into it" through taxes

From Wikipedia:

In Israel, the National Health Insurance Law (or National Health Insurance Act) is the legal framework which enables and facilitates basic, compulsory universal health care. The Law was put into effect by the Knesset on January 1, 1995, and was based on recommendations put forward by a National Committee of Inquiry which examined restructuring the health care system in Israel in the late 1980s. Prior to the law's passage approximately 85% of the population was already covered by voluntarily belonging to one of four nation-wide, not-for-profit health maintenance organizations (HMOs/sick funds). However, there were three problems associated with this arrangement. First, membership in the largest HMO, Clalit, required one to belong to the Histadrut labor organization, even if a person did not wish to (or could) have such an affiliation while other HMOs restricted entry to new members based on age, pre-existing conditions or other factors. Second, different HMOs provided different levels of benefit coverage or services to their members and lastly was the issue mentioned above whereby a certain percentage of the population, albeit a small one, did not have health insurance coverage at all.

Before the law went into effect, all the HMOs collected premiums directly from members. However, upon passage of the law, a new progressive national health insurance tax was levied through Israel's social security agency which then re-distributes the proceeds to the HMOs based on their membership and its demographic makeup. This ensured that all citizens would now have health coverage. While membership in one of the HMOs now became compulsory for all, free choice was introduced into movement of members between HMOs (a change is allowed once per year), effectively making the various HMOs compete equally for members among the populace. Annually, a committee appointed by the ministry of health publishes a "basket" or uniform package of medical services and prescription formulary which all HMOs must provide as a minimum service to all their members. Achieving this level of equality ensured that all citizens are guaranteed to receive basic healthcare regardless of their HMO affiliation which was one of the principal aims of the law.

Don't mislead Americans when you say "pay into it" - you are talking about a tiny fraction of the money that Americans would have to pay for the same coverage, which would disappear as soon as they got sick, or which they would not be eligible for at all due to a pre-existing condition.

cato:

the evil Republicans will continue to remain the party of "No" and "obstruction" for the remainder of this debate

Not just that. The evil Republicans will probably continue to remain the party that transparently, brazenly makes things up. This is an excellent strategy if the GOP want to continue to drive away all voters other than the ones who are too ignorant to notice that they are being fed lies.

=================
ken:

If someone were to conclude that Republicans tend to favor big businesses, would it really be correct to reply "you failed to control for income--Republicans tend to be richer, and richer people tend to favor business"?

That would indeed be the correct reply if the study failed to control for income. Why? Because I want to be able to answer the following question. Imagine that two people are equally rich. Imagine that one is D, and one is R. Which one is more likely to favor big business? I suspect the answer is the R, although I don't have data at my fingertips to prove it. But the point is not the specific answer to this question. The point is the relevance, validity and importance of the question. The question is important, and the only way to answer such a question is to control separately for income and party when asking a question like 'do you favor big business.'

Let's bring it back to the instant example. Imagine two people who are equal in education. One is a Democrat, and one is a Republican. Which one is more likely to be anti-Semitic? Bernstein's statement ("polling data showing Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans") implies that he knows the answer to that question. Trouble is, he doesn't. Why? Because the study (that I assume he's thinking of) didn't control for education.

It's entirely possible (given the data in the study we're discussing) that an uneducated Republican is much more likely to be anti-Semitic than an educated Democrat. We simply don't know, because the study didn't control for education. If the study controlled for education, it might discover that an uneducated Republican is much more likely to be anti-Semitic than an educated Democrat. In other words, the study might discover that it is education, not party, that most accurately predicts anti-Semitism. Just like another study might discover that it is party, not income, that most accurately predicts whether someone favors big business.

The issue I'm raising is especially important because there is not a simple, direct relationship between education and party. People with very low and very high education tend to be D. People with education in the middle tend to be R. So an apparent relationship between party and anti-Semitism could be masking a more fundamental relationship between education and anti-Semitism.

There's a similar issue with race. Anti-Semitism is higher among blacks than whites (sad but true). Blacks tend to be Democrats. What does this tell us about anti-Semitism among white Ds? Answer: nothing. It's entirely possible that white Ds are less anti-Semitic than white Rs. And that Ds, in general, are less anti-Semitic than Rs. But a study that did not control for race could conclude that Ds tend to be anti-Semitic, even if that is not the case, and when the fundamental reality is that blacks tend to be anti-Semitic. That would happen if the sample was inadvertently weighted with blacks, and the study simply didn't notice.

Consider further: a study that did control for both race and party might discover that black Rs tend to be more anti-Semitic than black Ds. It also might discover that white Rs tend to be more anti-Semitic than white Ds. A study could find all this while also finding that blacks tend to be anti-Semitic, and that blacks tend to be Ds. Let me summarize that hypothetical study in this form:

A) Blacks tend to be anti-Semitic
B) Rs tend to be anti-Semitic
C) Blacks tend to be Ds

I'm not saying all those things are true. (A and C are known to be true; I have no idea whether or not B is true.) The key point I'm making is that A, B, C can all be true simultaneously. This important fact is what's being overlooked by the people who assert that's there no point in measuring each factor separately.

If you really want to understand what's happening, you need to look at each factor separately. Otherwise it's very easy to treat a certain conclusion as proven, even though it's only been shown to be possible.

=================
malvolio:

Why would you control for those?

I just explained why.

=================
tim j:

if you're simply trying to figure out which group is more antisemitic, bringing in other factors is just a distraction.

You're wrong. See A, B and C, above. It is possible that B is true. A study that did not control separately for both race and party could falsely conclude the opposite of B, even though the opposite of B has not been proven. Ben P also explained this.

The statistical concept you're failing to grasp is basic. Then again, I notice that you seem to be a Glenn Beck listener. Hmm.

=================
anon252:

The point is that Jews seem to think that the GOP is infested with anti-Semites, but the poll, if accurate, suggests that they are barking up the wrong tree.

I just explained why the poll is not a valid basis for making the claim that you're making.

If "the GOP is infested with anti-Semites," the poll can still reach the result that it reached, if it did not control for race and education. And as far as we can tell, it did not control for race and education.

=================
pseuss:

The fact that you can sue your insurance company

That's what you think? Think again.

Ignorance is bliss.

=================
mcm:

Except this is even worse, because the alleged death panels that we are supposed to disprove the existence of don't even exist yet!

It's actually even worse than that. Because it's not just a question of paranoid, irrational people stating a worry that the bill will ultimately put us on a slippery slope to death panels. It's that liars like Palin and others are asserting that the bill itself calls for death panels.

I think this is what Ezra means when observes that democracy is sick. Democracy is sick when a major party consists of leaders who are dishonest enough to sell obvious lies, followed by followers who are ignorant enough to buy those lies.

=================
fury:

The point is that Roman Catholics are obligated to follow Church Teachings and Doctrine - and not pronouncements by individual Bishops, nor UCCB statements, nor pronouncements by the Pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra.

I don't want to relitigate the other thread here, but you need to read more carefully. In the other thread I made detailed citations to "Church Teachings and Doctrine," and demonstrated that American conservative Catholics are indeed inclined to dismiss "Church Teachings and Doctrine" when it comes to the issues of poverty, war, and the death penalty.

the statement by Bishop Gregory is informative

He wasn't just being "informative." He cited "Church Teachings and Doctrine," and showed that his position was required by "Church Teachings and Doctrine."

Their statements are also not binding on Catholics. Their mission is to promote and safeguard doctrine.

That's gibberish, because Catholics are obliged to follow doctrine. Saying that Catholics are free to ignore the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is like saying that American lawyers are free to ignore the Supreme Court.

=================
federal:

Failure to comply with demand that I draft the required essays got me branded a poisoner of public discourse.

The thread you're misrepresenting is here.

=================
dawson:

It's a sad commentary that she has to resort to appealing to People's fears simply because the People's morality has gone awry.

She did something even worse than just "appealing to People's fears:" she lied. Which tells us that her "morality has gone awry."

=================
alexia:

Health care is not a right. It's a commodity.

Why not say the same thing about education, and abolish public schools? I imagine that you would like to.

The man Obama has as his science czar wrote papers advocating forced involuntary sterilizations through the water supply.

I see we have not just another Glenn Beck fan, but a Glenn Beck fan who see no reason to bother reading the thread before posting.

The decision about what treatments will be approved are left in the hands of a single, non-elected official. Read the bill.

Page number, please.

JPG:

No problem. This is a long, weird thread, and I can't imagine anybody wanting to read all of it.

Dangermouse:

I don't know einhverfr personally, but from his posts I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't describe himself as a "lib."

Seeing as we are over a 125 comments past the point where DB put a kibbosh on me, I am hoping it is ok for me to rejoin:

The fact that you can sue your insurance company, or at least have some chance of out-of-pocket or charitable recourse

Since nobody, but nobody, is proposing a single-payer system, why would you not have these alternatives in "Obamacare"?

