It's not enough to help, you must punish success and prudence too
Posted by aogMonday, 14 October 2013 at 13:13 TrackBack Ping URL

Other people are starting to notice that not only does POR-care raise insurance rates, it also negatively affects coverage with regard to deductibles.

My question for anyone who support POR-care is, why is it necessary to control how I spend my health care insurance premiums? How does that benefit anyone except the power grubbing appartchiks that populate the State? Given how few additional uninsured will now get insurance, what is the putative point of POR-care? Is it just because the State can’t tolerate success by others and must destroy it?

Finally, can any one help me understand all the people who deeply distrust the government and politicians yet consistently support giving them ever more control over our lives? “Yeah, those guys are corrupt, childish, selfish, and out of touch — let’s have them control our health care too!”. How can that seem like a reasonable thing to so many people?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Robert M Mitchell Jr. Monday, 14 October 2013 at 13:55

Well, no. It honestly follows from the logic. If everyone is to be insured, including the people who have already “lost the bet”, then everyone’s rates have to rise. Q.E.D.. Even though the numbers signing up have been very, very small, no insurance company with an ounce of brains would not plan for the millions of “uninsured” which will show up at the worst possible time, and, guaranteed, will only show up when they NEED someone else to pay their bills. And that’s before the scammers.…..

erp Monday, 14 October 2013 at 14:25

Robert, your point is well taken. The same people who complain that they can’t get cheap insurance because of pre-existing conditions, freely admit they didn’t get insurance before the condition because they didn’t need it and why pay for something they didn’t need?? Not only that, but now they say, they will pay the fine rather than sign up for Obamacare right away. They’ll just wait until they need treatment and then signup.

Trying to explain exactly what insurance means is a lost cause — be nice if the media tried though.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 14 October 2013 at 14:30

Robert;

I understand why rates have to rise. My question was, why is it also necessary to control what policies I can buy? I can’t even buy my old policy at increased rates, it’s forbidden.

Clovis Monday, 14 October 2013 at 16:21

Finally, can any one help me understand all the people who deeply distrust the government and politicians yet consistently support giving them ever more control over our lives?

Well, I don’t. As I stated before, I favor universal health care, which usually means only to pay and provide health care to those who can not pay.

Why your country decided to do that by further restricting the health insurance market is, ironically, a consequence of the deep mistrust your fellow citizens had on the more standard solution, which would be to set up public funded hospitals and taxes to pay for it (that would be socialism!).

So they went for a “market based solution” on health care, which now, you discover, means less freedom on your choices.

For all the problems with universal health care in other places, it usually does not interfere with people’s private choices of insurance.

But who knows you indeed devised a good, new and robust way of doing that? The jury is out there.

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Monday, 14 October 2013 at 17:12

AOG, it is not “forbidden” to buy your old policy. What is forbidden is your old insurance company denying that policy to someone because of, say, a “pre-existing” condition (Which, alas, was the point of Insurance, the sharing of Risk.). No company can offer your old policy and stay in business, but is isn’t “forbidden”.….…..

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 14 October 2013 at 18:03

Robert;

No. The actual terms have changed. For instance, maternity coverage. POR-care sets specific standards in terms of coverage for plans and ones that do not meet it may not be sold.

Clovis;

Universal health care is more control of our lives by government. It means the government is going to spend my money on my health care without any choice by me. In some cases, I could still (if I had any money left over) buy what I really wanted, but that’s still a big chunk of my paycheck spent by some appartchik instead of me. Further, there is no way a single payer can spend that much in a sector and not de facto control it. So, yes, you favor giving politicians more control of our lives and money. I just think you don’t deeply distrust them, regardless of your claims of cynicism.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 14 October 2013 at 18:05

I also have to say that I simply can not trust people whose reaction to the news “we can’t do the right thing” is to go off and do the wrong and stupid thing.

Clovis Monday, 14 October 2013 at 18:12

AOG,

—- I just think you don’t deeply distrust them, regardless of your claims of cynicism. —- It is a smart move of yours to turn that on me. Yes, cynicism can run both ways.

I do not know how to convince you that govt. involvement is not necessarily domination of the field. It is my everyday reality: the private system here is mostly uncoupled to the public one. The fact that the public one is so ineffective, and waste lots of taxpayer’s money, is not something I am proud of. But, if freedom is what bothers you so much, I tell you, the existence of the public option does not affect my freedom in any other way than biting me with taxes.

