Basically, Greendreams, I don't think a single thing you've said is actually true.

There's that false accusation which we've disproven several times over, GD.

We don't agree with you on the type of change that you think will help. We've tried to explain why, and we've explained what changes we think would actually help rather than making the current cost problems worse.

Yet you choose to continually misrepresent our positions, and our motivations. Why? I don't doubt your sincerity or choose to believe that you want the country to go bankrupt- I just think you misunderstand the costs involved and our inability to pay for everything that you think everyone should have. I realize that you think that if profit were stripped out it would all work out for everyone, but that isn't at all self evident and the evidence instead tends to disprove what you believe.

As I've noted, the same applies to private insurance. No company could meet its obligations, except by dropping patients if they actually need the coverage they're paying for.

CS, DJ the fact is that we pay over twice as much for worse outcomes than our global competitors. Both of you have claimed you are not pawns of the medical and insurance industry, yet both of you argue to prevent change in a toxic system that doesn't work. Not until you or a loved one face bankruptcy for something that would be covered EVERYWHERE ELSE on the planet, will you admit that this system was just about accumulating wealth and not about providing excellent, cost effective medicine.

Providing links, as I also mentioned, is a courtesy, not a requirement for backing up one's statements. The source of the material was provided- and easy access to it with me doing the work to make it easier for you is not a 'source', it's putting the primary source at your fingertips. What next, should I copy and paste entire primary source materials here to save you the finger click on a link?

I'm not interested in declaring myself a winner in your absurd game. If you have anything on topic to say (for instance, was I correct or incorrect in my earlier statement about Obama's healthcare plan relying on cuts to Medicare expenditures in order to finance the rest of it?) then I'll be back. Otherwise, I'm not wasting any more time on this.

If I'm continually questioning you about your sources, how can you say you generally include links?

You can't have it both ways.

you're only complaint is that I didn't dump the primary source material into your lap and if you wanted to reference it you would have had to look it up for yourself.

You personally can't be bothered to provide sources because of “real life time constraints”. And if someone wants to double check the quality of your source it's their responsibility to use their own time to hunt it down or be called lazy and petty and passive aggressive.

So go ahead and declare yourself the winner.

So yes, your complaint appears petty, and appears to be designed to avoid addressing the substance of what I wrote, which is why other commenters are calling you on it. I'm happy to debate on the actual substance of the issues, but I'm not going to be drawn into repeatedly being put on the defense when I've met reasonable standards of backing up my claims (unlike many other commenters, I might again add- whom you don't continually question about their sources.)

Honestly, Dr J, who's being passive aggressive?

And GD, your numbers are misleading. Checks written divided by persons covered is government accounting. Let's talk about what every private sector organization has to answer for: checks written plus checks likely to need to be written in the future, divided by checks cashed plus checks likely to come in. By this measure Medicare is haemorrhaging red ink.

It is your responsibility to provide sources to your claims.

Own it.

GS- As EEllis mentioned, I did cite the source- it was from a transcript of Obama's townhall. And I'm sure it never occurred to you that I might have closed the other tab I was cutting/pasting from without copying the link, and was practicing a bit of that tough love right back at ya since you can very well find the transcript yourself if you want to go to the primary source material.

CS, my comments about Medicare are based on hard numbers. It is NOT a case of just *looking* like Medicare costs are rising at half the rate of private insurance because of deficit spending. I'm talking about the ACTUAL costs, as in “checks written” divided by “persons covered”. Both are hard numbers. And “checks written” includes checks written to the government employees who administer the plan (translation for righties: bureaucrats) and to all the private contractors who help run the program. Cut out the for-profit contractors and the cost would be even lower, as it is in all the G7 nations who don't believe health care should be a for-profit enterprise.

Still, I'm tiring of the debate. Maybe things do indeed have to get much worse before reform is possible. Maybe it isn't possible at all. In all likelihood I'll actually BE on Medicare before there's any resolution. However, my insurance premium, just like yours, will have doubled by then, while benefits will have declined as they have already. Half the population will be without insurance (do the math. 14,000 a day lose their insurance) and the other half will be picking up their cost too. All to protect the insurance monopoly and profitability. Sad.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Seriously.

It is, of course, difficult for me to “refute” anything without knowing its source. Surely you are aware of what passes for public discourse these days. I'd call some of them wacky, but they're being pushed by people who should be more responsible. I really don't care to give credence to rumors.

As for her sourcing the quotes and not giving me the link, she obviously had the source right up there in her browser or she couldn't have copied-and-pasted them. How much harder would it have been to provide the link? Not much, I think.

If you think calling it a “whine” makes my complaint about poor sourcing any less legitimate, all I can say is that this is a public thread. Defend poor sourcing with name-calling, if you think that's helpful.

I am practicing what you might call “tough love” with CStanley.

I'm sure you are aware that it's time consuming, and although I try to get back and give you the citation it's not always possible for me to take the time to track stuff down and format the link codes and such.

You have low standards for yourself. “Basic facts” as you call them, should be easy to find.

Maybe you should have your sources available before you put your stuff out there.

I don't see why you can't do it.

By the way, you managed to cut-and-paste two large blockquotes from somewhere–without even linking to their source!!!

The history would show just the opposite, I'm pretty sure. Once programs are initiated they're almost impossible to dismantle. Look how long it took just to reform welfare- it didn't happen until things got so bad, and so unsustainable, that no one could defend it any longer.

And consider a situation where 10 years out, a public option health insurance plan is not solvent without additional taxpayer subsidization. Once people have become dependent on this form of health insurance, do you really believe a politician is going to run on a platform of nixing the program? On the basis that Obama said we'd shut it down if it wasn't self-sufficient? Yeah, right.

It would be interesting to see if there's anything at all in the bill that would trigger a reversal on the program if costs are not sustainable without additional taxes or borrowing. Bush was forced to put a sunset provision on his tax cuts (and rightfully so, since there's the same dynamic with tax cuts- it's politically impossible to reverse them, and hard even with the sunset provision but at least that helps a bit.) So here too, I'm skeptical that this program would be shut down if it doesn't perform as Obama says it's going to have to perform, but I'm curious as to whether or not he's at least seen a good faith effort to write the bill with those guarantees or if he's completely talking through his hat on this.

I do get impatient with people trying to fob off a government entitlement program as market competition. Maybe they don't understand the difference, but I've seen people explain it to them dozens of times, so that's getting hard to believe. So I do feel the urge to correct the misrepresentation, but it's not out of love for insurance companies.

Dr J writes: “I agree, that does seem hard to square with the opposition-is-all-industry-payola theory. Perhaps it's because they don't agree it would do them good?”

Phooey “Dr J”…
Your constant droll of how “put upon” the “Industry” is and how appreciative the “general public” should be leads me to believe that you sir are that 1 of 999 that profits from this fandango.

I agree, that does seem hard to square with the opposition-is-all-industry-payola theory. Perhaps it's because they don't agree it would do them good?

The theory was in trouble anyway because it's simplistic. Insurance companies do indeed support some aspects of health care reform, but not others. Same with doctors. Same with unions. Same with bloggers.