Diane Watson (D- California) Health care town hall - she can't be serious?

I appreciate the thorough and well-documented refutation of Watson's points.

"SHE SAID NICE THINGS ABOUT CUBAN HEALTH CARE HOLY CRAP WHAT A FOOL!"

That's really about the gist of all you have there.
 
Well... Could've been worse I suppose... She could've been praising Hitler.

On behalf of Kaliforneya I have to apologize since we are idiots when it come to voting for stuff.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I appreciate the thorough and well-documented refutation of Watson's points.

"SHE SAID NICE THINGS ABOUT CUBAN HEALTH CARE HOLY CRAP WHAT A FOOL!"

That's really about the gist of all you have there.[/QUOTE]

What I heard was there have been a lot of stupid leaders she's met, and that Castro was one of the smarter idiots she met.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I appreciate the thorough and well-documented refutation of Watson's points.

"SHE SAID NICE THINGS ABOUT CUBAN HEALTH CARE HOLY CRAP WHAT A FOOL!"

That's really about the gist of all you have there.[/QUOTE]

You forgot to mention Fidel Castro. How convenient. I assume when a politician praises hitler, napoleon, or stalin you'll leave that out too?
 
[quote name='AdultLink']You forgot to mention Fidel Castro. How convenient. I assume when a politician praises hitler, napoleon, or stalin you'll leave that out too?[/QUOTE]

Castro = Hitler?

Forgive me if I have a little nuance to my worldview, and am not a black/white ideologue who can't grasp complexity.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Forgive me if I have a little nuance to my worldview, and am not a black/white ideologue who can't grasp complexity.[/QUOTE]

This is perhaps the most ironic thing I have ever seen on CAG.
 
Ho-HO! Quite a gotcha! Yes indeed.

That's what we're here for, right? Some real "zingers," eh? Like we're too smart to play "the dozens," but that's secretly what we long to do.

"Son, you be all up in here like Tip O'Neill at an open bar!"
"OOOOOOOOOOHHHHH SNAP!"

Let's overlook the absurd suggestion that all leaders of nations that the United States is positioned against are equal. Let's ignore topics of substance; we've got "yo' mama" jokes to make.

Because Hitler = Castro, right? Right? Right?
 
[quote name='AdultLink']You forgot to mention Fidel Castro. How convenient. I assume when a politician praises hitler, napoleon, or stalin you'll leave that out too?[/QUOTE]
Kids say the darndest thing. Stalin got the lol from me.
 
You're bitching about this? You?

[quote name='mykevermin']Ho-HO! Quite a gotcha! Yes indeed.

That's what we're here for, right? Some real "zingers," eh? Like we're too smart to play "the dozens," but that's secretly what we long to do.

"Son, you be all up in here like Tip O'Neill at an open bar!"
"OOOOOOOOOOHHHHH SNAP!"

Let's overlook the absurd suggestion that all leaders of nations that the United States is positioned against are equal. Let's ignore topics of substance; we've got "yo' mama" jokes to make.

Because Hitler = Castro, right? Right? Right?[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
Furthermore, I think we should continue the embargo. Fidel is about to give up.[/QUOTE]
Haha

Despite this lady being pretty off the mark, Cuba is only two ranks behind the U.S. according to the WHO. I think that's pretty telling.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I appreciate the thorough and well-documented refutation of Watson's points.
[/QUOTE]
How about the part where she talks about how They just "went out among the population to find a leader" and they happeded to find Castro, Ya they just "happened" to find someone who lead multiple revolets agaist the government and was a big figure in the revolution.

[quote name='mykevermin']
Because Hitler = Castro, right? Right? Right?[/QUOTE]
Beacuse censorship, politcal exictions, political oppresion, and forced labor camps that included beatings, biological experiments, violent interrogations and extremely unsanitary conditions, that doesn't sound like an evil dictator at all? Right? Right?

As far as the health care is concerned from what I've read Cuba does infact have good health-care.
 
See, why is it that nuance only comes out when pressed to do so?

My initial complaint was that lambasting Watson for saying nice things about Cuba was the problem. If you don't like Castro, or don't like how he came into power, or what he has done as a leader, fine. I would by and large agree with you.

I still think it's incredibly foolish to go to the lengths you have to argue that Castro=Hitler. You're really not just pulling a Godwin, but going back and looking at that claim, thinking it accurate?

But the OP doesn't begin to separate the claims of the quality of Cuban health care from Castro as a leader or her incorrect summation of Cuban history.

