so than why are some of the top pokers those that most vocal about them in the republican party?
Will Scott Brown Kill ObamaCare?
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
so than why are some of the top pokers those that most vocal about them in the republican party?
this election according to 538 is still too close to call with but his models, and the assuptions their based off of have some caveats, has croakly up by .6.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/fivethityeight-still-rating.html for those of you who want the caveats
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/fivethityeight-still-rating.html for those of you who want the caveats
link to video
This is a fascinating interview of Martha Coakley this morning on a local TV station, focusing mostly on health care. Note how Martha Coakley dismisses the concerns that voters have about health care by claiming the voters are too “unfocused,” don’t really understand this issues involved, etc.
In particular, watch her adamant response to the question about the fact that 61 percent of voters in the Suffolk poll don’t think we can afford government-run health care. “Are they wrong?” the interviewer asks.
“They ARE wrong,” Coakley practically shouts—it’s her most passionate moment in the interview. She then suggests the issue is too “complicated” for the voters to grasp. She also shows she has no idea how health care works, erroneously claiming (among other things) that more medical screenings will save money. As everyone who has covered this issue knows, more screenings mean MORE money and higher costs (it’s that crazy “supply and demand” thing, Martha).
Don’t believe me? Here’s what the CBO had to say about it: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."
They can also save lives, so it may be good policy. But claiming preventative care will cut costs shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
So once again we’ve got an elitist, establishment liberal calling everyone else stupid, while demonstrating that she doesn’t understand even the most basic elements of ObamaCare.
Keep talking, Martha. You’re the best friend Scott Brown ever had
This is a fascinating interview of Martha Coakley this morning on a local TV station, focusing mostly on health care. Note how Martha Coakley dismisses the concerns that voters have about health care by claiming the voters are too “unfocused,” don’t really understand this issues involved, etc.
In particular, watch her adamant response to the question about the fact that 61 percent of voters in the Suffolk poll don’t think we can afford government-run health care. “Are they wrong?” the interviewer asks.
“They ARE wrong,” Coakley practically shouts—it’s her most passionate moment in the interview. She then suggests the issue is too “complicated” for the voters to grasp. She also shows she has no idea how health care works, erroneously claiming (among other things) that more medical screenings will save money. As everyone who has covered this issue knows, more screenings mean MORE money and higher costs (it’s that crazy “supply and demand” thing, Martha).
Don’t believe me? Here’s what the CBO had to say about it: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."
They can also save lives, so it may be good policy. But claiming preventative care will cut costs shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
So once again we’ve got an elitist, establishment liberal calling everyone else stupid, while demonstrating that she doesn’t understand even the most basic elements of ObamaCare.
Keep talking, Martha. You’re the best friend Scott Brown ever had
and you have shown you don't under about how the government works by calling it obamacare. and she kinda of right. very few people in the voting public understand, can understand, or care to understand complex issues like healthcare.
Or maybe you don't understand the English language and the use of metaphors.
No, shes quite wrong. Preventative screening, accorrding to the CBO, does not save money, it accually costs more. So, she says that its too complex for the average American to understand and turns around and makes a statement highlighting how clueless she is on healthcare.
Talk about irony.
nice the normal right wing attacks to being confronted. and no it is you whose english is bad. you didn't use a metaphor. A metaphor is a comparison you didn't compare you merely attached the name of someone you don't like to an idea you don't understand and don't like.
she is quite right preventive medicine where done with high probabilty of a disease lowers cost. from the new england journal of medicine
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661 the only thing your making apparent is your general lack of knowledge, refusal to research, and a extreme attachment to ideology.
also love the reading comp in how you ignore what was said to continue pushing your beliefs.
LOL, yeah you guys wish.
