Political Discussion

[JRScott]

Was a great speech...a refreshing change from the eight years of babbling lies from George W. Bush.

You honestly think that Obama wasn't lying to you?

[WhatMoney]

DMC -

Did you read my post above? I really don't see the issue here. The 2001 and 2007 reports on medical related bankruptcy are the same authors, as they mentioned in their latest 2009 paper. Their latest research expanded survey coverage from 5 states to nationwide and increase sample size. They explained their methodology clearly. The "debunking" paper from Dranove and Millenson only questioned the definition of what medically related bankruptcy was, and then made some highly deceiving assumptions to arrive at a false number of 17%.

David Dranove and Michael L. Millenson are tools of the Health Insurance Industry. Their funding at Kellogg School of Business, where they are Professors of Health Industry Policy, comes from private insurance companies. They train insurance industry lobbyists. The funding for their 2005 paper attacking Himmelstein et al came from America’s Health Insurance Plans.

America’s Health Insurance Plans
Welcome to America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the voice of America’s health insurers. AHIP is the national association representing nearly 1,300 member companies providing health insurance coverage to more than 200 million Americans.
Our goal is to provide a unified voice for the health care financing industry, to expand access to high quality, cost effective health care to all Americans, and to ensure Americans’ financial security through robust insurance markets, product flexibility and innovation, and an abundance of consumer choice.

The criticism of Himmelstein is the typical response from the conservative anti health reform press. Himmelstein's data shows medical costs are a significant cause of bankruptcy. The private insurance industry does not want this to be known, since they fear it could encourage universal coverage with a government option. It's all about the insurance industry protecting their sizable profits.

The authors did respond to the Dranove and Millenson paper in 2006. Since I believe no one reads URL links, I will repeat it here:

Discounting The Debtors Will Not Make Medical Bankruptcy Disappear
By David U. Himmelstein, Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Thorne, and Steffie Woolhandler
Health Affairs
28 February 2006

David Dranove and Michael Millenson seem determined to deny that financial fallout from illness pushes middle-class families into bankruptcy. Anxious to erase the headline that three-quarters of U.S. medical bankrupts had health insurance at the onset of their illnesses and the resulting spotlight on inadequate coverage and insurance cancellation practices, they ignore most of our data and misrepresent the rest. They dismiss families’ explanations of their difficulties and blame those ruined by illness for their own problems. However, the data from the bankruptcy courts are undeniable. Bankruptcies affect mainly middle-class, privately insured families, and about half are triggered, at least in part, by illnesses.

Let’s be clear: Every number, percentage, and variation in how to interpret the data that Dranove and Millenson seize upon in attempting to dismiss our work came from our manuscript. We offered detailed breakdowns of our numbers so that different readers could weigh the data. Unfortunately, these commentators manipulate the data far beyond legitimate reinterpretation.

Their central claim is that no more than 17 percent of bankruptcies are medical-far lower than the 54.5 percent figure they attribute to us (in fact, we gave a range of estimates, from 46.2 percent to 54.5 percent, in anticipation of different possible interpretations of the data). In their effort to whittle down the number of medical bankruptcies, they ignore huge chunks of the data we reported. First, they assert that only the 28.3 percent of debtors who gave “illness or injury” as the specific reason for filing for bankruptcy could possibly be classified as “medically bankrupt.” Next, they narrow this group to include only the 59.9 percent who also cited bills from medical providers as a major contributor to bankruptcy. (These latter data came from our interviews with a subset of 331 debtors, not, as Dranove and Millenson state, from our questionnaire survey of 1,771 filers.)

Thus, their calculation rests on responses to two items from our data, disregarding the hundreds of other pieces of data we collected that give a fuller and more accurate picture of the reasons for filing for bankruptcy. Moreover, they misrepresent both items.