Instead we get "she can't be serious?" and "if she really believes what she's saying, it's mind-boggling." That's the depth of the analysis - vague assertions about the clip itself, and not a single attempt to break down the clip into nuances. We're led to assume that Heavy Hitter was talking about one thing or another. Me? I assume he's talking about the whole clip, because he didn't offer any nuance.

So you can have your zingers or quote your signatures, but the fact of the matter is that nobody in this thread has attempted to specify and point out that the world is more complex than "LOL CASTRO" except for willardhaven. You would prefer to get your internet jollies by attacking me instead of asking the OP what in the world he's saying Watson "can't be serious" about, or pointing out that it's an oversimplistic conclusion to come to.

You can have your laffs - but you'll know, just like I do, that you're doing so because you're incapable of a deeper conversation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']See, why is it that nuance only comes out when pressed to do so?

My initial complaint was that lambasting Watson for saying nice things about Cuba was the problem. If you don't like Castro, or don't like how he came into power, or what he has done as a leader, fine. I would by and large agree with you.

I still think it's incredibly foolish to go to the lengths you have to argue that Castro=Hitler. You're really not just pulling a Godwin, but going back and looking at that claim, thinking it accurate?

But the OP doesn't begin to separate the claims of the quality of Cuban health care from Castro as a leader or her incorrect summation of Cuban history.

Instead we get "she can't be serious?" and "if she really believes what she's saying, it's mind-boggling." That's the depth of the analysis - vague assertions about the clip itself, and not a single attempt to break down the clip into nuances. We're led to assume that Heavy Hitter was talking about one thing or another. Me? I assume he's talking about the whole clip, because he didn't offer any nuance.

So you can have your zingers or quote your signatures, but the fact of the matter is that nobody in this thread has attempted to specify and point out that the world is more complex than "LOL CASTRO" except for willardhaven. You would prefer to get your internet jollies by attacking me instead of asking the OP what in the world he's saying Watson "can't be serious" about, or pointing out that it's an oversimplistic conclusion to come to.

You can have your laffs - but you'll know, just like I do, that you're doing so because you're incapable of a deeper conversation.[/QUOTE]
Watson praises the Cuban Revolution, Che Guevara, Castro, and Cuba's health care system. Let's break this down.
1. Cuban Revolution:
The Cuban Revolution kicked out one horrible leader, and put in another. Sounds a bit like our elections, minus the political executions, forced labors camps, and other atrocities committed against Cuban citizens. Of course some of the idiots celebrated because "HE'S MY DICTATOR YEA!"
2. Che:
I don't get why anyone likes this guy or would praise him, considering that the opposition to him and Fidel was just killed. Also, he was one of the people behind the idea to put ICBMs in Cuba, and almost start a nuclear war. Also, he wanted to nuke us, and start a global thermonuclear war. Real great guy.
3. Castro:
Another great one. Like many dictators, he killed his own citizens and committed atrocities against them. Was he as bad as Hitler? No. Did he do some really fucked up things? Yes.
4. Cuban health care system:
Yeah, it's real great. Not only have they starved people to death, much like in North Korea, but unless you are an elite, or rich in Cuba, good luck getting any good care.
So, yeah, Watson, if you think that's something worth praising, wow.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']As far as the health care is concerned from what I've read Cuba does infact have good health-care.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='willardhaven'][...]Cuba is only two ranks behind the U.S. according to the WHO. I think that's pretty telling.[/QUOTE]

So, Cuba has worse health care than the US, but is "good". So what's with the need to reform the US system then? :)
 
The Cuba system is "good" in that it's more universal and affordable. It ranks lower as obviously they don't have the resources to have the quality of doctors, specialists, equipment etc. throught the country like the US does.

If the had those resources, they'd rank well above the US most likely, like many European countries etc.

Essentially Cuba has good health care coverage, but the quality of care provided isn't as good due to the economics of the country, embargoes etc. etc.
 
Do we really have to spell out how Cuba has suffered under Castro? Is anyone here either that uninformed or dishonest...or deluded?

As far as the WHO rankings go, they aren't entirely objective, IMO. I've see pictures and heard stories about how horrid the care is in Cuba if you're not on the "official tour".
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The Cuba system is "good" in that it's more universal and affordable. It ranks lower as obviously they don't have the resources to have the quality of doctors, specialists, equipment etc. throught the country like the US does.

If the had those resources, they'd rank well above the US most likely, like many European countries etc.