And it's certainly relevant to the debate over statism whether government power exercised in the name of the common good has been grossly abused in the past.

Yes, it is. Which is why I find it strange that you have not talked about how many handicapped people, or old people have been killed by the government in the name of eugenics, when you explicitly invoked that theme. And even when an earlier commenter asked you this question. Is it just innuendo, and guilt by tenuous association, that you were engaging in, then?

In contrast, we do know that poor or sick people are routinely denied life-saving medical care either because they have no insurance or because they have inadequate insurance or because the terms are changed under them, in our current free-market system. What is your response to this accumulation of evidence? Is a free-market decision that kills people based on their ability to pay superior?

Ben: The swastiska was a symbol of the National Socialists. Holding a sign with a crossed-out swastiska signifies negation of ideas endorsed by National Socialists. Inescapable inference is that a person holding a sign like that opposes National Socialism. The response was a direct answer to the question.


Plenty of people protested Bush (actually, "BusHitler") using the exactly same symbol. Would explaining their use of the same symbol in the same context of protest imply my personal belief that those people were making a valid point about Bush? Or that I personally believe(d) that Bush is/was BusHitler?

jukeboxgrad,

The point is that Jews seem to think that the GOP is infested with anti-Semites, but the poll, if accurate, suggests that they are barking up the wrong tree.

I'm having serious difficulty understanding what on earth you statistical analysis of anti-Semitism (or critique thereof) has to do with this thread.

You will be doing me a vast favor if you do not try to explain.

It's that liars like Palin and others are asserting that the bill itself calls for death panels.

Please show me where she said the bill calls for literal death panels and that she was not using an easily understood metaphor for what the bill was in danger of eventually leading to.

federal:

Would explaining their use of the same symbol in the same context of protest imply my personal belief that those people were making a valid point about Bush?

It would indeed imply your "personal belief that those people were making a valid point about Bush" if the "explaining" was done using the apologetic, supportive tone you used in the other thread.

================
yankev:

a cancer patient received a letter from Oregon's public health plans

Link? Normally I would do some googling, instead of asking, but for technical reasons that's not practical for me right now.

I'm having serious difficulty understanding what on earth you statistical analysis of anti-Semitism (or critique thereof) has to do with this thread.

You have managed to not notice that it was your ideological pal bernstein who raised the tangent ("Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans"). I responded to him, here. And then some other people chimed in. Etc. If you think the subtopic is irrelevant, take your complaint to the person who introduced the subtopic. That's not me.

You will be doing me a vast favor if you do not try to explain.

You will be doing everyone a vast favor if you refrain from asking questions when you're not interested in hearing the answer. Especially when it's a question you could have answered on your own.

By the way, in your comment you quoted some words as mine even though they aren't mine. Please be more careful.

Please show me where she said the bill calls for literal death panels and that she was not using an easily understood metaphor for what the bill was in danger of eventually leading to.

Please show me where she said she was only talking about "what the bill was in danger of eventually leading to," rather than describing the contents of the bill itself. And please explain how her "easily understood metaphor" does not apply to what we already have.

That nicely sums up what the president and his followers are doing.

An important difference between me and you is that when I accuse someone of lying, I show proof.

I see I've been repetitively redundant.

jukeboxgrad, here's the link to the story, where the state of Oregon declined to cover treatment, and instead recommended assisted suicide.

Old/sick/infirm use most health care money.

Proposed plans want to bend curve down.
-> Less money for old/sick/infirm.

Proposed plans add more people to system.
-> Even less money for old/sick/infirm.

Proposed plans include panel to id health care savings.
-> Targets will be selected.

Denial of services will be necessary for savings.
-> Targets will be targeted.

Totally unreasonable dot connecting.

"Death Panels" may be overly dramatic (politians are never dramatic) but the underlying concept is far from unreasonable.

Note: This is not to imply anything about intentions - I'm sure all stakeholders have the best intentions. But the plans being floated ain't gonna get us there.

Strawman: Insurance companies already target targets.
Yippers - but I definitely have more leverage over the guvment than a private insurance policy I selected,

In contrast, we do know that poor or sick people are routinely denied life-saving medical care either because they have no insurance or because they have inadequate insurance or because the terms are changed under them, in our current free-market system. What is your response to this accumulation of evidence? Is a free-market decision that kills people based on their ability to pay superior?

YES. Because "ability to pay" is the only mechanism that rations health-care at all equitably in the long run. I'd rather it not be based on political favoritism, as any government system will inevitably decay into; with ALWAYS the additional caveat of higher prices than the alternative, if one totals up the opportunity costs of longer waiting times, quid pro quo favor trading (as happened in the Soviet Union), outright denial, etc.

THINK!

Whoa whoa whoa. We all learn about Rosemary Kennedy, and about Buck v. Bell, and about the other atrocities of the 20th century made in the name of "improving" people. (For that matter, we also learn about David Reimer.) My education in science has been quite liberal, and every step of the way the professors have gone to great lengths to emphasize the need for caution in treatments and experiments, the need for human rights protections and the importance of human dignity, and the necessary paranoia to avoid harming any more people by testing out the latest psychiatric fad.

A lot has changed in half a century (was "ageism" even a word when Tuskegee was begun?). If you're going to assume that liberalism today means the same thing it did fifty years ago - or that liberals hold the same views as they did then, or that liberals can even agree with each other any more than conservatives do - then don't be surprised if you experience the return treatment. Maybe I could start insisting that all conservatives today clearly must be opposed to women's suffrage, because many were 100 years ago.

Today, campaigns for human "improvement" are focusing on medical advances like stem cells, which in early experiments have shown capable of curing (among other things) Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, quadriplegia, juvenile diabetes, damage from cardiac arrest, and multiple sclerosis. Combine these potential treatments with emerging gene replacement therapies (they've tackled one kind of genetic blindness and are working on leukemia).

Medicine is on the verge of a major paradigm shift, both in how we diagnose and treat diseases, and in how we define disease itself. Imagine, for example, that you carry the genes for psychosis, and a fetal injection could prevent your unborn child from ever overexpressing those genes, rather than becoming bipolar or schizophrenic. Considering the rate at which scientific research is exploding, I wouldn't be surprised if in fifty or a hundred years, we'd even have a prenatal or neonatal treatment to rectify Down's Syndrome, and then no parent would have to face Palin's dilemma. Chronic illness may become a thing of the past, as might the notion of the infirm elderly.

The legal system, not to mention the healthcare system, is going to have to undergo some major introspective and revision to deal with the current upcoming challenges presented by the Information Age and this medical revolution. While you're at it, please update your stereotypes about liberals as well, okay?

Plenty of people protested Bush (actually, "BusHitler") using the exactly same symbol. Would explaining their use of the same symbol in the same context of protest imply my personal belief that those people were making a valid point about Bush? Or that I personally believe(d) that Bush is/was BusHitler?

Yes, actually that's how context works.

If someone asked the question "why would someone carry a an anti-nazi poster at a bush rally" and your response was "because they don't like nazis" you'd have exactly the same problem.

Ben: So your contention is that because I acknowledge that some people associated Bush with National Socialism, and protested him on that basis, I think that Bush is a Nazi?

So your contention is that because I acknowledge that some people associated Bush with National Socialism, and protested him on that basis, I think that Bush is a Nazi?

Ben, when you said that f-dawg might have been
"deliberately playing dumb", I think that your description had two words too many.

I asked him the same question that you did here, but it was met with silence.

jukeboxgrad:

We're not going to agree on the matter regarding American Catholics following Church Teachings and Doctrine, so enough on that.

A favor - I did not label your comments in whole or in part "gibberish" - I'd ask you to accord me the same courtesy.

Interesting reading (from https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog):

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?
This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.This section amends the Social Security Act

2.The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3.The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4.This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5.This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6.There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7.The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1.This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2.Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3.The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?
Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2.By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?
Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2.Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3.The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4.With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5.The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6.With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?
Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—

(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1.This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2.Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3.The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4.Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.

6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.

2.The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.

7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?
What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1.This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2.The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3.Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4.Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.

8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?
What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.Do nothing and you are in.

2.Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?
What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
2.Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

leo:

I see I've been repetitively redundant.

Not any more so than he has been. He seems to be trying to "catapult the propaganda."

====================
pmorem, thanks for the link. What a shock to discover that what you and yankev said happened is not what happened (my surprise is roughly equal to Brian K's). This is what yankev said:

For the same reason, the State of Oregon has decided that its health plan will not pay for palliative care for end stage cancer patients. That's a fancy way of saying that cancer patients are left to live out the rest of their lives in excruciating pain, deprived of any medication that might reduce the pain. In one celebrated incident last fall, a cancer patient received a letter from Oregon's public health plan informing her that she did not qualify for pain medication because she was an end stage cancer patient and, in the same letter, reminding her that the plan would cover the cost of physician assisted suicide.