The other option - to deny those politicians access to my money for health care - has a price that you, in your own safe and protected reality within the richest country in the world, can hardly understand.

Clovis Monday, 14 October 2013 at 18:15

I also have to say that I simply can not trust people whose reaction to the news “we can’t do the right thing” is to go off and do the wrong and stupid thing.

If that’s directed to me, I can assure you I have no idea what you mean.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 14 October 2013 at 18:46

Clovis;

I don’t know how to convince you that “involvement” is so weak a term for the government buying a product for every citizen that it is effectively disingenuous.

Um,

the public one is so ineffective, and waste lots of taxpayer’s

which means

to deny those politicians access to my money for health care - has a price

that is only not wasting a lot of taxpayer’s money, since it is otherwise ineffective, according to you.

My other quote about trusting was in reaction to you writing

Why your country decided to do that by further restricting the health insurance market is, ironically, a consequence of the deep mistrust your fellow citizens had on the more standard solution, which would be to set up public funded hospitals and taxes to pay for it (that would be socialism!).

So they went for a “market based solution” on health care, which now, you discover, means less freedom on your choices.

Since those politicians couldn’t do what you consider the right thing, they did something stupid. Why should I trust people like that, or let them do more stupid things? Also, I realized that from the start, it’s not something I recently discovered.

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Monday, 14 October 2013 at 19:04

Right AOG, everyone is to be insured, and to be insured, everything has to be covered.….….

Clovis Tuesday, 15 October 2013 at 12:16

AOG,

[…] that is only not wasting a lot of taxpayer’s money, since it is otherwise ineffective, according to you.

Ineffective does not mean useless - or at least, it is not what I mean with it. It means sub-optimal, it could be much improved.

And the price to pay for not having this system, in our conditions and reality, is a human catastrophe of proportions you barely conceive. The system works bad, but without it things would still be much worse.

A transition to a system with less dependence on govt. would take such a change in our present culture, that it hardly can be conceived in short terms. It would probably be a better system, but no one knows how to go that direction.

And, no, the main problem is not so much the low income voters, as if they were enslaved by the present system. It is really the elite, who have not a clue on how to manage anything efficiently. Since 500 years ago.

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Tuesday, 15 October 2013 at 17:45

“And the price to pay for not having this system, in our conditions and reality, is a human catastrophe of proportions you barely conceive.”? Please, Clovis, not at all or in any way true. Not only did we not have this system for the last 500 years, to use your time scale, and do pretty good, but I had a roommate who had no Health Insurance. He had a Heart Attack. He got all the medical help he needed, and is doing fine. When they found out he had no health insurance, and was unemployed, they worked out a payment schedule with him, something like five bucks a week. Hardly a “Human Catastrophe!”, and given that he is only alive because of medical advances that are stopped cold by “the system”, rather the opposite.…..

Clovis Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 09:18

Robert,

Sorry, there is a misunderstanding here: when I say “in our conditions and reality”, I am not talking about “our” as we here in the blog, but “our” as we the people where I live (Brazil).

AOG knows it, so that’s why I was not more explicit. See that 500 years is our time scale (513, to be more precise) - while the US begun only later on.

I would like to present to you, though, other story of a fellow citizen of yours:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/kristof-a-possibly-fatal-mistake.html?ref=nicholasdkristof&_r=0

If, after you read it and feel the guy deserved what he got, please read on the next one too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/opinion/kristof-scotts-story-and-the-election.html?ref=nicholasdkristof

I agree your present system (e.g. before ACA) is indeed no “human catastrophe”, even though it is not an optimal system - in the sense that your health care numbers, comparing with other rich nations, are not really good. I understand AOG, and other conservatives, truly believe the ACA will make it worse. I am waiting a few years to see who is right.

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 13:49

Alas, Clovis, I have lived under a Socialized medical system, for my father was career Navy. A socialized system makes those problems more, not less likely, for it is much harder to sue the Government then it is a corporation. And, of course, a socialized system is going to be very like a monopoly, if not a monopoly in fact, because the same bureaucrats running the socialized system are regulating the private one.……

Ah, the “health care numbers”. And our numbers looked very bad compared to the Soviet Union, right up until it fell. I know for a fact that our child survival rate is lower then other countries because what we call a live birth, other countries call stillborn. It is both true and untrue, because they would be stillborn in other countries, which do not have access to the level of medical care we in America do. Then there is the ugly fact that bureaucracies are legendary in their lies. I think the core reason our “numbers” look bad is because our private sector medical system has to be honest, while the foreign socialized medicine must be dishonest (for those systems are linchpins of the governments which have them, a source of National Pride. Honest, bad, numbers would see quick and ugly purges of the very people who made the mistake of being honest.).