Dranove and Millenson portray medical debtors as irresponsible deadbeats, their plight a result of bad choices analogous to those made by drunk drivers. But medical catastrophe is not a choice. And, unlike other expenses, most medical debt is not voluntary, any more than breathing is voluntary. Most medical debtors had taken the prescribed steps to protect themselves: Three-quarters had health insurance when they got sick. But for many, private coverage lapsed when they lost work because of illness. In other cases, the insurance they bought in good faith had so many holes that it left them unprotected. To families financially hard-pressed by illness, Dranove and Millenson preach acceptance of the hard message of the prophet Job. Instead of blaming ruined families, or the wrath of Jehovah, they should take a hard look at the defective products sold by their funders in the insurance industry.
(my emphasis - note conservatives can't keep religion out of health care either.)
To Dranove and Millenson, a safety net strong enough to cushion the impact of illness is inconceivable. Yet many other countries have implemented comprehensive health and disability coverage that does the job quite well.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/februa...for_dranov.php

PS - Forget trying to find or ask whathisname for a debunking of the 2009 paper. There is none. America's Health Insurance Companies, with the help of Joe Leiberman and the Repubs have killed any public option that might have provided any competition to the increasing profits of the private insurance companies. They have no reason to pay a couple insurance company shills for another "debunking" paper. And as you see above, Dr Himmelstein did a fine job of debunking the paid debunkers.

This is not a "help me understand" issue. The facts are out there loud and clear.

[WhatMoney]

You honestly think that Obama wasn't lying to you?

Honest I do.
Instead of a rhetorical question, why not just look at a critical analysis of his speech:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-union-speech/

Only one false reading, and if you read the analysis it wasn't quite a lie to claim he excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs; he has hired a few under exceptions, but nothing like Bush and Cheney did. Politifact was rather picky in their ratings, especially when you read the details behind their truth-o-meter readings.

[OhioFiler]

Was a great speech...a refreshing change from the eight years of babbling lies from George W. Bush.

What's most telling to me is GWB always looked directly into the camera when addressing the American people. Now Obama droned on for 70 minutes during his State of the Union speech yet not until minute 69 did he ever look directly into the camera and address his fellow citizens. He reads a speech off his telepromptors like he's watching a ping pong match.

A great orator who believes what he is saying has no problem looking directly at his audience. Obama knows he tells inaccuracies.

I can't remember a single president in recent history who wouldn't(couldn't perhaps) look directly into the camera during such a speech.

Here are a few of Bush's lies:

1) I'll open the health care discussions to the public, put it on C-Span.

2) I'll close Gitmo within 1 year.

3) Passing my stimulus bill will keep unemployment under 8%.

[OhioFiler]

OF,

Thanks for the ongoing and civil discussion.

There may be a matter that has been confused.

I am NOT referring to the older study from 2001. I concede there may have been words or phrases, or interpretations that were lax or even distorted.

I AM referring to this new study from 2009. Presumably these researchers, since they are studying the same field, would have made corrections based on earlier errors.

If this new study is correct, and the numbers are 60%, we are in dire need of changes in BK law, medical insurance, or both.

I know personal experiences do not matter in the scope of statistical research, but I can say I personally do know a dozen people who have filed BK. Among them, the 60% number is fairly accurate.

Truly, I am not trying to antagonize you or anyone. I would ask that, if you have it, you would post or share with me references that are recent and refute this idea that medical debts are a major factor in bk.

I have not yet made up my mind on the issue, but you can see I am leaning. I would hate to lean the wrong way only to find out later that I am mistaken.

I am sure you would agree, as would any reasonable person. I would like to know the truth. Since it appears insurance reform is dead, we should all come to the next election armed with the best knowledge.

Best to you,

-dmc

From ABC News, hardly a leftist organization:

The issues is really a matter of defining a cause of bankruptcy. Himmelstein and cohorts with their single payer health care agenda use anything they can imagine as the medical reason for filing bankruptcy.

Here is the article in it's entirety:

Medical Bankruptcies, A Data Check

Here's a true story.

I know a guy who decided he needed to file bk because his unsecured debts became too high. Since he decided to file bk his family as also accrued several thousand dollars of medical bills.

Under Himmelstein, this person is a medical bankruptcy. In my home, I know he's not. I'm just grateful we hadn't filed bk yet when those debts were added to our existing pool.