"Did not qualify for pain medication?" "Will not pay for palliative care for end stage cancer patients?" Really? No, Oregon did not inform Barbara Wagner that she did not qualify for "pain medication." Oregon provided her with pain medication. Oregon informed her she did not qualify for Tarceva, an experimental chemotherapy drug that costs $4,000/month. Why? Because chances are it would have done nothing to help her. Here are some facts:

Readers will recall Wagner as a 64-year-old Springfield resident with end stage lung cancer, a life-long smoker enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan (OHP). Over several years the OHP had paid for extensive cancer treatment and it continued to pay for Wagner's healthcare until her death.

When it became clear that first and second-line therapies had failed and her prognosis was grim, Ms. Wagner's oncologist recommended a costly, third-line cancer drug called Tarceva. Research indicates that 8 percent of advanced lung cancers respond to Tarceva, with a chance to extend life from an average of 4 months to 6 months. The likelihood of no response to the drug is 92 percent, yet 19 percent of patients develop toxic side effects like diarrhea and rash. Based on the low indicators of effectiveness, Oregon Health Plan denied coverage. …

The OHP letter denying one ineffective treatment did not close the door on all care. It included a long list of appropriate end-of-life care that OHP would pay for, including hospice, medical equipment, palliative services and state-of-the-art pain and symptom management. Yes, the list included medication prescribed under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.The media juxtaposed denial of Tarceva with coverage for aid in dying in a sensational, emotional manner, suggesting the two were related. Many stories ensued about supposedly callous bureaucrats refusing to prolong life but agreeing to shorten it. It made for a catchy story ... but not truthful journalism.

Was it true that Ms. Wagner was harmed in any manner? Or that Tarceva was an efficacious option?

Ms. Wagner received Tarceva, anyway, when the drug's manufacturer, Genentech, responding to the media firestorm and provided it at no cost. News stories never mentioned that when Wagner bet on the remote chance to prolong life, she probably turned her back on hospice care, widely recognized as the gold standard for end-of-life care. Sadly, it turned out Tarceva didn't help Wagner and she lived only a short time after starting the drug.

Feel free to demonstrate that private insurance would have paid for Tarceva, in the same circumstances. And feel to free to demonstrate that the choice Oregon made is somehow fundamentally different than what private insurance companies do every day.

And since you're concerned about Barbara Wagner's sad story, I'm sure you're also concerned about the story of Nataline Sarkisyan, who died after CIGNA refused to pay for her liver transplant. CIGNA eventually relented, but it was too late.

And let's take another look at what you said:

here's the link to the story, where the state of Oregon declined to cover treatment, and instead recommended assisted suicide.

No, they didn't decline to cover "treatment." That implies she was denied treatment for pain and for symptoms. But she wasn't denied those treatments. She was only denied chemo. And she was only denied chemo after years of chemo had ultimately failed. So your description of what happened is only marginally less false than yankev's description.

yankev, please let us know when you are going to retract your outright falsehood ("Oregon has decided that its health plan will not pay for palliative care for end stage cancer patients").

====================
fly:

I definitely have more leverage over the guvment than a private insurance policy I selected

Your sarcastic remark tells us that you are someone else who thinks you currently have leverage that you don't actually have.

====================
cato:

Is a free-market decision that kills people based on their ability to pay superior?

YES. Because "ability to pay" is the only mechanism that rations health-care at all equitably in the long run.

Then there's no need for insurance at all, either public or private. We can just let people die if they don't have the money to buy care. Thank goodness you have found a simple solution to this hard problem.

And we should also abolish public schools, because " 'ability to pay' is the only mechanism that rations [education] at all equitably in the long run." Right? Why not?

====================
ken:

In order to determine whether Republicans are more likely to oppose abortion, do you need to correct for religion first?

If you want to be able to reach a reliable conclusion, yes.

Consider the question "imagine that two people are equally rich. One favors big business more than the other. Which is more likely to be D and which R?"

It's a reasonable question, but I don't understand why you brought it up. I don't see how it demonstrates a "problem" in my analysis.

====================
federal:

So your contention is that because I acknowledge that some people associated Bush with National Socialism, and protested him on that basis, I think that Bush is a Nazi?

If you discussed the people who "associated Bush with National Socialism" in the same sympathetic way that you discussed the people who associated Obama with National Socialism, it would indeed indicate that you "think that Bush is a Nazi."

====================
pmorem:

I believe that page 16 of the House bill effectively closes off future private insurance options.

Wrong. It only "closes off future private insurance options" which fail to meet certain requirements, like the requirement to take people despite pre-existing conditions.

It sets standards for private insurance. Old plans don't even have to meet those standards. Only new plans have to meet those standards.

I see pot explained this.

====================
fury:

A favor - I did not label your comments in whole or in part "gibberish" - I'd ask you to accord me the same courtesy

I would expect you to label my comments as gibberish, if they were gibberish. If my remarks are gibberish, and you explain why they are gibberish, then I'm in no position to complain about courtesy.

Len:

Does the Act make these "preventable readmissions" *illegal*, or does it merely say that the government will not pay for them?

If it's the latter, then isn't the Act perfectly consistent with conservative values when it comes to readmissions -- the government choosing not to interfere in a private transaction between individuals and hospitals?

Also, how is the new proposal any different from the acceptable-costs-and-treatment provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1395ww, which apparently have been around for at least 27 years?

Let me guess: you're a huge X-Files fan.

Len:

I'm pretty sure this statement is also untrue:

The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

Pages 317-18 of the Act propose to amend 42 U.S.C. 1395nn, an already-existing provision that limits the ability of doctors to refer patients to hospitals in which the doctors have an ownership interest. As far as I can tell, this provision has been around since 1989.

This basic anti-self-referral provision has many exceptions and qualifications. One of those is for rural health providers: It is (apparently) ok for a doctor to refer to a health provider in a rural area if "substantially all of the designated health services furnished by such entity are furnished to individuals residing in such a rural area." 42 USC 1395nn(d)(2).

Pages 318-19 of the Act adds certain qualifications to the self-referral prohibition.

This is how laws work in complicated areas like this. Experience shows that self-referral is rife for abuse. So Congress passes a law banning such self-referral (though this is not a criminal prohibition). As explained by a district court in Texas: "The gravamen of Medicare Fraud is inducement. Giving a person an opportunity to earn money may well be an inducement to that person to channel potential Medicare payments towards a particular recipient."

But, Congress realizes that a ban on referrals to certain facilities may not be feasible in certain rural areas. So they create the rural provider exception.

Then, experience with that provision shows that other problems arise. So now, an amendment is proposed to correct that problem.

This is not a new enactment, but merely a tweak of a restriction that has existed for -- I believe -- twenty years.

And unless I am mistaking something, it does not "prohibit" a hospital from expanding.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1.This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2.Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3.The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

Contrary to the stuff in the first part of that article, this part appears to be mostly true.

I believe the private health insurers are insisting on mandates like this in exchange for losing the right to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and some on the left are insisting on this to help the plans' solvency.

I, personally, would rather not have stuff like this. I would rather Medicare just be expanded to include everybody.

But conservatives are essentially insisting that any reform be fit within the current framework of employer-provided health insurance -- any departure is socialism. Also, conservatives have spent the past thirty-plus years screaming that taxes are theft rather than a civic duty. So an alternative that moves us farther from the employer-based system and/or increases government expenditures is simply not politically achievable.

Steve H

How dare you read the actual bill to see what it actually would provide!

I'm sure all stakeholders have the best intentions. But the plans being floated ain't gonna get us there.

Agreed on both points.

Strawman: Insurance companies already target targets.
Yippers - but I definitely have more leverage over the guvment than a private insurance policy I selected,

Strawman #2 - everyone who opposes the plan thinks the existing system is perfect.

"Did not qualify for pain medication?" "Will not pay for palliative care for end stage cancer patients?" Really? No, Oregon did not inform Barbara Wagner that she did not qualify for "pain medication."

My mistake. Faulty memory. Thanks for the correction. Awfully compassionate, though to combine the denial of coverage (which yes, a private plan may also have denied) with an invitation to commit suicide.

Then there's no need for insurance at all, either public or private. We can just let people die if they don't have the money to buy care.

It should not need pointing out that insurance is a voluntary transaction in which people pool their risks with others who elect to do so, in order to increase the likelihood (or, as we sometimes call it by way of convenient if exaggerated shorthand, "insure") that they will have the ability to pay.

Your comments about public education are interesting but largely irrelevant, as would be a discussion of publicly funded roads, bridges and armed forces. Not being a libertarian, I do not buy into the notion that government should provide no services or that public goods should be funded only voluntarily. Not being a socialist, I don't buy into the notion that government has the right or the obligation to declare everything a public good.

OK juke you win Woah!

- and he said:
say it, say it
You wish you were me!
I'm an ironhead!