Essentially Cuba has good health care coverage, but the quality of care provided isn't as good due to the economics of the country, embargoes etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

So, essentially, what you're saying is that the "ranking" of a country's heath care system is a complex thing... something far beyond a simple number?

Does this mean everyone can stop throwing out "We're number #32 - We suck" now?
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']As far as the WHO rankings go, they aren't entirely objective, IMO.[/QUOTE]

Do tell. Can you back this up without going "stossel" on us?
 
Since that's the first time I've seen that article, I really didn't. Thanks for the link.

I'm with what he says about the "fairness" portion of the rating. I've seen criticism of that elsewhere - I seem to remember something from the Cato Institute last year but I can't recall who wrote it.
 
Why is "fairness" a problem - that is, nonobjective - measure?

If access to healthcare is limited, what good is it if it's of high quality?
 
That's not what I'm talking about - I mean the "fairness factor" rating, which is used for something like 25% of the formula to figure out the score. The "fairness factor" not only penalizes due to people not being able to afford healthcare, but it also penalizes because some are not likely to have the same problem.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Kids say the darndest thing. Stalin got the lol from me.[/QUOTE]

Fidel Castro did the same things that both Hitler and Stalin did, only to a lesser degree.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']?[/QUOTE]

I think he means it penalizes a country in ratings if some people have better access to health care than others, which is inevitable in any system such as ours where some don't have the ability to pay for the same health care as those who have that ability. If you are part of the substantial majority who are covered, this isn't a problem for you, obviously. It's curious as to why this is included in the rankings unless they are measuring something other than the quality of care available. Of course, you may or may not think that is important in ranking how good health care is in each country, but it's not gospel truth.
 
And I'd argue that's absolutely a suitable proxy for average quality of care. Access to resources is just as (or more) important than having the resources themselves.

What good is care if you won't get it?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And I'd argue that's absolutely a suitable proxy for average quality of care. Access to resources is just as (or more) important than having the resources themselves.

What good is care if you won't get it?[/QUOTE]

That's fine, but people use the WHO numbers to say "see, US health care isn't as good as in other countries!" Well, yes, if you can't afford it. If you can, it's as good or better. I won't argue that people who are uninsured is a flaw in our system, or that there aren't other flaws that should be fixed. But we should be discussing the issue like adults instead of throwing out misleading numbers like the WHO rankings and "47 million uninsured!"
 
Maserati's are phenomenal automobiles to those who can afford them.

When you're measuring a nation's overall health rating, it wouldn't make any sense at all to consider technology unavailable to a large portion as if it were.
 
Yeah, any rankings of health care should be based on two things.

1. Access to health care. Doesn't matter how good it is if a decent chunk of the population can't afford access to it. Especially if a lot of the working lower class can't afford it.

2. The quality of care.

Most people here just don't care about number one as they have insurance and generally always have and always will, and/or they are just conservative and oppose any type of government handouts and think it should be every man for themselves when it comes to having access to health care. That or just general distrust of the government.

But I'm with Myke on this one, any ranking on nation's healthcare systems must include both quality of care and access/fairness.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Fidel Castro did the same things that both Hitler and Stalin did, only to a lesser degree.[/QUOTE]

Castro didn't/doesn't have the resources that Hitler or Stalin. Who knows how brutal Castro could have gotten if he had more resources. There's nothing to admire about any of them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And I'd argue that's absolutely a suitable proxy for average quality of care. Access to resources is just as (or more) important than having the resources themselves.

What good is care if you won't get it?[/QUOTE]
Okay, I'm sick and tired of this game of "You can't get health care in America if you can't pay for it." Believe it or not, most doctors will treat you for a reduced price or even free.
http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/470
This was a study done of physicians in Wyoming, which has a higher uninsured rate than the national average.
Close to two thirds claimed bad debt of over $10,000, and 29.3% noted forgiven debt of over $10,000.
Click to expand...
Bad debt is debt they never collected.
Several indicated a belief that Medicare prohibited variation in fee structure or made fiscal accommodations for non-Medicare insured patients.
Click to expand...
Based on our participation in the previously cited safety net case study,11 we conjecture that physicians do not like to think about how much care they are giving away and actually may be underestimating the amounts. Indeed, during some of those case study visits, physicians said we were welcome to look at their records but to please not inform them of our specific findings. They did not want to know what they were giving away. There are likely complicated psychological and economic reasons for this that have not been explored. Several respondents in this study indicated that they believed Medicare puts constraints on what can be given away, so some of the reticence to discuss the issue may be because of fear that disclosure of charging some patients less could be viewed as unethical or fraudulent. Alternatively, some physicians may choose not to know because of a concern that knowing might influence them to not provide needed care to the vulnerable in their communities. The overall reluctance to discuss may also help explain our relatively low response rate for this study.
Click to expand...
Also, did you know that the Mayo Clinic, along with many other care centers, receive charitable contributions so that they can provide free and reduced price care to those who need it? Did you know that there was such thing as a sliding fee scale at most care centers, that charges you based on income? Did you know that the we have a program in Minnesota called Minnesotacare that offers low cost health insurance to those who need it, with premiums that are based on people's incomes?
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/mncare.pdf
Total payments for health care services provided through MinnesotaCare were $434 million in fiscal year 2007.
Click to expand...
That's cheap.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Okay, I'm sick and tired of this game of "You can't get health care in America if you can't pay for it." Believe it or not, most doctors will treat you for a reduced price or even free.
http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/470
This was a study done of physicians in Wyoming, which has a higher uninsured rate than the national average.[/quote]