Clovis Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:35

Robert,

Sorry but you make a too easy generalization.

There are probably some countries with public health care systems that enter your description above. But there are other ones which work well and efficiently, at lower costs than your private one. A honest analysis need to take both cases in account.

You can see that even within your country, where the costs of medicare and medicaid are better than the private system, with no great difference in end results.

As for faking numbers, well, I believe it may happen in too closed countries and dictatorships, but it is way harder to do in democracies. Health Care is hard to mask, for their results are very apparent.

I understand from your experience that you lived in another country with your parents - which one it was? Did they have a poor health care system?

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 18:14

Really? Which countries work well and efficiently, at lower costs then our private one? (Remembering that we don’t really have a private system, thanks to medicare and medicaid, and federal laws that require hospitals treat anyone who comes to their emergency room, without identification or payment.) Are these countries known for their medical innovations, or are they, like so much of the world, freeriders on the American private sector?

If the costs of Medicare and Medicaid were actually better then the private system, perhaps there would not have been such a push for ACA. One of the selling points of that mess was that it would fix the exploding costs of those systems.…..

Is it harder to do? I think not, when it comes to comparing countries, which is what is being done here. There is no “standards board” for a lot of these terms and measurements. Again, what is Stillborn vs. Premature birth? Are countries that try extra hard to save the child to be penalized? That’s where we seem to be now, with America being mocked for it’s “poor health care”, because we do not just throw up our hands over Heart Attacks, Cancer, and yes, Premature births.

Ah, no I lived in America, save for a tour in Spain. The socialized health system was that of the U.S. Navy. They were pretty good at trauma, but the bureaucracy was what any honest person would expect, inferior. Ah, “We can’t take off that cast, we didn’t put it on!”. One of many charmingly stupid moments I lived through (I was quite the clumsy child).

Clovis Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 18:39

Robert,

I hope you realize your experience in the U.S. Navy may be very well different from most other countries with universal health care.

Are these countries known for their medical innovations, or are they, like so much of the world, freeriders on the American private sector?

There are two things we need to differentiate here in this discussion.

First, that Health Care is not about innovation and new technology. It is to put to good use the standard technology around, maximizing the health of your population.

Second, that all this pride for the American innovation should be used with more discretion. The reasoning here is “We have the best technology, and we have a private system of Health Care, so the second implies the first!”. If it looks self evident for you, it doesn’t for me. Do you believe the ACA, for example, will dump innovation in new biotechnology and medicine? You have the best scientific enviroment in the world, for many reasons, but none of them are anchored in your private health care system IMHO.

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 22:46

I am aware that the U.S. Navy is far superior to most other countries with “universal” health care. No need for bribes and connections, such as are needed in Canada (they did a movie about that, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338135/reviews) and Japan, where costs are controlled by access (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan), and where, I have been told by several Japanese (I visit Japan once a year) that they have to bring money as “gifts” to their doctors and hospitals, if they want timely and proper care. And those are First World Countries.….…

Health Care is, in fact, about innovation and new technology, as you admit with the weasel phrase, “standard technology around”. How, pray, do MRIs become “standard technology”? No, the other, “cheaper” systems are freeloading, making use of American discoveries while not paying for their development. Good work if you can get it, but the height of arrogance to lecture America on how expensive our system is, especially since the World’s Leaders come here for their care. Funny that, National Pride only goes so far when you are the one pushing the lies, maybe?

I do very much believe that the ACA will dump innovation in new biotechnology and medicine. I mean, duh. Bureaucrats hate “new” things, and responsibility. The FDA has been running amok, stopping everything they could, for over a generation. It will only get worse with Government control of the Insurance industry (Which is all the ACA really is). Just as our host has been denied his insurance because it was “incomplete”, he will be denied new biotechnology and medicine because they aren’t on the form.….

erp Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 10:30

Robert, about 20 or so years ago my husband was taken ill while we were in Paris (at our elder son’s wedding in fact) and was taken to the French version of the local ER. It was unspeakably disorganized and filthy. My younger son, who spent his junior year in Paris and speaks French fluently was with us, so they hopped to it a bit faster than ordinarily. Luckily we were on an early flight back home the next morning, so he survived the experience. On the plus side, it was freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Clovis Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 14:52

Robert,

On Canada and Japan: I believe you are focusing on the exceptions, anecdotal evidence that is not the rule.