[backtoschool]

What's most telling to me is GWB always looked directly into the camera when addressing the American people. Now Obama droned on for 70 minutes during his State of the Union speech yet not until minute 69 did he ever look directly into the camera and address his fellow citizens. He reads a speech off his telepromptors like he's watching a ping pong match.

A great orator who believes what he is saying has no problem looking directly at his audience. Obama knows he tells inaccuracies.

I can't remember a single president in recent history who wouldn't(couldn't perhaps) look directly into the camera during such a speech.

Here are a few of Bush's lies:

1) I'll open the health care discussions to the public, put it on C-Span.

2) I'll close Gitmo within 1 year.

3) Passing my stimulus bill will keep unemployment under 8%.

Typo alert. See bolded text above.

I think Obama is a very sincere public speaker, in fact his public speaking style is one of the few things that he is doing well. There are many politicians, demagogues, television preachers, pyramid scheme sellers, etc. who have the ability to look right into the camera and lie. Effective camera skills is not a good indicator of character in my opinion.

[OhioFiler]

Typo alert. See bolded text above.

I think Obama is a very sincere public speaker, in fact his public speaking style is one of the few things that he is doing well. There are many politicians, demagogues, television preachers, pyramid scheme sellers, etc. who have the ability to look right into the camera and lie. Effective camera skills is not a good indicator of character in my opinion.

That wasn't a typo. It was sarcasm.

Inability to convey an idea without reading it off the teleprompter speaks volumes to me.

You are officially on my typo watching list. I can't wait to find one!

[backtoschool]

That wasn't a typo. It was sarcasm.

Inability to convey an idea without reading it off the teleprompter speaks volumes to me.

You are officially on my typo watching list. I can't wait to find one!

If you hate teleprompter junkies, then you must really hate Sarah Palin (although I admit sometimes she uses a cheat sheet written on the back of her hand rather than a teleprompter) George W. Bush, Bobby Jindal, etc...

By the way, the Rush Limbaugh website had 164 returns for the query "obama teleprompter".

Actually I am just kidding about the Limbaugh stuff, I know that your ideas are your own.

I think that Obama comes across a bit too Dr. Spock like in his speeches, but his use of the teleprompter is not a sign of poor character in my opinion.

[WhatMoney]

This teleprompter thing is silly.

If Bush was looking into the TV camera (instead of the audience) then the teleprompter was sitting right below the TV camera for Bush. Bush read all his speeches, which he never wrote. You could tell when he would stumble over the pronunciation of three-syllable words he didn't recognize on the teleprompter.

Setting the teleprompters on both sides allow the speaker to look and speak to the audience on both sides of the podium. This was the SOTU speech to a joint session of Congress. Imagine how silly it would look if Obama only decided to talk to the TV camera instead of his intended audience.

Dual teleprompters have been used for years with large audiences. The SOTU is prepared and released in advance. Does anyone think the President should try to memorize a 90 minute speech verbatim? That has never happened before. Before the teleprompter there was a written speech, usually in huge print, on the podium, and the speaker would keep glancing down and up and turning pages, trying to read the speech.

Obama had no teleprompters with his 90 minute televised session with the Republican caucus. He knew more about the issues than the congressmen asking a question. Basically Obama owned this meeting, much to the chagrin of the Republican House members. Note the Senate Repubs are not willing to go up against the President now in a publically televised meeting. They don't want the House experience with Obama to be repeated.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/...gop/index.html

[OhioFiler]

If you hate teleprompter junkies, then you must really hate Sarah Palin (although I admit sometimes she uses a cheat sheet written on the back of her hand rather than a teleprompter) George W. Bush, Bobby Jindal, etc...

By the way, the Rush Limbaugh website had 164 returns for the query "obama teleprompter".

Actually I am just kidding about the Limbaugh stuff, I know that your ideas are your own.

I think that Obama comes across a bit too Dr. Spock like in his speeches, but his use of the teleprompter is not a sign of poor character in my opinion.

