51 thoughts on “Dr. Barbara Bellar sums up Obamacare in one sentence

  1. Glenn Beck looks very overweight. If his personal care reflects how he would car for the country, lets forget about Glenn, though I agree in this point present somebody else to speak for the cause.

    • Got any specific contractually promised metrics of “make healthcare better” ?

      Do those contracts include date and dollar milestones, so we know these people are delivering?

      What are their penalties for their failure to produce at the stated milestones and at promised resultant end-date?

      Or, is this just more, hollowed out, empty rhetoric?

      • re: ” Or, is this just more, hollowed out, empty rhetoric?”

        who knows but the opponents certainly engage in their share of it… cue that lady…for instance and of course the proponents makes their share of hoped-for improvements.

        but even with existing, long standing programs like Medicare you can find both proponents and opponents arguing about the value and efficacy -both ways.

        • “The survey wasn’t scientific by any means, but in a speculative conversation that’s proceeding mostly by anecdote, ”

          truly larry, you are the king of the bad survey.

          you will cite pretty much any piece of cherry picked and slanted stupidity.

          • Morg – how was that any different than the lady in the video?

            I agree…. it was a bogus survey… by the way.. but no more or less than much of the anti-Obamacare propaganda…either.

          • the woman in the video is stating a viewpoint and speaking for herself instead of trying to represent the viewpoint of an industry.

            her comment raises issues and makes statements, but does not purport to be the view of anyone but her and thus stands and falls on its merits as opposed to being a no information claim about “better”.

          • well the “survey” also disclosed that it was not scientific and anecdotal… of a group…

            but Mark Perry chose to put the video up of one persons opinion.. which is fine.. and I chose to provide a similar type opinion from others of an opposite view as a balance – basically to demonstrate that much of the dialogue is not based on facts per se but beliefs and perceptions.

          • larry-

            it was an opinion that laid out facts that could be addressed.

            she made a large number of claims and laid out the reasons for her view.

            that is a good start for dialogue.

            one can say “she said X and i think this is not so because of Y”.

            the survey you cited is not engagable as it provides no reasons, rationale, or basis for discussion.

            it’s basically just an appeal to authority argument.

            if you cannot see the difference between saying “i believe X because of Y” which is a rational and refutable structure and “i believe X because experts say so” which is not, then i’m not sure what to tell you.

            the former is a valid structure of logic and argument.

            the latter is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority”.

            the former is a basis for debate and discussion.

            the latter is a dead end that goes nowhere.

            you say “expert A says X” and i say “expert b says X is false”.

            then what?

            we are nowhere.

            there is no discussion nor progress.

            that is WHY appeal to authority is called a logical fallacy.

          • They said the same thing about Massachusetts.

            One massively failed health care system later, they were dead wrong.

            Of course, this may just be little old me talking, but since we’re so far down the logical fallacy road that facts no longer matter to Larry, but if we’re going to talk about opinions, I care far more about what the doctor’s think as opposed to the administrators. In this case, doctors overwhelmingly disagree with the AMA that Obamacare will make things better. 70% disagree.

            70%. How about that.

            In fact, if you take the time and peruse the study I linked to, you’d find doctors overwhelmingly despise the AMA (which, by the way, is by and large the hospital administrators).

          • In fact the Poll was mostly a push-type poll against the AMA of which I am no supporter of but it should not surprise anyone that private doctors don’t like the idea of any program that will tighten their ability to charge and hospital administrators who struggle to pay for the free services they provide.

            I’ve also seen both pro and con polls on Massachusetts but what I have not seen is the legislature and Gov talking about repealing it.

          • re: “so what?”

            if it’s a bad law and both citizens and legislators don’t want it .. it would get repealed.. correct?

          • if it’s a bad law and both citizens and legislators don’t want it .. it would get repealed.. correct?

            Why?

          • Oh no! not twenty questions again!

            be nice boy or stifle it.

            we live in a country where we do have elections and elections can have consequences and we know that laws are repealed that are unpopular.

            it’s not a 100% thing for sure but if the law in Massachusetts was so bad – you’d see changes and if it was opposed by 3/4 of people, it likely would be gone.

            you have to live in the real world Jon.

            you don’t “explain” the real world according to you views.

            you accept the realities even if you strenuously disagree.

          • I can see my question was not clear.

            Let me ask it like this:

            1) Why do you assume voters have perfect information?

            2) Why do you assume legislators have perfect information?

