The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:34:08 -0000

Dr J, I&#39m not sure how to answer.

Even you admit there are differences among discomfort, anxiety and resentment, so why wouldn&#39t those differences stand when they are used together in a sentence?

Even you admit you were paraphrasing, so why use quotations marks as if you were making a direct quotation?

Anyone who cares can go back and read what I actually said. That&#39s why I put the quote here. That&#39s why I put the link here.

And that is really all I&#39ve got.

Catch you next time.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

Dr_J — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:08:53 -0000

Sorry if you feel misrepresented, George, but I&#39m not sure what else to tell you. Just substitute the antecedents in your sentences, and they read "Some--maybe most--[white men] feel discomfort, anxiety, event resentment over [being expected to share their prerogratives]." I don&#39t think "white men resent having to share their prerogatives" is an unreasonable paraphrase, and I&#39m still at a loss to understand the distinction you perceive. Sure, discomfort, anxiety and resentment are different, but it was your original that lumped them together.

None of this, of course, comes anywhere close to calling you a bigot.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:34:08 -0000

Dr J, I'm not sure how to answer.

Even you admit there are differences among discomfort, anxiety and resentment, so why wouldn't those differences stand when they are used together in a sentence?

Even you admit you were paraphrasing, so why use quotations marks as if you were making a direct quotation?

Anyone who cares can go back and read what I actually said. That's why I put the quote here. That's why I put the link here.

And that is really all I've got.

Catch you next time.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

Gootmud — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:08:53 -0000

Sorry if you feel misrepresented, George, but I'm not sure what else to tell you. Just substitute the antecedents in your sentences, and they read "Some--maybe most--[white men] feel discomfort, anxiety, event resentment over [being expected to share their prerogratives]." I don't think "white men resent having to share their prerogatives" is an unreasonable paraphrase, and I'm still at a loss to understand the distinction you perceive. Sure, discomfort, anxiety and resentment are different, but it was your original that lumped them together.

None of this, of course, comes anywhere close to calling you a bigot.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:52:15 -0000

Dr J--

This is a pretty old thread, so I&#39m not sure anyone else is reading this beside you and me. But again, I&#39d like to thank you for defending me. Especially if you think I&#39m just a bigot.

But I have a complaint. What you have in quotes is not a direct quote by me. And I have to say I&#39ve complained about you doing this before.

I did not say, as you have in quotes, "White men resent having to share their prerogatives". That&#39s far more extreme than what I actually said.

Anyone, anyone, anyone can go back up just a few comments and read the actual words I wrote, which were, "white men (and even more specifically, straight white men of the middle class or higher) are now expected to share what were once their prerogatives."

In the next sentence, what I then said was, "Naturally enough, some--maybe most--of them feel discomfort, anxiety, even resentment over that fact."

I said there&#39s plenty of racial discomfort, anxiety and resentment in America, because that just seems obviously true to me. And it seems obviously true to me that white people feel those things too.

But there&#39s a great deal of difference between the three--discomfort, anxiety and resentment.

You don&#39t have to agree. You are free to say my calling the existence of some discomfort, some anxiety, and, yes, some resentment over racial matters in America is proof of my bigotry. But I think that&#39d be a pretty hard sell. So hard that, instead, you put forth a more extreme argument as if it were in my words--and then used those words of your choosing to bash me as if I&#39d said them.

You&#39re free to mock me for nuance. For that matter, you&#39re free to mischaracterize what I said. Just as I&#39d be free to come back and point out your mischaracterization. These are public threads, so readers are also free to decide which of us had gotten it wrong.

But you shouldn&#39t be so sloppy on the factual matter of quotation. Anyone can go back up a few comments and read my actual words. I put them there specifically so people could read my own actual words. I put in a link to the entire thread to people could read the whole thing as it actually happened.

So please don&#39t take your words and put them into my mouth. It&#39s better for your own credibility that way.

On health care, I favor the public option. Sorry if that&#39s been unclear.

And I&#39m sorry if you think I&#39ve just been picking on you. To tell the truth, I&#39m not really sure where you stand. Unlike so many others, you&#39ve agreed there&#39s an insurance crisis. But you think the government should butt. Except that you think sometimes the government should be paying for people without insurance.