But for your sake let’s take the worst case scenario, and assume the bribes are the rule. Did you check how much your Japanese friends are spending at the end of the day with their health care, compared to you? I understand the moral harassing associated to bribes, but looking only for the economic side of this situation, you look to ridicule them for doing what you already do: pay the doctor.

Now, taking aside you’ve not chosen a good example (MRI research was not developed only by Americans), you miss my point. I will try to make it clear with two questions:

1) Physics reasearch in the US is, overall, the best one in the world. Can you explain how it happened without a private “Physics Care System”? (Change Physics for Chemistry, Biology, or any other area of science, if you will).

2) Is the money of an American different from the money of a non-American? Where is this economic model you use to justify that all the money of Americans, channeled to profits of Health related industry, is worth, whiule all the money people outside the US pay those same companies is not? You will also need to justify why all the American companies are operating in most of the rest of the world, if the money thei receive there is that worthless.

I see you some relation with your health care system being private, and expensive, and you having very good technology. I jsut don’t believe you thought that through.

Try to think out of the box and adapt your argument to another market. For example, we here in Brazil pay a lot more for cars than you in US (independent of them being produced here or not). There are many reasons for that, but if I went for your logic, we should have the Best Cars Ever because our private car industry is so expensive and we pay so much. Strangely, it just ain’t so…

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 19:42

Ah, no, I pay the doctor a lot less, because I pay the doctor. Note that the wiki on Japanese Health care talked about that. “but utilization rates are much higher”. Yes, “free” runs out quickly, but expected changes even quicker. I pay the doctor once a year, and they “gift” the doctor seven or eight times.……

1) Ah, that happened with a “Private Physics Care System”, which is, of course, the lack of a system. We do not have a national Physics program, and we have done just fine, in fact, as you point out, we are the best in the world.……

2) I’m not sure what you are saying here. I think you are saying that American Medical companies make money off of foreigners as well, and so medical advancement would continue. But, alas, one of the big reasons “foreigners” pay so much less for medicine is because they make vigorous use of “Generic Drugs, etc.”. Generic drugs, of course, are no longer under patent protections and can be made by any manufacturer, and while profit will product, it will not, as a rule, go to the ones who developed it any longer. So the Americans, once again, are the ones footing the development bill (for we are impatient, and will not spend lives waiting out the Patent.…..).

3) Ah, no. Our system is expensive because it is not Private, having been ravaged by Government manipulation of the Insurance Industry (By tax-breaks and regulations) and Government regulation of Hospitals (Which, by law, must help people without any assurance of payment. Guess who makes up the difference?). Why would I think giving the Government more direct control of something they don’t understand would make things cheaper, without the rationing that always comes with Government control of prices? Why would I want to see Hospitals suffering, and People dying, because a Government that couldn’t handle the distribution of a fungible like Gas was put in charge of an intangible like “Health Care”?

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 22:59

Yes, Erp, it’s the old truth, “We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.”. The reason for “National Health Care” has, every time, been to control costs, and the biggest expense is always payroll. And the French health system seems to be the goal the British NHS is unable to reach. Endless stories of filth, corruption, lies, and bad to none existence service coming out of Britain.

Clovis Friday, 18 October 2013 at 11:32

RObert,

I believe you are not aware of the structure of financing of Physics, or science in general, of your own country. Most research in Physics is financed, directly an indirectly, by the government. Even the Ivy League universities draw nearly 80% of their financing from govt.

I also believe you have little experience on the medicine market of other countries. We do have generic drugs here in Brazil, for example, but that in no way makes people to wait for patents to expire: the original brand usually sells very well, before and after the patent expiration. Depending on the submarket in question, Pharma companies get more profit abroad than in the US.

If we are to discuss on superficial levels only, by personal experience and anecdotal evidence, I also can tell you of good experiences I had in the UK and Germany with their health systems. I do know many people in those countries happy enough with their Health Care. What does it prove? Just as your examples, pretty much nothing.

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Friday, 18 October 2013 at 15:38

That is the trick of it, “Indirectly”. You can say that everything the country does is directly or indirectly funded by the government, by your definition. So the government already controls the Health care system, according to you, and all that the ACA does is make health care more expensive by adding feather-bedded jobs, jobs that will cost billions without adding to our health services, but will slow things down as they attempt to prove they are needed. Why would anyone want that?