            3) Why do you assume legislators always act to achieve the objectively best results?

            That is what I meant by “why.” Who do you think what you’re saying is true?

            These three assumptions are inherit in your comment (and outright denial of the real world, I might add, but that is neither here nor there).

            I am merely looking for justification of your assumptions.

            And yes, 20 questions is my new method. I tried the lecture method before. Seeing as you refused to be persuaded by facts and figures (often insulting me and libeling others in the process) and you insist on pursuing illogical means, I am now going to have you defend yourself. This is the Socratic method. Let’s see if this works.

          • you’re truly an ODD WAD Jon.

            one minute if I say anything to you -you say I’m “bothering” you.. even “attacking” you…

            then the next minute, you’re doing this foolish stuff.

          • Look, if you cannot answer the questions, then perhaps you should reconsider your position.

            Because this nonsense here is why nobody takes you seriously.

          • Jon – I could care less what you “think” .. or “believe” as it’s clear to me that you’re driven by arrogance and immaturity.

            I’m familiar enough with the bully boys and their Ad Hom tactics here to also not give a flip who they think is “serious”.. the same little group chews on others and even each other when they don’t have other ready victims and you’re distinguished yourself by the company you keep.

            you have the potential to be a nice person but you’re blowing it by using the guys as your mentors.

          • You sure are going to quite a length not to answer three simple questions.

            It causes one to think, hm?

          • Think away Jon. when you start off saying “no one takes you seriously”.. you leave yourself in a hole for reasonable dialogue.

            I have no problem what-so-ever being taken seriously on any blog that bans those who engage in Ad Hominems and I have no problem in this and CF with folks who are polite and also refuse to engage in Ad Hominems.

            You’ve made your choice. It’s a bad one. It’s not a way to go through life. People who do that kind of behavior are not reasonable folk.

          • Interesting. I did nothing to encourage this behavior from you. I merely asked for clarification on your position. Here it is, almost 24 hours later, and you’ve not only refused to answer my basic three questions, but you’ve also instigated and perpetuated the very behavior you claim to despise.

            Since you cannot defend your position, explain your position, or reasonably answer criticisms about your position, I can only conclude that you don’t know what you are talking about.

            Well, this method is much quicker. I think I am going to stick with it from now on.

          • Would you like me to go back and pick up some of your past words, Jon?

            if you were interested in true principled dialogue, I’d engage you guy but you’re not.

            you have an ample past history of your behavior.

            it’s not a question of defending a position. It’s a question of being able to exchange different points of view and explore the reasons for differences as opposed to your typical behavior with those you ( and your kindred buddies here) typically engage in.

            you do not set the terms of the discussion guy. that’s arrogant and pompous behavior. if you want to engage in polite discussion, then fine.. otherwise.. don’t pretend to be something you’re not.

            be honest. be true. be polite and I’ll return the favor and discuss. deal?

          • Look, since you clearly aren’t able to defend your position, allow me to give you some tips about how reasoned dialogue works.

            What you should do is this:

            Say “Hm, these are good questions. I do not have an answer available right now. Let me get back to you.” Then, think on the questions and come back with reasonable answers. And when you come back, be prepared to defend those answers against more questions.

            This is how reasoned dialogue works. But this constant steam of insults, libel, ridiculousness, insinuations, logical missteps, willful blindness, ad hominum, and dodging of the issues that characterizes your posts does not endear you to anybody. Trying to play the victim here is not working because nobody believes your the victim.

            You’re the instigator. Look at this very post. You were originally willing to engage me when I simply asked “why.” You tried to answer my question, but then when I said it didn’t, you asked for clarification. I provided clarification and that’s when you went nuts and started calling me names. Considering it was up until this point you were willing to engage, but the second your view was shown to be incorrect or, at least, needed some refinement, you went bananas, I can only conclude you realized your position was indefensible and, rather than try to refine it or adjust it, you decided you could hide by throwing insults about.

            You need to realize that I am not the bad guy here. I have overlooked the insults and lies you have thrown at me and my friends many many times. I have forgiven you each and every time. I even defended you to them many times. I am in a good mood today; that is why I have humored you for so long. But it is perfectly clear to everyone involved you really haven’t thought much about these issues. You have knee-jerk reactions and, more often than not, argue simply for the sake of arguing.