I think you need to reconsider this study in terms of what "general practitioners" are trained and/or permitted to do. They don't perform surgery, they solely practice primary care and likely family medicine along with it. They'll write prescriptions for you, they'll give you a battery of tests, and they'll see you out the door. But you're going to specialists for surgery, for specific treatment, for rehabilitation. They're subsidizing $30 office visits, not the kind of care that costs considerably more (that is, the health care whose access is limited due to its cost).

So this study is of limited generalizability (it identifies one state and only one state, so it can't be extrapolated to include others), and focuses on "safety net care" provided by the cheapest end of the health care system.

People may not be able to afford visits to the GP, but that's an even worse indictment of the health care system than you imagine. How do I know this? Because you cited this study thinking it showed the benevolence of the health care system, when you're citing a limited sample that reinforces that people can't afford to get their feet in the door of primary care providers.

Also, did you know that the Mayo Clinic, along with many other care centers, receive charitable contributions so that they can provide free and reduced price care to those who need it? Did you know that there was such thing as a sliding fee scale at most care centers, that charges you based on income? Did you know that the we have a program in Minnesota called Minnesotacare that offers low cost health insurance to those who need it, with premiums that are based on people's incomes?
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/mncare.pdf
That's cheap.
Click to expand...

Access and affordability. If we had it such that you think we have it, our life expectancy would be drastically higher, and therefore we'd be much higher on the WHO list.

What your argument neglects:
1) Two-thirds of all bankruptcies are in whole or in part due to health care
2) The doubling of health insurance costs over the past decade, predicted to double in the next ten
3) Denial of care happens under insurance, so even those who are covered aren't given care
4) Health outcomes at the national level refute your idea of open access to health care in the US.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think you need to reconsider this study in terms of what "general practitioners" are trained and/or permitted to do. They don't perform surgery, they solely practice primary care and likely family medicine along with it. They'll write prescriptions for you, they'll give you a battery of tests, and they'll see you out the door. But you're going to specialists for surgery, for specific treatment, for rehabilitation. They're subsidizing $30 office visits, not the kind of care that costs considerably more (that is, the health care whose access is limited due to its cost).

So this study is of limited generalizability (it identifies one state and only one state, so it can't be extrapolated to include others), and focuses on "safety net care" provided by the cheapest end of the health care system.

People may not be able to afford visits to the GP, but that's an even worse indictment of the health care system than you imagine. How do I know this? Because you cited this study thinking it showed the benevolence of the health care system, when you're citing a limited sample that reinforces that people can't afford to get their feet in the door of primary care providers.[/quote]
I know this. I read the study. When we have where people can't even pay a couple hundred to see a doctor, there are some serious problems with this country. We used to be the most egalitarian country in the world. We used to be the land of opportunity. Now, our economy is controlled by a group of maybe a hundred of the most wealthy people in the world. The gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is the highest it has ever been. Everything is falling apart in this country, as a large amount of people can barely even provide for their families. People aren't making enough money to get by at the remaining jobs that we have left. This health care situation is just another symptom of that. We don't make anything anymore! 72% of our economy is consumer spending. We have no productive capacity anymore. We've shipped all of our jobs overseas. We are an empire in decline. We need to get back on track before we end up like the USSR. (I don't mean turn into a Communist country. I mean have a complete and total collapse) And a health care bill that keeps allowing Pharma to charge us huge prices for drugs doesn't help. Cutting Medicare doesn't help. Doubling the deficit in 10 years doesn't help. Giving over 12 trillion so far in bailouts doesn't help.