Quite true. But when dealing with big lies (And there certainly have been big lies. The Soviet Union was more efficient, provided for their people better then boring corrupt old Capitalism, remember? And then they fell. And now the same people are telling us that socialized medicine works better then boring old Capitalism. Funny that.), we have to look for informal clues, socialized numbers being so dishonest, after the fact. The Canadian movie about their health care system? A really big clue. Japanese complaining about their health care and not getting squashed like a bug? Big clue that something is wrong in River City, the Japanese are not kind to those who speak out of line (as the fights in their parliament shows). I must look at superficial levels,because, alas, the formal levels have shown themselves to be inaccurate on matters touching on Socialist issues. All the more reason to avoid a National Health Care System.….….

erp Friday, 18 October 2013 at 15:41

Robert as you may know, academic department value employees who know how to get grants. They aren’t looking for innovation or genius, just more bucks from Uncle Sap. I dare say there are no non-superficial studies stating that fact. Ever wonder why little or no breakthroughs come from academe? I don’t. I know why.

The people who are happy with the health care provided by their governments are either among the elite or managed to be cured in spite of it. Those unhappy are either dead or have come here for treatment.

Clovis Friday, 18 October 2013 at 16:51

Robert,

Your arguments are bordering on conspiration theory and things alike, sorry but I can’t argue with that.

And no, I do not remember much about Soviet Union times, I was a little kid when the wall went down. I can tell you though, that even then I rarely met anyone who thought their model to be good.

I do not think I know enough about ACA to either approve or disapprove of it. Sincerely speaking, I am yet to know an American blog commenter who looks to know much either. It is quite a view to see such a polemical topic be discussed with so much disinformation around. It is disheartening, for anyone who believed the Internet would make the world better informed, to see that its cacophony many times leads to the contrary.

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Friday, 18 October 2013 at 20:08

Not “Conspiracy Theory” sir, at best, conspiracy fact. Socialist systems have always had a problem with honest data.

Well, articles such as this one http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23674/marshall-i-goldman/a-balance-sheet-of-soviet-foreign-aid# were very common right up to the point the Soviet Union collapsed. We were lectured for years that we would have to learn to live with the Soviets, and that there was much we could learn from them. Thus Detente, as pushed by Mr. Kissinger. We were told “We have political freedom, they have Economic freedom”. We were told this by the same people pushing the ACA.…..

Well, then you haven’t been paying attention. Any law with 37000 pages is a bad one, to be disapproved of. And one with a additional 100000+ pages added by the bureaucrats who are, in theory, controlled by it? It is possible it might have turned out ok, but NOT the way to bet. It doesn’t take a tree to write down coherent thoughts.….

Of course the Democrats have spread disinformation around. They have wanted control of people’s health for over a hundred years. But they can’t admit that, thus all the lies about “lower premiums”, etc (Ha!). They will say anything, anything at all to get us to enter the cage. Then, well, we saw how brutal the Park Service can be. Of course the people manning the Death Panels will be kinder.….…

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 18 October 2013 at 21:50

Clovis;

I can tell you though, that even then I rarely met anyone who thought their [USSR} model to be good.

I have to agree, then you weren’t paying attention. Even text books in the USA up to the mid 1980s thought the economic systems were roughly comparable. There are entire books on the subject. If you want something recent, look up “Eric Hobsbawm”, who

was honored as one of Britain’s most distinguished historians

despite being a communist and an open supporter of the USSR until he died just last year.

I personally remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth when former President Reagan called the USSR the “Evil Empire”, which of course it was.

As for misinformation about the ACA, there’s not much we can do about Mr. Eagar - he really lives in his own little world.

erp Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 08:10

aog, his own little world indeed. I have stopped clogging up the ether with corrections of his outrageous statements like “Republicans tried to block civil rights legislation” when any sentient being is aware that it was Republicans who passed and Democrats, including Al Gore, Sr., who voted against.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 10:11

Yes, he apparently stopped reading here because it was insufficiently worshipful of President Obama and that conflicted with his world.

erp Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 13:41

I don’t remember exactly how he put it, but one is his points over at GG’s was whether people would tolerate a Hitler again. IMO people* would support a demon from hell if they were promised free stuff like Obamaphones, EBT cards, etc.