            If you want to stop being a target, to stop being mocked, then you must do three things:

            1) Educate yourself. You do not posses even the most basic understanding of the economic concepts being discussed here. That’s fine; you are not a trained economist. All due respect, I doubt you’ve even taken a single course. Most of the people here are likely in the same boat. But if you are going to try to argue based upon the theory, then you actually need to learn it. Most of your comments are wrong because you simply don’t know the theory or the concepts involved. So many of your questions could be answered simply by picking up a book. If you want recommendations, I can give you a list (most of which are free).

            2) Read the posts. Not just the titles; the entire post. Every word of it. Stop assuming. Focus on the facts. Do not editorialize on what you think is being said. Focus on what is being said.

            3) Learn to argue logically. There is a formal structure to logic. If you want to, you can take courses or read books on logic, but that’s long and can be really really boring (trust me; I minored in philosophy). Rather, just look at this chart and try to avoid the mistakes it lists.

            This is my advice to you. It is good advice. Take it. If you choose not to, that is fine, but do not get upset when you are mocked. I am giving you the choice. What you decide to do, and its consequences, are entirely in your hands.

          • “Look, since you clearly aren’t able to defend your position, allow me to give you some tips about how reasoned dialogue works.”

            What you should do is this:

            Say “Hm, these are good questions. I do not have an answer available right now. Let me get back to you.” Then, think on the questions and come back with reasonable answers. And when you come back, be prepared to defend those answers against more questions.

            I’m more than willing to answer questions and dialogue Jon… and I have no trouble defending my points.. it pisses people like you off and your response in Ad Hominems.

            “This is how reasoned dialogue works. But this constant steam of insults, libel, ridiculousness, insinuations, logical missteps, willful blindness, ad hominum, and dodging of the issues that characterizes your posts does not endear you to anybody. Trying to play the victim here is not working because nobody believes your the victim.”

            reasoned dialogue is about the issue – always and never about the person – never – something you do not accept. There is no victim at blogs where people like you get thrown off for your behavior.

            “You’re the instigator. Look at this very post. You were originally willing to engage me when I simply asked “why.” You tried to answer my question, but then when I said it didn’t, you asked for clarification.”

            I remember the last conversation I had with you fella.
            do you want me to go back and get it and put it here?

            ” I provided clarification and that’s when you went nuts and started calling me names. Considering it was up until this point you were willing to engage, but the second your view was shown to be incorrect or, at least, needed some refinement, you went bananas, I can only conclude you realized your position was indefensible and, rather than try to refine it or adjust it, you decided you could hide by throwing insults about.”

            let’s go get the transcript Jon. Your “conclusion” here is about hiding your prior behaviors… not truly wanting to engage in dialogue free of Ad Hominems.

            do you remember things like “fucking nuts” ??? do you?

            “You need to realize that I am not the bad guy here. I have overlooked the insults and lies you have thrown at me and my friends many many times. I have forgiven you each and every time. I even defended you to them many times. I am in a good mood today; that is why I have humored you for so long. But it is perfectly clear to everyone involved you really haven’t thought much about these issues. You have knee-jerk reactions and, more often than not, argue simply for the sake of arguing.”

            I participate in a number of blogs and CD, CH and Coyote are the only ones that allow ad hominem free for all’s. On the other blogs, like Hendersons, you’d get tossed in a heartbeat for what you and your buddies get away with here.

            If you want to stop being a target, to stop being mocked, then you must do three things:

            don’t need advise from a guy who engages in Ad Hominems … or supports others who do and cannot simply dialogue without claiming he’s being “attacked”.

            “1) Educate yourself. You do not posses even the most basic understanding of the economic concepts being discussed here. That’s fine; you are not a trained economist. All due respect, I doubt you’ve even taken a single course. Most of the people here are likely in the same boat. But if you are going to try to argue based upon the theory, then you actually need to learn it. Most of your comments are wrong because you simply don’t know the theory or the concepts involved. So many of your questions could be answered simply by picking up a book. If you want recommendations, I can give you a list (most of which are free).”

            You know Jon. everyone is ignorant – just on different subjects and much of what I post here is referenced to other economists … theory is conceptual. it does not reflect the real world. the real world takes the basic theory then models the things the theory assumes are static.

            don’t need recommendations.. from folks whose principle way of disagreeing is to call the other guy ignorant or impugn his character or basically just attack the person.

            “2) Read the posts. Not just the titles; the entire post. Every word of it. Stop assuming. Focus on the facts. Do not editorialize on what you think is being said. Focus on what is being said.”

            don’t give advice Jon unless you want to listen to mine for you… got that?