I was intimidated and I said it. I wish I were he.

I'm not sure what "qualifying plan" means, and that gives me some concerns.

It's defined in the bill you claim to have read.

Brief comment on the mostly off-topic comparison of blacks and unions. Mitchell Freedman is exactly right, and I will just add that DB's anecdotes about some black folks he knows that are suspicious of unions are the exception rather than the rule, given that in the U.S., blacks are a greater percentage of the unionized workforce than they are of the workforce in general or of the population in general.

Prof. Slater: is that true if you factor out government employees? AFSCME doesn't share a lot in common with the AFL-CIO, UAW, etc.

Danny,

Okay, maybe Catholic Charities USA is a bit iffy on the plan because of the abortion issue. And all those other organizations, and the Catholic congressmen, and the Bishops, have they all reversed themselves too?

Catholic Charities did not reverse itself. It has always opposed abortion, as have the bishops and Catholic organizations. It is partisan opportunists who have distorted their position on health care. The Church has threatened congressmen with excommunication for supporting abortion rights; it is not an issue subject to debate within the Church.

You are distracting us from my main point which was that every indication is that the Catholic Church favors universal health care for the poor.

Is this supposed to be surprising? The Church wants all people to have health care, in the same way that the Church would not want to deny food to anyone. It is possible to achieve these goals without expanding the scope of government power in unprecedented and unconstitutional ways. However, you seem to view the issue of health care merely as a means to advance your true goals of redistribution of wealth and expansion of government control.

The Pope has made a lot of statements criticizing unfettered capitalism. The Pope is not an American, not a member of the GOP or a libertarian.

Again, stating the obvious. Society needs a moral compass. The Pope wasn't promoting your statist agenda as an alternative; to the contrary, there are numerous aspects of your socialized medicine that the Pope does not support (as discussed above with respect to abortion).

Health care for profit and leaving large poor populations uninsured is an American abberation. It does not exist in any majority Catholic country that I am aware of. I've lived in Spain, I've lived in Italy, including Rome. I interact with Catholics all the time, and guess what, they are all (right and left wing regardless) in favor of universal public health care. They all regard the American system as deeply immoral to the poor.

Argumentum ad populum. Judging by your other posts, I would bet you've mixed in some Biased Samples for good measure. Do I need to assure you that the majority of Catholics I've met are against universal health care? I assume you'd dismiss my fallacious counterargument as quickly as I dismissed yours.

I do find your Euro-centric perspective charming though.

You sound like one of those GOP cafeteria Catholics who tries to use the moral weight of the church when it fits American right-wing goals (like opposing abortion or gay rights) but then totally ignores the Church and mainstream Catholic opinion on capitalism, the Iraq War, the death penalty, etc.

You certainly saved the best for last. You were the person who brought in the moral weight of the Church, not I. Ordinarily you seem eager to criticize the Church as well as insult the Catholic faith and the rubes who believe in it (although I may be mistaking you for other posters -- if so, I apologize). However, when it suits your amoral partisan objective, you lie about the Church's position in a disingenuous attempt to add moral legitimacy to your argument.

The sole purpose of my post was to correct the lies and misinformation that you were attributing to Catholic bishops and organizations. You do not know where I stand on the Iraq War or the death penalty; and if you believe that Catholicism is anti-capitalist, there's little I can do except laugh at the distortion of your worldview.

Wrong. It only "closes off future private insurance options" which fail to meet certain requirements, like the requirement to take people despite pre-existing conditions.

It sets standards for private insurance.

"Standards" which will make it impossible for those plans to stay in business, forcing people into a government plan. If it's "private," the government obviously has no business setting "standards" for what it covers.

Old plans don't even have to meet those standards. Only new plans have to meet those standards.

Where "new plans" includes "old plans that have made changes," such that every plan will ultimately be defined as a new plan, since no plan remains static forever in its terms and benefits.

Cite, please.

Sec.101 (b), p 15.

DB:
Totally agree with commentors that you should just say "death panels" are " bullshit". If you have already said so forgiveme I haven't read all 300+ comments.

What most people want is "affordable health care". Why? Because health care is considered a necessity. However, unlike most things one buys there are not low, medium or high price options. A triple bypass operation is going to cost essential one amount. You don't get to choose options.

A poor person chooses low cost food products, rental property in less desirable areas, ride the bus etc. Rich people eat out, have summer or winter homes and a limo driver. But when it comes to buying a health insurance policy the cost is the same. If a person falls and breaks a leg it will cost the same to have the leg in a cast independent of the income of the person.

This is why health care reform is so important. It should not be driven by the market. My simple solution to this is as follows.

The federal government would be the seller of a set of ala cart health insurance policies offered by the insurance companies. Similar to medicare. Everyone in the country would be required to have a government issued policy. The price of the policy would be based on income.

Every health care provider would be required to accept the government health policy. If not there would be a surtax placed on them. Every employer would be required to contribute to the employee health insurance based on the total payroll. This would offset the cost that employees would be responsible to pay. The government would be the whohesaler of all drugs bought through contracts from the drug companies.

Finally, the government would set reimbursement rates. There is absolutely no reason why a single operation should cost $50,000!! People are charged that but the insurance companies pay. If individuals had to pay then the operation might be more like $5000.

That's enough for now. Hope you don't feel the need to delete this. I read VC every day and comment seldomly.

I'd politely beg to differ. If the government truly could "make sure that everyone is taken care of," organizations such as Catholic Charities would be rendered obsolete.

Unfortunately, the government simply cannot achieve those ideals, let alone in a fashion that is consistent with the Catholic faith.

"Unfortunately"? This just illustrates how liberals have succeded in turning the traditional notion of a safety net on its head. Charities don't exist to fill the gaps the government can't take care of, but the reverse.

shelbyc:

His gibberish made perfect sense to me.

Fury's statement made "perfect sense" to you? Really? If the idea that Catholics are free to ignore the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes "perfect sense" to you, then it's a shame you weren't around to present your peculiar perspective when this matter was being discussed at length in a prior thread.

Your comment about catholics being obliged to follow doctrine seemd kinda funny, though. In exactly what way are they obliged?

I think you're having some trouble deciding where you stand on this. Because if you think my "comment about catholics being obliged to follow doctrine seemd kinda funny" I hope you'll tell us what you think of Fury's "comment about catholics being obliged to follow doctrine." Because Fury said this:

Roman Catholics are obligated to follow Church Teachings and Doctrine

Does that seem "kinda funny" to you? Because you didn't speak up to say so when Fury said that. Then again, maybe that idea only seems "kinda funny" to you when you hear it expressed by me.

Here's an idea: pick one story and stick with it.

==========================
len:

The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

As steve h explained so clearly, you have posted an outright falsehood. And to the extent that you have not appeared to retract the falsehood, the impression is created that you are doing this intentionally. You know the word for that, right?

Thanks for adding to a very long series of examples which demonstrate that the GOP can't figure out how to fight this bill without lying.

==========================
dunbar:

Your partisan rhetoric doesn't even begin to address the substance of my point: Catholic Charities USA states unequivocally that it opposes any health care reform that funds abortions.

You're spinning like a top. What a surprise. Yes, it's true that "Catholic Charities USA states unequivocally that it opposes any health care reform that funds abortions." But what you did before was apply the word "lie" to the following statement:

Mainstream Catholic organizations like Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic Health Association -- which some assume speak for the bishops -- have also voiced their support.

Trouble is, that statement is only a lie if Catholic Charities USA and the
Catholic Health Association oppose Obama's plan. But they don't. They support it. Do they support it even though they also said they oppose "any health care reform that funds abortions?" Yes, they do.

The politics on this point are complicated, because certain pro-life Catholics want the bill to explicitly state that abortion can't be funded. But other pro-life Catholics, like Catholic Charities USA, are willing to support the bill as-is. The bill doesn't mention abortion.

I thought that by citing its homepage you and Danny would stop misrepresenting the position of the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations

The one who is "misrepresenting" is you. You are promoting the idea that Catholic Charities USA opposes Obama's health care reform. The truth is they have taken a strong position supporting it.

Catholic Charities does not support the Democrats' plan

Did you read the "Letters to Congress" cited here? Those letters aren't fairly interpreted as support for "the Democrats' plan?" Really? Simple question: do you support what's advocated in those letters?

the majority of Catholics I've met are against universal health care

Then what a shock to discover that "The Bishops’ Conference believes health care reform should be truly universal and it should be genuinely affordable" (pdf). What a darn shame that The Bishops’ Conference is so out of step with "the majority of Catholics."

who the flying flip is Deal W. Hudson?

A prominent pro-life Catholic who was part of the McCain campaign and who has published in National Review and elsewhere. You claimed that what he said here is a lie. What a shame that NR and the McCain campaign would be willing to associate with a liar.

The Pope is on record as advocating a mitigated, humane capitalism which makes certain sacrifices to make sure that everyone is taken care of.