Access and affordability. If we had it such that you think we have it, our life expectancy would be drastically higher, and therefore we'd be much higher on the WHO list.

What your argument neglects:
1) Two-thirds of all bankruptcies are in whole or in part due to health care
Click to expand...
At least people are getting care.
2) The doubling of health insurance costs over the past decade, predicted to double in the next ten
Click to expand...
I wonder how much of that is devaluation of the dollar?
3) Denial of care happens under insurance, so even those who are covered aren't given care
Click to expand...
Just because your insurance won't pay for it doesn't mean you can't get it.
These hospitals and care centers receive endowments to help pay for treatment for people who can't afford it. Is it a solution? No. It does help until we can get back on track though.
4) Health outcomes at the national level refute your idea of open access to health care in the US.
Click to expand...
I don't think people realize that you can get care even if you cannot afford it.
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf

This is part of the reason why I have contempt for those saying we should wait to enact reform.[/QUOTE]
I don't think people realize that you can get care even if you cannot afford it. Why pass a terrible bill to supposedly help people, when it will do nothing of that sort? Oh, right because Barack Obama and co. love being Dr. Feelgood.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I don't think people realize that you can get care even if you cannot afford it.[/QUOTE]

You don't really understand what "get care" means. You will not be turned away for emergency care, this is true. You can and will be turned away from a GP, or prohibited from having major surgery, if you do not pay your bills or can not afford the deposit required for much surgery.

You're far too often turning ungeneralizable aspects into universal truths for all elements of health care nationwide. It does not help your argument at all.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You don't really understand what "get care" means. You will not be turned away for emergency care, this is true. You can and will be turned away from a GP, or prohibited from having major surgery, if you do not pay your bills or can not afford the deposit required for much surgery.

You're far too often turning ungeneralizable aspects into universal truths for all elements of health care nationwide. It does not help your argument at all.[/QUOTE]
No, you don't understand. Let's say you have cancer, but have no insurance, and can't pay for treatment. You can make arrangements to get the treatment that you need from the Mayo Clinic or another similar care center. These hospitals and clinics receive charitable funding in order to do this. Some places may turn you away, but there are places where you can get treatment if you cannot afford it. These places do it as a form of charity.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So all citizens are covered for all ailments at no cost?

Are you really arguing this?[/QUOTE]

No, what I am saying, is if you urgantly need care, but cannot afford it, there are ways to get it. Also, that the problems with the health care system are symptoms of something larger, the decline of empire America.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So all citizens are covered for all ailments at no cost?

Are you really arguing this?[/QUOTE]

I'll argue it. Yes, all citizens are covered by our current system. Everybody declaring medical bankruptcy are just whiners.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']No, what I am saying, is if you urgantly need care, but cannot afford it, there are ways to get it. Also, that the problems with the health care system are symptoms of something larger, the decline of empire America.[/QUOTE]

Define urgent.

You were overgeneralizing before and now you're being vague.

I also want to emphasize your responses from earlier. My points are italicized, yours bold. I'm not going to comment on them because I don't feel they need it. They stand on their own.

1) Two-thirds of all bankruptcies are in whole or in part due to health care.
At least people are getting care.

3) Denial of care happens under insurance, so even those who are covered aren't given care.
Just because your insurance won't pay for it doesn't mean you can't get it.

4) Health outcomes at the national level refute your idea of open access to health care in the US.
I don't think people realize that you can get care even if you cannot afford it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Define urgent.[/QUOTE]
By urgent care, I mean care they need to live.
You were overgeneralizing before and now you're being vague.

I also want to emphasize your responses from earlier. My points are italicized, yours bold. I'm not going to comment on them because I don't feel they need it. They stand on their own.

1) Two-thirds of all bankruptcies are in whole or in part due to health care.
At least people are getting care.

3) Denial of care happens under insurance, so even those who are covered aren't given care.
Just because your insurance won't pay for it doesn't mean you can't get it.

4) Health outcomes at the national level refute your idea of open access to health care in the US.
I don't think people realize that you can get care even if you cannot afford it.
Click to expand...
Hey, at least people can actually get care they need. I've said it before, it's a crappy system, and we need reform, not just of the health care system, but the entire economy and government, and that doesn't mean we should ram through a health care bill that will screw everyone over.
 
So if I have cancer but it's not diagnosed as terminal, and I can't afford chemo, and the insurance I paid thousands into refuses to pay for treatment, I won't get health care.

Glad we're finally on the same page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top