*of all colors and creeds

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 16:10

erp;

Yes, that does seem to be the case. It’s Chicago politics, as long as enough goodies are handed out to the right people, then the ruling class can basically do as they like little regard for law and justice. This inability to tolerate denigration of The Leader (after all the stuff that was said about former President Bush) is a key indicator of someone who’s made that choice.

Clovis Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 17:36

AOG,

As for misinformation about the ACA, there’s not much we can do about Mr. Eagar - he really lives in his own little world.

But I was in fact referring to you and Erp, AOG. Back there in GG you and Erp stated, in very explicit terms, that no one knew what was in the ACA - and you’ ve said so explicitly answering questions I did about ACA. Sorry, I do not have the time to go looking for your quotes on that right now, but I do remember so.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 17:58

Clovis;

No one knew what was in the ACA at the time it was passed. It’s been a few years since then, that has changed.

erp Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 19:54

Clovis, I stated nothing about what was in ACA in any terms except perhaps to say I don’t support any governmental interference in my health care or my insurance or really much of anything. I certainly said nothing in explicit terms. Your continued misstating what I say is completely unacceptable. In the future either use exact quotes or refrain from referring to my remarks. I have more than enough words of my own and don’t need any of yours.

erp Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 08:26

Update on my comment above that little of value comes from federal grants funding scientific research at universities because the focus becomes hiring people who know how to get more grants rather than innovation and genius.

Private funding made the difference here.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 10:04

Here is some more “misinformation” about the ACA and its implementation.

I will wait for Clovis to point out some actual specific “misinformation” I have provided. Even the vague memory of my statements he has above doesn’t contain any, although he seems for no apparent reason to think it does. Even if it included a confirming quote from then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (she of the “Pelosi-Obama-Reid”-care nomenclature).

Clovis Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 16:12

AOG,

I may, if you first provide me a quote were I’ ve said you stated any misinformation.

Bret Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 19:19

AOG wrote: “No one knew what was in the ACA at the time it was passed. It’s been a few years since then, that has changed.

My wife works the business side of health care, and at this point, it’s still true that no one person really comprehends all of Obamacare. There may well be “complete” understanding to some extent across numerous people, but it still makes it a difficult system to implement because of the wide range of disparate expertise required to make decisions.

Large corporations are in the same boat. However, they usually grew from a smaller size and developed much of that expertise incrementally. Also, those that did a bad job of growing that expertise didn’t survive so we weren’t stuck with squandering resources in those cases. Top-down implementations of enormous and massively complex systems like Obamacare are extremely risky.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 19:46

Clovis;

Here

As for misinformation about the ACA, there’s not much we can do about Mr. Eagar - he really lives in his own little world.
But I was in fact referring to you and Erp, AOG.
Clovis Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 21:06

AOG,

The above quote implies you have provided misinformation?

Robert M Mitchell Jr. Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 22:43

Yes, Clovis, it does. What did you think you were saying?

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 23:35

Clovis;

You wrote

It is quite a view to see such a polemical topic be discussed with so much disinformation around

I (semi-joking) deliberately misinterpreted this to mean Mr. Eagar (who sort of does, but he’s generally so vague it’s always hard to call what he writes “information”). You then confirmed, as I quoted, that you (as I understood all along) really meant erp and myself had been spreading misinformation.

So, yes, as with Robert, I don’t see any other interpretation.

Clovis Monday, 21 October 2013 at 09:02

AOG,

I made an affirmation implying people were not well informed. Then I included you among them, taking by memory your own affirmations of that.

In your opinion, to state people are not well informed is the same as to state they are willfully spreading misinformation?

Since yourself declared to be not well informed (or so I understood), it is clear you could not be spreading misinformation, for that requires someone stating he is informed enough (even if he is not) to pass on information around.

So, in effect, I was acknowledging your good faith. The contrary of your conclusion.

And I do not think this mistake is due only to my poor English. It is cognitive, you and Robert needed to see me as challenging your positions in every affirmation I make, because at some point in past I was the challenger. Your subconscious marked me as enemy. For someone who denies to be much influenced by your lower brain, AOG, you could work more on that most basic feelings.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 21 October 2013 at 09:24

to state people are not well informed is the same as to state they are willfully spreading misinformation?

To some extent, because if they’re not well informed, what else can they spread? One might also wonder where you think the “so much disinformation around” comes from, if not ill-informed commentors.