I'd politely beg to differ. If the government truly could "make sure that everyone is taken care of," organizations such as Catholic Charities would be rendered obsolete. Unfortunately, the government simply cannot achieve those ideals, let alone in a fashion that is consistent with the Catholic faith.

What a joke. The one who is distorting the words of the Church is you. The Church said that it's up to the government to make sure that every child is cared for. Period. You say "the government simply cannot achieve those ideals," but the Church says it needs to try. And people like you are among the biggest obstacles.

==========================
einhverfr:

I think the issue with the Oregon case was less substance than presentation. When dealing with sensitive topics like death with dignity, sensitivity in addressing this is called for.

Indeed. And it's not just that the letter was poorly written. It's that the information should have been first presented personally, not in a letter. And Oregon has acknowledged this.

==========================
josh:

So, once again, to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al for their creation of term "death panel" -- and to David Bernstein for rationalizing it -- this loyal liberal, Democrat, commie, pinko, moocher says thank you.

I couldn't agree more. And speaking of death panels, it's hysterically funny to notice that Palin and Gingrich were for them before they were against them (link, link). The GOP seems intent on demonstrating that it doesn't expect to be taken seriously.

==========================
yankev:

Please show me where she was speaking literally.

If her words obviously meant something other than what they obviously meant, then Sen. Isakson (R) would not have described the death panel statement as "nuts."

As Shelby pointed out, you don't have to deal with private insurers unless you choose to.

Naturally. You can also "choose" to have no coverage, and then get sick and die. Some 'choice.' But if you choose "to deal with private insurers," you are going to end up dealing with death panels. So why the sudden hysteria about death panels?

Those who choose to and can afford to can buy medical care outside of their plan. With single payer government plans, none of that is true.

And which part of HR 3200 imposes a 'single payer government plan?'

Before you remind me that Obama's plan is not single payer, he and other supporters of the plan are on record as favoring single payer

Yes, and I'm also in 'favor' of having a dream date with Heidi Klum. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

My mistake. Faulty memory. Thanks for the correction.

You're welcome. But since you know you have "faulty memory," it's hard to understand why you spoke with great confidence ("the State of Oregon has decided that its health plan will not pay for palliative care for end stage cancer patients") while conveying an outrageous falsehood. And given your "faulty memory," only a fool would take your subsequent comments without a large grain of salt.

Either Shawn Tully's lying or the president is

Tully is a reporter I've barely heard of. Why should I care what he says? And you pasted in a bunch of text without indicating who said it or where the text came from. Where is your proof that someone is lying? Given your "faulty memory," maybe it would be good to see some evidence for your claim.

Not being a libertarian, I do not buy into the notion that government should provide no services or that public goods should be funded only voluntarily. Not being a socialist, I don't buy into the notion that government has the right or the obligation to declare everything a public good.

What is your basis for concluding that education should be a public good but health care should not?

==========================
pmorem:

From a technical standpoint, I can understand that the chemo she sought was unlikely to help. I can see the technical merits for what was done. The letter was tone-deaf, to say the least.

Trouble is, the many people flogging the Wagner story are not doing so to convince people to be afraid that the government might one day send them a "tone-deaf" letter. Rather, the fear being promoted is that the government is going to kill them. Or let them "live out the rest of their lives in excruciating pain, deprived of any medication that might reduce the pain," as yankev said, in an egregious falsehood.

Big difference. But it's nice to know, after all the facts come out, that all you really have to complain about is a "tone-deaf" letter.

By the way, I have a feeling that private insurance companies may have written one or two "tone-deaf" letters.

There is no one "best" way to die. I think she went in the way of her choosing. Her way is not mine. Your way is not mine, either.

Except that you don't know anything about my "way."

Cite, please. I don't recall that. I've read bits and pieces, but not the whole thing.

You didn't get as far as p. 14? Because that's where you can find the beginning of a major section called "PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS."

I find it highly disturbing, particularly when jukeboxgrad echoed the same tone-deafness.

I find it highly disturbing that you accuse me of "tone-deafness" without lifting a finger to show where I "echoed the same tone-deafness."

==========================
nieporent:

"Standards" which will make it impossible for those plans to stay in business, forcing people into a government plan.

Prove it.

Business always resists new government regulation, and always announces that new regulation is going to kill it. And then it finds ways to adapt to the regulation.

If it's "private," the government obviously has no business setting "standards" for what it covers.

If this is truly what you believe, then I assume you're in favor of abolishing the FDA.

Yes, but the question you want to ask has nothing to do with the question DB was asking, for which "controlling for" those things would be completely wrong.

Wrong. DB made a statement that was unsupported by the study. I explained why.

Charities don't exist to fill the gaps the government can't take care of, but the reverse.

I'm not a Catholic, and as far as I know, neither are you. But the context of your remark was Catholicism, and the position of the Church is that it's up to the government to make sure that every child is cared for. So you're wrong (at least with regard to the position of the Church regarding the needs of children).

==========================
kirksey:

DB:
Totally agree with commentors that you should just say "death panels" are " bullshit". If you have already said so forgiveme

I've read 100% of the comments, and DB definitely hasn't said so.

jukebox:

In your haste to attack, you somehow missed the link that I posted, which leads to the original author of that analysis.

My sole remark was "Interesting reading," followed by the link and language from that author's post.

You seriously need to calm down, dude.

11-B/2O.B4:

a private insurance company is rewarded for setting a price that excludes as few people as possible and denying service to as many as they can get away with without alienating their customer base

What you are missing is that to a great extent they don't need to worry much about "alienating their customer base," because usually the patient is someone who only has insurance because it came with the job. And therefore doesn't have much choice.

And speaking of not having to worry, it's also very hard to sue a health insurance company. Various people in this thread seem to be in a state of blissful ignorance, in this regard.

The difference is that the government does not have the added concern of losing its customer base

What you are missing is that the people who run the government are indeed concerned about "losing its customer base." They're called 'voters.'

the combination of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is what is well over half the budget

I think what you would really like to do is eliminate those programs. Could you do me a favor? Please say that as loudly as possible, and get the rest of the GOP to do the same. Because I think there are still a few people who don't understand that this is what the GOP really wants.

==================
len:

My sole remark was "Interesting reading," followed by the link and language from that author's post.

Only a liar thinks that lies are "interesting reading." I realize you were quoting someone else, but you were still propagating a lie. When are you going to take responsibility for doing so?

You seriously need to calm down, dude.

I'm more calm than you can possible imagine (here's one indication: I generally refrain from using bold italics), and also quite happy to see you add to the long list of examples which demonstrate that the GOP consists largely of people who like to promote lies. And then, when caught, refuse to take responsibility for doing so.

Also, you have no idea whether or not I'm a "dude."

Business always resists new government regulation, and always announces that new regulation is going to kill it. And then it finds ways to adapt to the regulation.

Or, it doesn't and goes out of business.

If this is truly what you believe, then I assume you're in favor of abolishing the FDA.

Of course. I am a libertarian.

Yes, but the question you want to ask has nothing to do with the question DB was asking, for which "controlling for" those things would be completely wrong.

Wrong. DB made a statement that was unsupported by the study. I explained why.

Indeed. Trouble is, you're confused about statistics, and thus your "explanation" was simply wrong. His statement was directly supported by the study; "controlling for" various factors would enable one to answer all sorts of different questions, but not the one DB was addressing.

nieporent:

They do not endorse any specific legislative proposal

You're ducking the same question that dunbar has been ducking. Did you read the "Letters to Congress" cited here? Those letters aren't fairly interpreted as support for "the Democrats' plan?" Really?

your "explanation" was simply wrong

Ipse dixit.

the context of my remark was not Catholicism

In your comment here, you quoted someone who was discussing "Catholic Charities" and "the Catholic faith." Feel free to explain why you quoted those remarks if you didn't want to convey the impression that the context of your remark was Catholicism.

you're misinterpreting the quote at that link, which says that it's up to the government ("law") to create a society in which everyone is cared for; it does not say that it is the task of government to actually care for everyone.

Here's what the Church said:

… it is the task of law to pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person. Help for families and for unmarried mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for illegitimate children and reasonable arrangements for adoption - a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.

I didn't say "it is the task of government to actually care for everyone." I said that according to the Church, it's up to the government to make sure that every child is cared for. How can the words "a whole positive policy must be put into force" be interpreted any other way?

In short, what I said: that the traditional notion of a safety net is that the government cares for everyone who has fallen through the cracks (in contrast to the government caring for everyone up front and charity picking up those who have fallen through the cracks).

Except that I didn't make a statement about "the traditional notion of a safety net." I made a statement about Church doctrine. And your comment was not made in the context of a discussion about "the traditional notion of a safety net." It was made in the context of a discussion about Church doctrine.