I just find Obama's inability to address his audience directly quite telling. Given your career history I would expect you would appreciate the importance of someone you are extracting information from via an interview who can't look you directly in the eyes. Certainly, that data would have to be discounted.

Sarah had 8 words scribbled on her palm and the leftist blog universe is afire! So predictable. I just love how she tweaks those fools. Did you see her "Hi Mom" note at the Rick Perry rally yesterday? She owns the far left. She can command how high they jump.

[backtoschool]

I just find Obama's inability to address his audience directly quite telling. Given your career history I would expect you would appreciate the importance of someone you are extracting information from via an interview who can't look you directly in the eyes. Certainly, that data would have to be discounted.

Sarah had 8 words scribbled on her palm and the leftist blog universe is afire! So predictable. I just love how she tweaks those fools. Did you see her "Hi Mom" note at the Rick Perry rally yesterday? She owns the far left. She can command how high they jump.

I can't stand Sarah Palin. Although I do not agree with her on just about every issue, I am more concerned with her "anti-elitist" persona. She is semi-literate, completely uninformed in the critical issues she wants to affect, and doesn't think for herself. I have watched her several times on television (interviews not speeches) and she simply does not have an intellectual grasp of the issues she is talking about.

As for cue cards, teleprompters, scribbled cheet sheets, etc....every politician uses them. Back in the "good old days" when politicians were more than talking heads, (ie in the days of Abraham Lincoln or even earlier) one could look at a politician's sincerity of thought and intonation. Now, when one criticizes a teleprompter reading, they are just criticizing delivery of a speech, which has little to do with governing.

[OhioFiler]

I can't stand Sarah Palin. Although I do not agree with her on just about every issue, I am more concerned with her "anti-elitist" persona. She is semi-literate, completely uninformed in the critical issues she wants to affect, and doesn't think for herself. I have watched her several times on television (interviews not speeches) and she simply does not have an intellectual grasp of the issues she is talking about.

As for cue cards, teleprompters, scribbled cheet sheets, etc....every politician uses them. Back in the "good old days" when politicians were more than talking heads, (ie in the days of Abraham Lincoln or even earlier) one could look at a politician's sincerity of thought and intonation. Now, when one criticizes a teleprompter reading, they are just criticizing delivery of a speech, which has little to do with governing.

I will say the exact same about Obama. He's an empty suit.

I addressed you regarding Obama's inabiity to make eye contact with his audience and you want the topic to remain about all politicians delivery of speeches as if they matter not. Well it does matter.

P.S. Cheat is spelled with only 1 "e".

[backtoschool]

I will say the exact same about Obama. He's an empty suit.

I addressed you regarding Obama's inabiity to make eye contact with his audience and you want the topic to remain about all politicians delivery of speeches as if they matter not. Well it does matter.

P.S. Cheat is spelled with only 1 "e".

Obama is a very intelligent man with an ivy league degree and a law degree from Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He comes across as very intelligent in his speeches, even if he sometimes comes across as too cerebral.

Most politicians are "empty suits" in that they are always giving speeches to rouse their voters. As voters who are only getting the public view of any politician, it would be difficult to know much more about a politician than his/her voting record, speeches and any gossip that ends up in the blogs.

[OhioFiler]

Obama is a very intelligent man with an ivy league degree and a law degree from Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He comes across as very intelligent in his speeches, even if he sometimes comes across as too cerebral.

Most politicians are "empty suits" in that they are always giving speeches to rouse their voters. As voters who are only getting the public view of any politician, it would be difficult to know much more about a politician than his/her voting record, speeches and any gossip that ends up in the blogs.

Ivy league education is not proof of intellect. I'm sure you know Ivy leaguers who are idiots and I know you know non-Ivy leaguers who are brilliant.

Obama has shown the American people nothing to support his entrance in to Columbia and Harvard or any work while he attended either. Even that goof John Kerry released his C average Yale grades. What does Obama fear letting the public see his record?

[HakunaMatata]

What does Obama fear letting the public see his record?

He was a cheerleader. Oh wait. Wrong guy.