But it’s more because I specifically said “misinformation” with regard to Mr. Eagar, and you confirmed that for erp and myself, as shown in my quote above.

So, no, it’s not a basic feeling at all, it’s analysis of your text in context. I would note Robert came to exactly the same conclusion without that history.

erp Monday, 21 October 2013 at 09:27

I’m busy with a restart of my library project which was on hiatus for a year and which will take up a lot of my time and tax my patience with cleaning up messes of bad data and misinformation in the stacks. This is a manageable mess which in the end I will straighten up and leave in good order. Alas the mess which is the mind of a rabid lefty can’t be re-ordered no matter how much effort is made, so I will stop trying.

Harry and Clovis and other lefties which whom I speak non-electronically all suffer from the same problem. There are no arguments to support their, at this point totally discredited, belief that socialism* is the answer for world-wide peace and prosperity when even a cursory reading of the history of the 20th c. shows the opposite is true.

They must resort to personal attacks in the hopes we will become defensive and retaliate with personal attacks. Ain’t gonna happen.

Even so, apparently the left’s long war is finally coming to an end. I feel the purging of our top military leaders without so much as a murmur from the despicable RINO’s nominally in opposition, is last step in a complete takeover of the U.S. — tossing the Constitution and the rule of law down the drain. It won’t be long before buyer’s remorse sets in, but by that time it’ll be too late to upheave the huge bureaucracy and it might be a very very long time and probably a bloody battle before some brave young people turn them out.

*or whatever they’re calling it today.

erp Monday, 21 October 2013 at 09:34

It’s not working even in la Belle. :-)

Clovis Monday, 21 October 2013 at 10:30

AOG,

Your Harry citation and my answer have not the verb “spread” anywhere, nor any other active verb whatsoever. The passive act of being misinformed in no way implies the active one of spreading misinformation.

When I questioned you about points and consequences of the ACA you did not know, you stated you did not know. Simple as that. What spreading of misinformation did you practice? None.

So you transformed a lamentation by my part - that a so widely discussed topic was treated with little knowledge of the law - in a active attack on you.

Please, read my sentences up above again with care, and tell me again if the only possible conclusion is that I implied you are spreading misinformation.

erp Monday, 21 October 2013 at 10:40

More “documented” racism.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 21 October 2013 at 11:37

Clovis;

Well, I suppose I could have presumed the misinformation appeared from nowhere, without human intervention. I didn’t consider that a plausible interpretation. My fault.

But I would note that to support your view that I was reacting emotionally, it is not necessary for my interpretation to be the only plausible one, it must be that it was in fact implausible of itself.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 21 October 2013 at 12:00

erp;

Yes, I saw that one. I was planning on posting it to the Great Guys thread along with this attack by people who clearly must be Tea Partiers.

erp Monday, 21 October 2013 at 12:08

More on university research and federal grants.

Clovis Monday, 21 October 2013 at 20:06

Well, I suppose I could have presumed the misinformation appeared from nowhere, without human intervention. I didn’t consider that a plausible interpretation. My fault.

Misinformation happens all the time in most forms of communication. It is part of the error, of the standard deviation of every channel. Or, if you are tired of my physical analogies, I borrow from Mark Twain:

“As I write, now, many months later, I perceive that each of us, by observing and noting and inquiring, diligently and day by day, had managed to lay in a most varied and opulent stock of misinformation.”

Bret Monday, 21 October 2013 at 20:48

Damn, your English is good now. Before it was getting good, now it’s really good. And quoting Mark Twain to boot!

Clovis Wednesday, 23 October 2013 at 06:50

Thanks Bret, you are too kind. And a Mark Twain fan too.

Is the America he describes that you miss when talking about the good old more Libertarian times?

Bret Wednesday, 23 October 2013 at 09:53

Clovis asks: “Is the America he describes that you miss when talking about the good old more Libertarian times?

Well, no, probably not. I like modern sanitation, the Internet, cell phones, automobiles, etc. The best I can say is that perhaps those “good old more Libertarian times” helped propel America and the world into the modern age with all of these conveniences and technology and that a similar more Libertarian structure now might similarly help shape the future in a better way, at least from a material perspective. And when I say Libertarian, I really mean “less centralized.” I have no problem with local government, it’s a government far, far away, that I feel fleeces and oppresses me, that I strongly dislike.

I would probably be a discontent in any age, place, and regime. If the world was Libertarian, I’d probably be a communist. :-)

Post a comment