BTW regarding the house plan, one of the big reasons I voted against McCain was that he was arguing for removing state regulation of insurance which I felt would mean that the Federal Government would have to fill the vacuum. One of my big issues with the House bill is that it fulfils this McCain campaign promise.

jukeboxgrad:

"Fury's statement made "perfect sense" to you? Really? If the idea that Catholics are free to ignore the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes "perfect sense" to you, then it's a shame you weren't around to present your peculiar perspective when this matter was being discussed at length in a prior thread."

My apologies and I feel bad about the following paragraph, as I did not do a good job putting into words what was intended:

"I also saw your comments concerning the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith here. Their statements are also not binding on Catholics. Their mission is to promote and safeguard doctrine."

should have been:

"I also saw your comments concerning the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith here. Their individual statements are also not binding on Catholics. Their [the Congregation's] mission is to promote and safeguard doctrine."

The point I was attempting to make yesterday is that Catholics do not look to any one individual (except as noted yesterday regarding the Pope) for binding pronouncements regarding matters of faith and morals. Rather, ecumenical councils, etc along with Sacred Scripture are the things that people look to. Even the individual writings of a Pope are not binding unless ex cathedra.

My apologies for this error.

You seriously need to calm down, dude.

Don't make unreasonable You cannot demand when someone defends either insanity or unmitigated evil, whether the insanity or evil takes the form of capitalism, private health care, Catholics who think they know more about Catholic teaching than non-Catholics do, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, or sacrilege in the form of criticising socialism or implying any lack of perfection in Barack Obama.

I think it's also fair to assume that the numerous and well-financed forces who oppose the bill have indeed read every word of it. Because they are highly motivated to do so, for obvious reasons. And what we find is that the best they can do to oppose the bill is lie to us and tell us that the bill says things it doesn't say. And we have also seen that exact phenomenon in this thread.

Gadzooks, our secret is out -- we are all being well paid to oppose the plan and spread lies about it! How did jbg find out about our nefarious sources of funding? And did anyone else notice that this week's check came a few days late?

I hope this does not mean that our dark masters are running low on funds; if they stop paying me, I would have no reason to oppose this monstrosity, and then I'd have to go work for a living so that I can continue to afford to cling bitterly to my guns and my religion. Bwaaahaaahaahaahaaa.

Let's say the people doing the study found that the easiest way to get D subjects for the study was to find uneducated people in poor black neighborhoods. If the study did not control for these factors (and as far as we can tell it did not), then it does not provide a basis to claim that Ds tend to be anti-Semitic. It only provides a basis to claim that uneducated Ds living in poor black neighborhoods tend to be anti-Semitic.

Let's say that polls suggest that among Black Americans, anti-Semitism tends to go up, rather than down, with level of education, unique among American population segments. Let's say further that you choose to ignore these findings. Let's say further that you have not demonstrated that the faulty methodology you posit was in fact used.

Dunbar,

The entire purpose of my post was to correct the lies that you and other ObamaCare supporters are propagating about Catholic Charities. Personally, I am amused that you would so brazenly exploit (what you think is) Catholic Charities' position when it suits your agenda, but you denounce them as oppressive bigots on matters such as the rights of the unborn.

There you go again, distorting the meaning of "lie". Everyone knows that "lie" = any statement that opposes, or that tends to cast doubt upon the wisdom of, the proposed health care bills. Accordingly, by definition, anything that supports the bills is incapable of being a lie. See how simple it is?

jbg,

Also, you have no idea whether or not I'm a "dude."

If you're not a dude, I hope when your dream comes true you'll tell us all about it.

It's not up to me to demonstrate that the study used "faulty methodology."

It is if you're going to claim that the study is faulty, which you did. (The exact phrase you used was "should not be considered valid.")

It's sufficient to observe that bernstein made a claim and showed no proof to support that claim. It's also sufficient to observe that the only detailed article I can find about the study says nothing to establish that they properly handled the problem I described.

You didn't describe a "problem" that needed to be "handled" at all. And you still don't understand the statistical issues; all surveys need to be based valid samples, but that's an entirely different concept than that of "controlling for" race. There's not the slightest evidence that blacks were a disproportionate share of the survey sample.

And when you write, as you did above, "As several people pointed out (link, link), the conclusion that Kristol (and you, apparently) are promoting should not be considered valid, because the study apparently did not control for other factors, like race, income and education," you manage to be multiply wrong. For one thing, two people is not "several," and for another, neither of those links say what you apparently think they do. Neither one states or implies that the study "should not be considered valid." (Again, "controlling for other factors" has nothing to do with the validity of the study.)

Let's say further that unlike you, I don't like to make assumptions.

Well, I can't refute that -- but for someone who doesn't like to, you seem to do it all the time. Hell, the Henry Louis Gates discussion alone provided a plethora of opportunities for you to do so, and you took advantage of all of them. And of course you're doing it here, when you dishonestly insinuate that DB was citing that study when there's no evidence he was. It's funny how your googling skills miraculously only work when you (often mistakenly) think you can score points against commenters here. Anybody who has been around the VC for a while knows that DB has said this before, and has, in fact, provided cites at those times. But this is not a journal article, but a blog, and nobody is required to prove things to you just because you want them to.

yankev,

There you go again, distorting the meaning of "lie". Everyone knows that "lie" = any statement that opposes, or that tends to cast doubt upon the wisdom of, the proposed health care bills. Accordingly, by definition, anything that supports the bills is incapable of being a lie. See how simple it is?

A fair point, especially given that my opposition to socialized medicine can only be attributable to straight up racism.

leo:

I hope when your dream comes true you'll tell us all about it.

Dream? What dream? Oh yeah, that one.

"When?" Lots of unwarranted confidence in that word. OK, fine, I'll try to remember to bring a notepad.

================
nieporent:

It's not up to me to demonstrate that the study used "faulty methodology."

It is if you're going to claim that the study is faulty, which you did. (The exact phrase you used was "should not be considered valid.")

If your point is that it would have been clearer if I had said 'should not be considered valid, except from the perspective of those who are inclined to accept someone else's conclusions on faith, even though they haven't had a chance to see evidence that the conclusions are correct,' you're right, that would have been clearer. But I think what I said was clear enough, except from the perspective of those who are obtuse and pedantic.

If Malhotra/Margalit had controlled for the variables I mentioned, I think they would have said so. But they didn't say so. If we had the full study, we would know for sure if they did or not. Let me know if you ever find it. In the meantime, feel free to assume they used a valid methodology, even though they didn't provide enough information to demonstrate that your assumption is correct. I'm not inclined to make the same assumption, because I prefer evidence to faith.

all surveys need to be based valid samples, but that's an entirely different concept than that of "controlling for" race

No, it's not "an entirely different concept." It's the same concept. Because the point of "controlling for" various variables like race is to compensate for the fact that the sample might not be valid (that is, truly representative of the overall population you're trying to learn about).

There's not the slightest evidence that blacks were a disproportionate share of the survey sample.

There also isn't the slightest evidence that they weren't a disproportionate share of the survey sample. And it's not just a question of race. It's also a question of the other relevant variables, like education and income. You're simply assuming that the study properly accounted for those variables, even though that assumption is based on faith, not evidence.

two people is not "several"

Good point. Several people pointed out various problems with the study. Two of those people mentioned the problem I've described in this thread. Better now?

neither of those links say what you apparently think they do. Neither one states or implies that the study "should not be considered valid."

They didn't have to explicitly say the study "should not be considered valid" because that's obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of statistics, given the problem that was pointed out.

"controlling for other factors" has nothing to do with the validity of the study

More of what you do best: ipse dixit. Making sure the conclusions are valid is exactly why "controlling for other factors" was invented.

for someone who doesn't like to, you seem to do it all the time [make assumptions]

Did I say I never make assumptions? No, I didn't. I said I don't like to make assumptions. Facts are preferable, but are not always available. Like I said, if you weren't pedantic and obtuse, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

you dishonestly insinuate that DB was citing that study when there's no evidence he was

I didn't "dishonestly insinuate" anything. I expressed a hunch, and I labeled it as such ("I have a feeling"). And there is indeed evidence he was citing Malhotra/Margalit. The evidence is the apparent non-existence of any other study reaching the same conclusion. I've tried pretty hard to find one, and haven't been able to. So if you can find one, I hope you'll tell us about it. In the meantime, oddly enough, I stumbled across a study that actually contradicts Malhotra/Margalit. That happened thanks to a helpful VC-er. I love the way folks here go the extra mile trying to help people!

Anybody who has been around the VC for a while knows that DB has said this before, and has, in fact, provided cites at those times.

Since you're so pedantic about words like "several," do you really mean "times?" You're using plural even though you're presenting only one alleged example. And in that one example, Bernstein cited only one poll. So your "cites" is another gratuitous plural. You have a serious case of pot-kettle-black syndrome.