I&#39m sure we&#39ll have plenty of opportunity to disagree about all these things on other threads. But even if you don&#39t see what I&#39m saying about the racial issue, I hope you&#39ll see what I&#39m saying about the quotation thing.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:52:15 -0000

Dr J--

This is a pretty old thread, so I'm not sure anyone else is reading this beside you and me. But again, I'd like to thank you for defending me. Especially if you think I'm just a bigot.

But I have a complaint. What you have in quotes is not a direct quote by me. And I have to say I've complained about you doing this before.

I did not say, as you have in quotes, "White men resent having to share their prerogatives". That's far more extreme than what I actually said.

Anyone, anyone, anyone can go back up just a few comments and read the actual words I wrote, which were, "white men (and even more specifically, straight white men of the middle class or higher) are now expected to share what were once their prerogatives."

In the next sentence, what I then said was, "Naturally enough, some--maybe most--of them feel discomfort, anxiety, even resentment over that fact."

I said there's plenty of racial discomfort, anxiety and resentment in America, because that just seems obviously true to me. And it seems obviously true to me that white people feel those things too.

But there's a great deal of difference between the three--discomfort, anxiety and resentment.

You don't have to agree. You are free to say my calling the existence of some discomfort, some anxiety, and, yes, some resentment over racial matters in America is proof of my bigotry. But I think that'd be a pretty hard sell. So hard that, instead, you put forth a more extreme argument as if it were in my words--and then used those words of your choosing to bash me as if I'd said them.

You're free to mock me for nuance. For that matter, you're free to mischaracterize what I said. Just as I'd be free to come back and point out your mischaracterization. These are public threads, so readers are also free to decide which of us had gotten it wrong.

But you shouldn't be so sloppy on the factual matter of quotation. Anyone can go back up a few comments and read my actual words. I put them there specifically so people could read my own actual words. I put in a link to the entire thread to people could read the whole thing as it actually happened.

So please don't take your words and put them into my mouth. It's better for your own credibility that way.

On health care, I favor the public option. Sorry if that's been unclear.

And I'm sorry if you think I've just been picking on you. To tell the truth, I'm not really sure where you stand. Unlike so many others, you've agreed there's an insurance crisis. But you think the government should butt out. Except that you think sometimes the government should be paying for people without insurance.

I'm sure we'll have plenty of opportunity to disagree about all these things on other threads. But even if you don't see what I'm saying about the racial issue, I hope you'll see what I'm saying about the quotation thing.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

Dr_J — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:20:47 -0000

George, thank you for the kind words. I appreciate you taking a stand, putting your opinion forth on the issue. You often seem to be holding it back, and instead just picking at other people&#39s opinions. I&#39m still not sure what your view on health care is, beyond that you don&#39t like mine. This way is much better.

I&#39ll stand by my reading of what you wrote. "White men resent having to share their prerogatives [with other classes/races]" sounds pretty much the same to me as "white men are bigots." I&#39m certainly having trouble seeing much distinction.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:39:05 -0000

JSpencer--

Thanks to you also.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:37:45 -0000

Dr J--

I appreciate your willingness to defend me in spite of our often contentious disagreements over the issue of health care.

Seriously: thanks.

But I didn&#39t say most white males are bigots and I&#39m not really sure why anyone would say so. Let me quote myself:

I completely understand that white men (and even more specifically, straight white men of the middle class or higher) are now expected to share what were once their prerogatives.

Naturally enough, some--maybe most--of them feel discomfort, anxiety, even resentment over that fact.

The notion that justice should be blind is a pleasant one, but that pleasant blindness is just metaphorical--I think it means everyone who seeks justice should get a fair shake, without fear or favor.

I don&#39t think anyone can look at our history and say that justice has ever been blind. That assertion is likely to ring hollow in a lot of ears.

I also think that a lot of people who lived a hundred years ago--Italians, Poles, the Irish, Jews--would be surprised to see their grandsons considered white men, equal to the Boston Brahmins. I think that&#39s good thing. I think that tendency should continue.

I doubt many people are still reading this thread, but anyone who still cares is certainly free to go to the link I provided a few comments up and read the whole thing.

