[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
100meters wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
… an utter lack of faith in government…
DrSkeptix wrote:
You, GL and 100m, may dream that it be otherwise, that the Powers That Be only exercise true and just judgment. But there are always error in judgment. I would not trust a government committee to select the correct size bandaid for a papercut.
When I err, one suffers, and I am responsible; when The Government errs, thousands suffer, without reprieve.
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Again, straw man. Remember this entire thread based on a lie. The govt. still not selecting anything…that was made up, then repeated by Drudge, Rush, then FOX, then here.
Now, this term, “straw man”…is this reserved for use by those who do not know anything about which they speak?
There should be no question that Daschle, inter alia, knows the use of the proposed legislation.
I repeat myself: there is no use for a board of medical standards except to limit and deny expenditures. That is the background for this measure, that is why it is introduced, and that is why it was not subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
Just because you, GL and 100meters, fail to see that in print does not mean that the motive does not exist. This is not a straw man argument.
Now then, if you want to argue about the value of the FDA, I happen to know a lot about it. But the FDA does not limit my options once a drug or procedure is proven safe and effective.
If you want to argue about the public health value of expenditures, I have 30 years acquaintance with that, too. If you would like to see how Daschle’s plan might work, google N.I.C.E., a certain committee in the British National Health service. Let us all know if you like what you see there.
If you want, however, to persist in this adolescent notion of “the straw man argument,” I may point instead to the straw men of evil of current “system” as the counter-reason for an Enlightened Bureaucracy in control of health care delivery.
Dude, you’re still doing it. It’s an invented issue. Totally made up. Betsy McCaughey lies and selectively quotes the provision and Daschle. Not surprising, given who pays her bills.
Now then, I know of Ms McCaughey. (And is your protest not an “ad hominem argument”–that other epenthesis of discourse that occurs in this forum?)
Ms McCaughey has been writing about the failure of government health care policy–and doing so quite convincingly–since 1994. I still read TNR, in which her journalism appeared. I would wager her experience exceeds your own, Dude.
And, Dude, for your benefit I will now cut and paste some unselected descriptions of Mr. Daschle’s plan, from which “the provision” you proudly defend is taken:
[i]
"But Daschle?s vision isn?t entirely conventional. For many years, he has argued that a crucial element of reform is something like a Federal Reserve Board for Health. Unlike most Democrats, Daschle seems to understand there is a downside to government-run health care ? which is, well, the government calling the shots. That?s a recipe for rigid and outdated regulations from an unresponsive bureaucracy and a meddling Congress micromanaging payment rules. Of course, this is exactly what Daschle observed in the Senate as politicians took turns manipulating Medicare?s complex and counter-productive web of fee schedules to meet their parochial objectives.
The answer, of course, would be to build an effective marketplace and hand decisions over to consumers. But Daschle is no free-market reformer. He believes the solution is to entrust government-run health care to people more trustworthy than HHS bureaucrats or elected members of Congress ? like an unaccountable, unelected Board of wise men. In Daschle?s vision, such a board would be charged with making the big and controversial decisions ? like what should or should not be covered by insurance plans ? without having to answer to the public. Of course, this would be a nightmare scenario for those fearful of government intrusion into the practice of medicine. Once up and running, such a Board would inevitably accrue more power and authority, becoming the choke point for all crucial decisions. And the public would have little recourse to ever undo it."[/i]
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTcyOTAzNWY4MmFjZTEyYTJkMmFiZjIzNzRkNTI0YjM=&w=MQ==
[i]
"Tom Daschle has his own health plan
Learning from Clinton’s mistakes, the nominee for Health and Human Services secretary favors going on the political offensive to bring about reform.
By Noam N. Levey
December 15, 2008
Reporting from Washington – By choosing former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to head his healthcare reform effort, President-elect Barack Obama got more than an old congressional hand with a policy book on his resume.
Obama has also picked up a hardheaded political strategy for his push to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system.
Guided by lessons from President Clinton’s healthcare debacle 15 years ago, Daschle has put a premium on cooperation between the White House, Congress and major healthcare interest groups, many of whom agree that major action on healthcare is vital.
Daschle, who will lead both the Department of Health and Human Services and a new White House Office of Health Reform, favors moving decisively to seize political momentum and, if necessary, cut off opposition, something he said Clinton failed to do in 1993.
He thinks delays by the Clinton administration and soft support from the left in the early 1990s allowed Republicans and industry groups such as insurers to kill the Clinton plan with a well-organized political campaign that made voters afraid of reform.
Daschle is urging a far more aggressive push by those advocating systemic change.
“This means going on the offensive,” he wrote in “Critical,” his recent book about healthcare, in which he singled out drug makers and insurers as potential obstacles to a successful overhaul.
“We cannot assume that the public recognizes the distortions and fallacies peddled by the reform opponents; we have to educate people on the emptiness of the anti-reform rhetoric,” he said.
Daschle has even suggested using the Senate’s rules to prevent opponents from filibustering healthcare legislation, a move that one senior Republican staff member warned would make it “extremely difficult” to get any GOP support for major reform.
Daschle, who declined to be interviewed, has specific – and potentially controversial – ideas about how to reshape the healthcare system.
Among other things, he envisions a new federal agency, which he calls a Federal Health Board, with the authority to set guidelines for what treatments and procedures are most cost-effective.
Daschle argues that the board, which would have authority over federally funded healthcare programs such as Medicare, would insulate medical decisions from political meddling by Congress and could help design a system for achieving universal coverage."[/i]
“The most important proposal in “Critical” is the creation of a “Federal Health Board,” explicitly modeled on the Federal Reserve Board. Its duties would include “recommending coverage of those drugs and procedures backed by solid evidence. It would exert influence by ranking services and therapies by their health and cost impacts.”
Mr. Daschle predicts that the board would change the entire health-care market by forcing expanded Medicare, Medicaid and veterans programs to follow its lead. Private health insurers would follow along, too, in part for the political cover such a move would give them to make unpopular but cost-conscious decisions not to pay for certain benefits.”
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27610,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
(These happen to be just the first three hits on Google.)
So, Dude, in summary, yes, I AM doing it again.
–I am pointing out the origin of these provisions in the legislation
–I am naming its chief author, now discredited
–I am showing what the intent of the legislation is, and where it will take us
–(And I have not needed to resort to a “straw man” nor to the ad hominem, Dudes)
And all you have done is deny the evidence before your eyes, and mischaracterize my argument.
Truly, I don’t fault you and GL, there. It is all you have. But at some point, you need to think on your own, recognize the weakness of denial, and come forward with a convincing argument which justifies this piece of larceny which has been foisted on the American public.
Because I can’t find any.
[/quote]
Ms McCaughey lied. She lied. It was a deliberate attempt to skew opinion of the stimulus. The “provision” to guide medical doctors’s decisions is not in the stimulus. She made that up by skewing and selectively quoting the actual provision. You’ve now gone on for sometime about stuff that is not happening in the stimulus.
You’ll remember the outrage of this thread was McCaughey’s false statement about stimulus provision. That’s what we’re debating.
Why can’t you just say that yes McCaughey lied about what the provision is actually stating.
Then read Daschle’s book, instead of relying on National Reviews and AEI “analysis”–again these folks are paid to lie.