"DB has said this before?" Said what before? Are you talking about his statement which launched this subthread? That statement would be this:

… in the face of polling data showing Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans

Is that what you're claiming DB has said before? Really? His post that you are pointing to almost says that, but there's an important difference. His posts uses anecdotes to suggest that Democrats tend to be anti-Semitic, but he definitely offers no "polling data" to support that claim. He does reference a poll, but not for the purpose of claiming that "Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans." He references a poll only for the purpose of supporting this statement: "The Republicans primary constituency today, evangelicals, are no more anti-Semitic than the population as a whole."

In this post of his that you're citing, he doesn't explicitly say that "Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans." And he certainly doesn't claim to have "polling data" to support that claim. It certainly would have been odd for him to make that claim, and to say that the claim was supported by "polling data," because the only poll he cited says this (pdf, p. 41):

The 10 years of ADL research have shown that political ideology and party affiliation are not drivers of anti-Semitic propensities

By the way, that statement appears just a few sentences after the statement ("religion is not a driver of anti-Semitic propensities in the United States") that gave Bernstein a reason to cite the poll. So unless Bernstein is a very careless and selective reader, he most likely saw the ADL statement that says "political ideology and party affiliation are not drivers of anti-Semitic propensities."

I'm sincerely grateful to you for doing what I failed to do: notice a prior post by Bernstein where Bernstein himself cites a poll that contradicts the statement he made above ("Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans").

I'm sure any minute now you and/or Bernstein will explain where we can find the "polling data" to support that claim. Along with an explanation of why that "polling data" should be considered more credible than the study that Bernstein himself previously cited (a study which summarized the results of "10 years of ADL research"). Along with an explanation for why Bernstein made the claim ("Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans") even though he was already aware that ADL reported a contrary finding. And surely he should have remembered. After all, according to you, "anybody who has been around the VC for a while knows that DB has said this before." So surely DB knows that he has "said this before," and should remember that he previously cited a poll when he "said this before." How inconvenient, though, that the poll he cited previously contradicts the unsupported statement he made this week.

nobody is required to prove things to you just because you want them to

Good point. You weren't required to prove to me that Bernstein's claim is contradicted by "10 years of ADL research," but you did anyway. That's why I expressed my sincere gratitude. Let no one say that VC people aren't helpful.

================
verm:

I do have a graduate degree in statistics

Really? Are you a real statistician, or do you just play one on the internet? Why not just claim that you're God? After all, undocumented bragging by random internet commenters is highly convincing.

horribly conflating "control" and "normalization" in the process

The first person to mention "normalization" in this thread is you. When you put the word in quotes, you imply you're quoting someone. Who are you quoting?

Anyway, it's always good practice when bragging about unseen credentials to toss in some random buzzwords without bothering to explain what they mean or how they're relevant. Maybe next time you could even use some kind of a random buzzword generator.

he provides no evidence that the survey was flawed.

I guess you didn't notice that nieporent just provided "evidence that the survey was flawed." Either that, or "10 years of ADL research" is wrong.

================
dunbar:

I am pleased that religious doctrine is now an acceptable foundation for governmental policy.

You seem be to be saying that I said that "religious doctrine is now an acceptable foundation for governmental policy." Really? Where did I say that? That's not what I said. What I said is that the GOP is packed with cafeteria Catholics.

you can trumpet the Church's unwavering position that all life -- even unborn -- is sacred where it facilitates your statist expansion of government

I didn't "trumpet the Church's unwavering position that all life -- even unborn -- is sacred" in order to facilitate a statist expansion of government. I did so for the purpose of pointing out that the GOP is packed with cafeteria Catholics.

The Catholic Church wants all people to have health care, in the same way that it wants all people to have food.

Really? USCCB has sent a letter to Congress urging legislation for a "truly universal" food policy, so that federal law will ensure that all poor families can obtain food? And that it's the responsibility of the federal government to ensure "access for all," regarding food needs? Even families that don't meet the narrow requirements of the current Food Stamp program?

I had no idea. Where can I find this letter? I happen to think it doesn't exist. But if it did exist, I'm sure the GOP would be having a fit, and people like you would be working overtime to pretend it said something other than what it actually said.

Unless you can present such a letter, your claim ("the same way") is baloney.

even proponents concede that ObamaCare (in its current iteration) will not provide truly universal coverage -- at least, not yet

Of course it won't. And that's because it's a compromise. And it's a compromise because the GOP wants no health care reform at all.

Catholic organizations do not support ObamaCare.

Except for the fact that what USCCB says it wants to accomplish bears a striking resemblance to what the Democrats are trying to accomplish. Especially with regard to the goal of the government providing universal coverage. What an odd coincidence.

Catholic Charities does not and will not support ObamaCare as long as it allows the funding of abortion.

USCCB wants an amendment. USCCB is doing what it can to influence the direction of the bill. This is called politics. When push comes to shove, and it's time to vote, will they really oppose the bill? We'll see.

USCCB is urging Catholics to tell Congress to provide "health care coverage for all people," and to "include access for all with a special concern for the poor." Simple question: does that sound like a Democrat talking, or a Republican? Can you picture Rush urging his callers to tell Congress to provide "health care coverage for all people," and to "include access for all with a special concern for the poor?"

If you view those statements as opposition to the Democrats, then I hope the Democrats get lots of opposition just like that.

Your argument is: "Despite saying that it does not support ObamaCare, Catholic Charities really does support ObamaCare."

If USCCB really "does not support ObamaCare," then promoting "health care coverage for all people," and "access for all with a special concern for the poor" is an odd way for them to express their position.

your "citations" to support your lies are the electronic sources that Catholic Charities explicitly denounces as misstating the position of the Church and its organizations

Catholic Charities "explicitly denounces" Catholic Charities? Really? How peculiar. Because I've directly cited USCCB and catholiccharitiesusa, many times. Why are you suggesting otherwise? I think the only other source I've cited (on this issue) is Deal W. Hudson. And I wouldn't be surprised if USCCB denounced him, but where did they do so? Just curious.

This David post appears a bit paranoid :)

Socialism is about live engineering, control. An American(or for that matter in most Western World countries) born today has much less freedom than 20 years ago and the path is to have even less in 10 years. Soon there will be dictatorships with more freedom(except political one) than many Democracies.

DavidBernstein wrote: "That eugenics had strong support on the Progressive left in its 1920s heyday is a widely known fact"

Can you provide me with a source for this fact? (And please, no blogs - just reliable, verifiable sources).

jukeboxgrad said:

=================
malvolio:

he [FDR] put 110,000 people into concentration camps

A better term is internment camps. Jews and others who were killed in concentration camps might prefer for that term to be reserved for places where people are killed.
=================

I would prefer the term concentration camp -- just as I would prefer that term be used for the concentration camps built and staffed (but not filled) under Title II of the McCarran Act (Red Scare Right Wing Reactionary time). I'd prefer the term "death camp" for the Nazi facilities like Auschwitz and Dachau (though this is just my lone opinion).

DavidBernstein said:
============================
For that matter, a lot of Jews in my experience seem to think that Republicans are crypto-anti-Semites, in the face of polling data showing Democrats are, as a group, substantially more anti-Semitic than Republicans, and despite the fact that I doubt there has never been a period in American history where Republicans as a group were clearly substantially more anti-Semitic than Democrats.
============================

Your source, sir? I don't believe Republicans are more likely to be anti-Semites and I had not seen any data showing that Democrats are more anti-Semitic than Republicans. (For the record, I am both a registered Republican and a Jew).

lucklucky said:
===========================================
This David post appears a bit paranoid :)

Socialism is about live engineering, control. An American(or for that matter in most Western World countries) born today has much less freedom than 20 years ago and the path is to have even less in 10 years. Soon there will be dictatorships with more freedom(except political one) than many Democracies.
===========================================

When I was born, it was not uncommon for employment ads to read "WCM needed" (translation: White Christian Male needed, or "Jews, Colored, Indian and Mexican need not apply"). When I was growing up, I was called "Jew Boy" and "Christ Killer". When I was a young adult, I had to run from a lynch mob (no, I am serious - had I not been in decent enough physical condition to outrun my pursuers, I have no doubt that there would have been a young Jewish man strung up by Texans some decades back - me). Fifty years ago, it was not uncommon for Jews and Blacks to not be permitted to buy real property (land) in many parts of the US. Things have gotten a LOT better in the last few years -- although I will admit it might be a bit rough on people whose sense of self-worth is dependent upon having an underclass that they can look down and spit upon.

n_shapero:

Your source, sir?

I realize the thread is long so you may have missed it, but several commenters have pointed out that Bernstein has failed to show sources for various claims he made. But he did make a suggestion about how money might solve the problem.

================
len:

Can you provide me with a source

You might find some helpful information here: pdf, link.

================
dunbar:

Do you have any sort of argument other than just insulting Catholics and the GOP?

If the argument I presented is beyond your comprehension, then I suggest you ignore it. But that seems to be what you're doing anyway.