Again, Dr J, thanks. As you may have noticed, Austin Roth defended me way up there on this very thread. Austin Roth and I have been butting heads here for something like five years, so I appreciated his willingness to stand up for me. I should have thanked him sooner.

Catch you on the next health care thread.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

Gootmud — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:20:47 -0000

I'll stand by my reading of what you wrote. "White men resent having to share their prerogatives [with other classes/races]" sounds pretty much the same to me as "white men are bigots." I'm certainly having trouble seeing much distinction.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GreenDreams — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:50:41 -0000

Jazz, I certainly don&#39t want to sour your good mood, but if you think I&#39m being disingenuous or intentionally misleading, let me point out the facts. The ACTUAL annual cost for Medicare is under $7000 per person. That&#39s 2007, the latest year I can find. It&#39s $300 billion / 43 million covered. That is 100% of the cost actually paid, including all admin and fraud ($40 billion). That is the per person annual cost of covering the highest cost risk pool in the business, the elderly, from 65 to end of life. The cost of health care for ALL Americans was $7,436 per person for 2004, the latest year I could find, and was going up at 6.7% annually, so should be about $9,000 a year in 2007. There is so much scare talk on this subject, but it appears the actual cost of health care for the highest cost segment of the public is costing us less per person than the average of the overall population, including young healthy adults and children.

Now if you think I&#39m coloring those facts in any way, please enlighten me. There is no projection or estimation involved at all, just the actual cost divided by the actual served population. Let me note additionally, that the 65+ population is included in the group of "all Americans", bringing the average down somewhat, so the cost of health care for the younger pool per covered person is bound to be higher.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:39:05 -0000

JSpencer--

Thanks to you also.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:37:45 -0000

Dr J--

I appreciate your willingness to defend me in spite of our often contentious disagreements over the issue of health care.

Seriously: thanks.

But I didn't say most white males are bigots and I'm not really sure why anyone would say so. Let me quote myself:

I completely understand that white men (and even more specifically, straight white men of the middle class or higher) are now expected to share what were once their prerogatives.

Naturally enough, some--maybe most--of them feel discomfort, anxiety, even resentment over that fact.

The notion that justice should be blind is a pleasant one, but that pleasant blindness is just metaphorical--I think it means everyone who seeks justice should get a fair shake, without fear or favor.

I don't think anyone can look at our history and say that justice has ever been blind. That assertion is likely to ring hollow in a lot of ears.

I also think that a lot of people who lived a hundred years ago--Italians, Poles, the Irish, Jews--would be surprised to see their grandsons considered white men, equal to the Boston Brahmins. I think that's good thing. I think that tendency should continue.

I doubt many people are still reading this thread, but anyone who still cares is certainly free to go to the link I provided a few comments up and read the whole thing.

Again, Dr J, thanks. As you may have noticed, Austin Roth defended me way up there on this very thread. Austin Roth and I have been butting heads here for something like five years, so I appreciated his willingness to stand up for me. I should have thanked him sooner.

Catch you on the next health care thread.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

Dr_J — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:20:48 -0000

Statements you find insulting are insulting, just as statements you find funny are funny. Your accusation that most white males are bigots wasn&#39t clearly directed at Jazz but wasn&#39t clearly directed elsewhere either. He took it more personally than he might have or than you probably meant it. But you know how old guys are. :^)

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

JSpencer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:31:55 -0000

I just read through the thread, specifically the exchange between Jazz and GS. Looks like a misunderstanding to me, I didn&#39t see anything that looked like insulting or abusive intent. I took George&#39s comment to be a general one, not a personal one.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GreenDreams — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:50:41 -0000

Jazz, I certainly don't want to sour your good mood, but if you think I'm being disingenuous or intentionally misleading, let me point out the facts. The ACTUAL annual cost for Medicare is under $7000 per person. That's 2007, the latest year I can find. It's $300 billion / 43 million covered. That is 100% of the cost actually paid, including all admin and fraud ($40 billion). That is the per person annual cost of covering the highest cost risk pool in the business, the elderly, from 65 to end of life. The cost of health care for ALL Americans was $7,436 per person for 2004, the latest year I could find, and was going up at 6.7% annually, so should be about $9,000 a year in 2007. There is so much scare talk on this subject, but it appears the actual cost of health care for the highest cost segment of the public is costing us less per person than the average of the overall population, including young healthy adults and children.