I listened to the video and I thought it was fine. I saw nothing elitist in her commentary. She spoke the truth. You know sometimes the majority can be wrong (e.g. george II and his merry band of Republicans these last 8 years). And a majority of people can be wrong, especially when they have been lied to and millions of dollars have been spent on a campaign of misinformation and confusion. A leader would not cringe and feed more bull shit on top already existing bullshit. But would rather say, hey that is bullshit and this is why. Which is what she did. I admire her for that interview.
If you really want to pick nits, I didn't write it, I copied n pasted, which you would know if you had followed the link and done some research.
That may be true in a European system, but the plan that was submitted by the Senate, the CBO said this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081302898.html
At this point I am not pushing my beliefs, I am stating the facts. Speaking of reading comprehension did you read your own link?
Preventative care like having regular check-ups will certainly save money. Greater use of of specific tests would not necessarily lower costs, since tests can often be negative. Having no tests would raise costs too, so an ideal test regime must be determined.
Maybe so, but for some reason I have little faith in our government to, not only make that determination, but implement it effectively to reduce costs.
Why? Maybe it's a lack of faith promoted by Republican ideology, and reinforced by deliberate incompetence on their part.
Sorry, but its the inds and dems that are starting to lack faith in Obamas hope and change, the reps didn't have it to begin with.
And deliberate incompetence? The reps red flags on Obama were generally correct, just look at who he has hired during his administration. The only Deliberate incompetence I see is the willfull turning a blind eye towards many of Obamas associations and voting for him anyway.
than the CBO is wrong and the NEJM is right. the more specific source wins out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081302898.html
But your "facts" are contradicted by the facts
yes and it defended my point well. that preventive care when done intelligently reduces costs.
because rather than do what we voted him in for he is cattering to people like you who will block anything if its not their ideology and don't care who gets harmed for it.
Do you read the post you are responding to before responding?
From your more specific source...
See above.
Since you can't seem to keep track of the distinction between "medical screenings" and "preventive medical care", I have no idea what Coakley actually said or meant without listening to the video.navigator said:
And the video doesn't matter - nothing Coakley can possibly have said would make her an inferior candidate to anyone endorsed by the current Republican establishment, "conservative" media and think tank punditry, and talk radio intellectual hegemony.
I also can't tell whether anyone actually ran solid numbers and discovered that it was cheaper to avoid prevention and only treat serious illness when it causes a crisis, but I can't help but think that some of the cost savings of prevention and early treatment were left out somewhere - either that, or the analysis was of the same kind as the ones that show it would be medically cheaper to have everybody smoke cigarettes, because of the savings in care of the aged (there being many fewer of them, in such a scenario).
No. The Reps red flags were that Obama would be leading a unified, one Party government full of nominated leftist ideologues as it brought socialism to dominate US federal domestic policy.navigator said:
None of that was "generally correct". None of it was even non-stupid.
The lefty red flagging was that Obama was a center-right politician with no real power base in Congress, who would probably end up compromising far too much with corporate interests he found congenial while being unable to make the serious changes immediately necessary even where he wanted to make them.
So far, that has been generally correct.
There's nothing wrong with the term, Obamacare. He's the driving force behind the bill. He's the reason they're trying to ram it thru before his state of the union speech. He wants to be able to brag about it. In fact, he wants to be able to brag about it so badly that he doesn't even care what's in the bill anymore. So long as some bill called healthcare reform passes he'll be happy.
No, he isn't. His absence during the composition and negotiation of the bill has been noted by many - usually disappointed - people.madanth said:
That doesn't make it his bill.madanth said:
He has had very little input into the bill, at any stage.madanth said:
And the people who want him to brag about it are far more interested in the coming November elections than in Obama's ego itself. Just as the people attempting to block it are far more interested in those elections than in the state of medical care delivery in the US.
If true, yet another reason to not call it Obamacare.madanth said:
During the Congress's Christmas break Obama called several congressman and senators of the democratic party to the White House to discuss how to get the Healthcare bill Forced through Congress by his State of the Union speech in Febuary.-ABC News and the Associated Press.
and? it doesn't refute my point it helps it.