And you should point out where I stated any insults without explaining how the insult was earned.

I've never encountered the term "cafeteria Catholic" before

Google is your friend. And in the other thread there was some discussion of the term.

it seems to have the same connotations as "Uncle Tom."

Only to someone who is ignorant. Uncle Tom means something entirely different.

I find that term [cafeteria Catholic] pretty offensive

I don't see why you would find it offensive unless you are one. I think that genuine Catholics would be offended not by the term, but rather by the behavior that the term describes.

but I don't expect you to stop as its part of your general tactic of demonizing the opposition.

If you can show where I made a claim about "the opposition" that I failed to support with evidence, that would be helpful. 'Demonize' means to portray as wicked. I have shown that the GOP is lying. Lying is wicked. Therefore the portrayal is accurate.

Then again, a well-connected cafeteria Catholic might be able to get a special dispensation for political lying, so maybe I shouldn't overgeneralize.

I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking

Neither do I (especially because their "talking" tends to be lying). Are you someone who created the mess? If not, then Obama's comment is not directed at you, and it shouldn't offend you. Just like the term 'cafeteria Catholic' shouldn't offend you unless you are one.

If you have a problem with the GOP's lack of influence on the bill, take it up with your guy.

One more in a long series of comments that are divorced from reality. Which of my words gave you the impression that I "have a problem with the GOP's lack of influence on the bill?" You have it backwards. In my opinion, the GOP has too much influence on the bill. And I alluded to that excess influence when I described the bill as a compromise.

The GOP is not against health care reform

Really? Maybe you forgot already, but the GOP used to be in power. Aside from an insurance-company giveaway known as Medicare Part D, the GOP didn't give us health care reform. Even though we need it, and have needed it for years. This observation of reality is sufficient to demonstrate that the GOP is indeed "against health care reform." If they're not "against health care reform," then why didn't they give it to us when they had a chance to do so?

please stop with the despicable lie that the Catholic Church has compromised its position on abortion in order to support ObamaCare

Please stop pretending that I said something I didn't say. Where did I say that "the Catholic Church has compromised its position on abortion in order to support ObamaCare?" I didn't. I simply said, and demonstrated, that USCCB has announced goals that are highly congruent with the goals of the Democrats. And highly incongruent with the goals of the GOP. This fact is highly inconvenient to you, so you are working hard at running away from it.

It sounds like a Catholic talking.

There you go again, right on cue, ducking the question and running away from the facts. I asked you if someone urging Congress to provide "health care coverage for all people," and to "include access for all with a special concern for the poor" sounds more like a Democrat or a Republican. You say "it sounds like a Catholic talking." Really? Does that mean you are in favor of universal health coverage, mandated by Congress? Does that mean you want Congress to provide "health care coverage for all people," and to "include access for all with a special concern for the poor?"

You said those words "sound like a Catholic talking." Do they sound like you talking?

jukeboxgrad said:
==============================

(in response to my comment)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
n_shapero:
Your source, sir?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I realize the thread is long so you may have missed it, but several commenters have pointed out that Bernstein has failed to show sources for various claims he made. But he did make a suggestion about how money might solve the problem.
==============================

And at the point you linked to, his request for $450 an hour indicates to me that he is charging somewhat more than I'd expect to see from a patent attorney ($300 per hour) for what amounts to verification of a statement made by the individual in question.

As I have said elsewhere, the truth IS out there, but so is a lot of BS. People who cannot (or will not) explain HOW or WHERE their data comes from are condemned, in my mind at least, to fall into the BS-er category.

If someone is wrong, or going off of memory only (hence not able to provide a source, I'll accept the "I remember reading it somewhere" statement, and simply weigh the argument provided accordingly, without drawing any conclusions as to the reasoning capacity of the individual in question.

n shapero:

Steve Chapman addresses your position in the Chicago Tribune:

He (Obama) says though the United States spends more per person on medical care than any other nation, "the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren't any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend substantially less than we do are actually living longer than we do."

That's one of the favorite rationales for a government-led overhaul. But it gives about as realistic a picture of American medicine as an episode of "Scrubs."

It's true that the United States spends more on health care than anyone else, and it's true that we rank below a lot of other advanced countries in life expectancy. The juxtaposition of the two facts, however, doesn't prove we are wasting our money or doing the wrong things.

It only proves that lots of things affect mortality besides medical treatment. Heath Ledger didn't die at age 28 because the American health care system failed him.

One big reason our life expectancy lags is that Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks.

In their 2006 book, "The Business of Health," economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out. Their answer? First place.

That discovery indicates our health care system is doing a poor job of preventing shootouts and drunk driving but a good job of healing the sick. All those universal-care systems in Canada and Europe may sound like Health Heaven, but they fall short of our model when it comes to combating life-threatening diseases.

Some of those foreign systems are great, as long as you don't get sick. Samuel Preston and Jessica Ho of the Population Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania examined survival rates for lung, breast, prostate, colon and rectum cancers in 18 countries and found that Americans fared best.

The U.S. also excelled on other measures, such as surviving heart attacks for more than a year. Why? Because our doctors and patients don't take no for an answer. The researchers attribute the results to "wider screening and more aggressive treatment." Another factor is that we get quicker access to new cancer drugs than anyone else.

Critics say all those great medicines and therapies are cold comfort to Americans who lack insurance -- which by any standard is our greatest shortcoming. People without coverage are more likely to do without needed treatment or preventive care and more likely to die from disease or accidents.

But they have it better than you might think. Some 62 percent of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their medical care. That is probably because they get a lot of uncompensated treatment from the most advanced, ambitious and capable medical system in the world.

In Britain, by contrast, having guaranteed access to care doesn't mean you'll actually get it. Twenty percent of British cancer patients who might be cured become incurable while awaiting the treatment they need.

I haven't read the studies on which Chapman relies. I do wonder, however, whether a simple cost-life expectancy comparison adequately considers factors relevant to justifying any overhaul that Obama is trying to push through.

If Malhotra/Margalit had controlled for the variables I mentioned, I think they would have said so.

More of your false -- and baseless -- claims masquerading as opinions but then treated as fact.

But they didn't say so. If we had the full study, we would know for sure if they did or not. Let me know if you ever find it. In the meantime, feel free to assume they used a valid methodology, even though they didn't provide enough information to demonstrate that your assumption is correct. I'm not inclined to make the same assumption, because I prefer evidence to faith.

For all I know, they didn't conduct a study at all, and simply used a random number generator to come up with their data. I don't know that. But what I do know is that you still don't understand what the phrase "controlled for variables" means, which is something different than having a valid sample.

No, it's not "an entirely different concept." It's the same concept. Because the point of "controlling for" various variables like race is to compensate for the fact that the sample might not be valid (that is, truly representative of the overall population you're trying to learn about).

Wrong. That is not what controlling for variables refers to.

They didn't have to explicitly say the study "should not be considered valid" because that's obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of statistics, given the problem that was pointed out.

Then, evidently, you don't have a rudimentary understanding of statistics. QED.

I didn't "dishonestly insinuate" anything. I expressed a hunch, and I labeled it as such.

You "labeled it as such" and then immediately treated it as fact -- which is the dishonest insinuation -- even though here is the evidence you had for your "hunch": .

I've tried pretty hard to find one, and haven't been able to.

Really? Pretty hard? Because all you had to do was google Democrats are more anti-semitic than Republicans, which would lead you to this link right up top, which would give you a pointer to this study. Took all of 30 seconds.

Except for the fact that what USCCB says it wants to accomplish bears a striking resemblance to what the Democrats are trying to accomplish. Especially with regard to the goal of the government providing universal coverage. What an odd coincidence.

Pretending that having the same goals means approving of the methods chosen to reach those goals is dishonest.

USCCB is urging Catholics to tell Congress to provide "health care coverage for all people," and to "include access for all with a special concern for the poor." Simple question: does that sound like a Democrat talking, or a Republican?

Catholic Charities is saying that they won't support any bill that allows or promotes the funding of abortions or that compels any health care provider or institution to provide such a service. Simple question: does that sound like a Democrat talking, or a Republican?

Again with the drama.

So you disagree with Chapman, though you have not read the studies on which he relies and you state no evidence to refute them.

Again, you seriously need to calm down. You reflexively attack people and indulge in name-calling simply because not everyone happens to agree with you. That does not speak well of you.

len:

you have not read the studies on which he relies and you state no evidence to refute them.

Your reading comprehension needs work. I cited an objective, positive review of Chapman's source which contradicts Chapman's paraphrase of that source. This is indeed "evidence to refute" what Chapman said.

Further, I demonstrated that the right-wing think tank that provided Chapman with his 'facts' is funded by some of the same people behind Betsy McCaughey, who is a proven liar. This is another reason to be skeptical of anything Chapman says.

Further, you have indeed already been shown studies (pdf, link,