Now if you think I'm coloring those facts in any way, please enlighten me. There is no projection or estimation involved at all, just the actual cost divided by the actual served population. Let me note additionally, that the 65+ population is included in the group of "all Americans", bringing the average down somewhat, so the cost of health care for the younger pool per covered person is bound to be higher.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:52:11 -0000

Here, I believe, is the post.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:36:13 -0000

If anyone is still reading this, I will find the post Jazz is referring to and you can decide for yourself if I was begin insulting and abusive toward him or just disagreeing with him.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:02:59 -0000

GD -

all communists of course, according to AR)

Please, at least be honest and accurate in describing my position, as my words as on this very thread. They are NOT all communists; most are socialists. I allowed for that. But man, you put the communist out there (which SOME on this board sure seem like they are, huh Kathy?), and the result is a feeding frenzy of denial from the left.

"We don&#39t believe in communism! We just think the government should control the means of production, provide for all the workers, determine the amount everyone should get paid, and make sure everyone is equal (except for those who are more equal than others, of course"

Certainly no one could think THAT sounds REMOTELY communistic.

:)

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

Jazz — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:48:37 -0000

First of all, sorry for coming back to this so late and so briefly, but the trip went a lot longer than anticipated and was far more busy than usual. We&#39ve arrived in the mountains in one piece (I&#39ll try to put up a post on that this morning) but one of the only roads through the area was obliterated in a rock slide this spring and it made things tricky. There were also family members to greet who we rarely see, etc.

You guys have had a great discussion on this, and it&#39s an important topic, but I&#39m going to take part of AR&#39s advice and not allow myself to continue to get wound up or bogged down in it too much right now. I&#39m just in too good of a mood. I still think the public plan defenders here are, in some aspects, being either intentionally misleading or don&#39t grasp the long term effects of what we&#39re discussing, but I can also see how the prospect of free or cheap healthcare for everyone with nobody ever having to pay for it is appealing to the masses. Also, there&#39s that natural, populist, "let&#39s stick it to the man" (in this case the insurance industry) that&#39s really tempting to some.

But as to AR&#39s point about insults, etc. it was not this thread I was referring to, and George knows exactly which one I&#39m talking about, where he decided to "enlighten" me about how old white guys are "understandably" uncomfortable with the idea of minorities or women having equal rights. Still, on a bright, sunny morning in the mountains with a boat full of bass gear waiting for me, I find it pretty hard to get annoyed with anyone.

Anyway, I don&#39t know of this public option will make it out of Congress in one piece. But if it does, and you all get what you&#39re wishing for, let&#39s meet back here in a few years and chew the fat over what happens after you&#39ve driven that industry out of business. Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

Gootmud — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:20:48 -0000

Statements you find insulting are insulting, just as statements you find funny are funny. Your accusation that most white males are bigots wasn't clearly directed at Jazz but wasn't clearly directed elsewhere either. He took it more personally than he might have or than you probably meant it. But you know how old guys are. :^)

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

JSpencer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:31:55 -0000

I just read through that thread, specifically the exchange between Jazz and GS. Looks like a misunderstanding to me, I didn't see anything that struck me as insulting or abusive intent. I took George's comment to be a general one, not a personal one. FWIW.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:52:11 -0000

Here, I believe, is the post.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:36:13 -0000

If anyone is still reading this, I will find the post Jazz is referring to and you can decide for yourself if I was begin insulting and abusive toward him or just disagreeing with him.

Re: A Public Health Care Option Would Save Consumers Money

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:02:59 -0000

GD -

all communists of course, according to AR)

Please, at least be honest and accurate in describing my position, as my words are on this very thread. They are NOT all communists; most are socialists. I allowed for that. But man, you put the word "communist" out there (which SOME on this board sure seem like they are, huh Kathy?), and the result is a feeding frenzy of denial from the Left.

"We don't believe in communism! We just think the government should control the means of production, provide for all the workers, determine the amount everyone should get paid, and make sure everyone is equal (except for those who are more equal than others, of course)"

Certainly no one could think THAT sounds REMOTELY communistic.