            “3) Learn to argue logically. There is a formal structure to logic. If you want to, you can take courses or read books on logic, but that’s long and can be really really boring (trust me; I minored in philosophy). Rather, just look at this chart and try to avoid the mistakes it lists.

            This is my advice to you. It is good advice. Take it. If you choose not to, that is fine, but do not get upset when you are mocked. I am giving you the choice. What you decide to do, and its consequences, are entirely in your hands.”

            your “advice” is pompous and arrogant kid stuff guy.

            grow up . get a life and learn how to be an adult.

            do you like that “advice”?

            tell you want – I’ll trade advice with you – where we both get to do it or we’ll not. Is that fair?

          • Jon – no matter how much you know or think you know – you treat others like you would like to be treated.

            it’s pretty simply guy.

            you’re never justified in being ugly to others – never.

            if you can’t say something nice – move on…

            if you want to talk – stay on the issue – and do not attack the person.

            that’s the way people who want to remain on good terms but have disagreements or different points of view conduct themselves.

          • I see you have made your choice. Too bad.

            Ah well. Some men can never be redeemed.

            Methinks, Harry, he’s all yours.

          • Jon – that just defines who you are guy. not me.

            I ignore them both 99% of the time.. don’t even read their posts..

        • More of spam boy‘s witless and factless rantings I see…

          Color me shocked that he can’t convince anyone that there might be some upsides to this newest form of extortion of the productive citizens by the Kenyan Kommie Klown and his gang of parasites in Congress…

      • Are any of the claims at that link false? Is there any conclusive evidence that smoking negatively affects athletic performance?

        What is Alpha-1 Antitrypsin? Do you think a deficiency of it might negatively affect athletic performance?

        • hit, your endless trolling as a wind up artist pushing bizzare psuedoscientific issues for whatever joy it brings you has been well documented.

          it’s a dull game.

          • > your endless trolling as a wind up artist pushing bizzare psuedoscientific issues for whatever joy it brings you has been well documented.

            That slanderous claim hasn’t been documented as true anywhere.

            > it’s a dull game.

            It’s true that some people prefer religion over science.

          • it has been to my satisfaction.

            it seems to be your preferred method of dialogue.

            why you are obsessed with pseudoscience and charlatanry, i cannot say, but the fact that you are is quite clear.

            “Measured VO2(max) was significantly lower in the heavy smoking group compared with the other pack-y groups. The combined effects of PASS, age, BMI, and gender on measured VO2(max) were significant. With smoking in the model, the estimated effects on measured VO2(max) from Light, Moderate, and Heavy smoking were -0.83, -0.85, and -2.56 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1), respectively (P < .05)."

            http://www.researchgate.net/publication/40428180_The_effect_of_habitual_smoking_on_measured_and_predicted_VO2%28max%29

            "Among army conscripts, the distance covered in a 12-min endurance run was inversely related to daily cigarette consumption and years of smoking (P less than 0.001). This association was apparent even among light smokers who had been smoking for less than 2 years when they were compared with nonsmokers. Among joggers, even when the lower training activity of the smokers was controlled for, smoking retained a negative, independent association with endurance capacity, as measured by 16-km race time. In multiple regression analysis of endurance capacity, the standardized regression coefficient for smoking was -0.14 for distance covered in the 12-min run and 0.10 for 16-km running time, the latter despite the low prevalence (6.9%) of regular cigarette smokers among the joggers"

            a1at is a protease inhibitor.

            lacking it would likely do serious lung damage.

            are you now going to try to claim that it is this that causes cancers and lower cardio and lung capability and not smoking?

            that would certainly be your typical pattern of pseudo-scientific wind ups.

          • “It’s true that some people prefer religion over science.”

            and also true that some people seem to prefer tinfoil hats to either.

            but i suspect you are actually smarter than that and just enjoy arguing preposterous viewpoints for some reason of your own.

            i wish you luck finding playmates, but have no further interest in being one.

            as i said:

            “it’s a dull game”.

          • @Morganovich

            > “[...] In multiple regression analysis of endurance capacity, the standardized regression coefficient for smoking was -0.14 for distance covered in the 12-min run and 0.10 for 16-km running time [...]”

            …And why should we believe that would increase the costs of socialized health service? According to the CDC, “Cigarette smoking causes more than 440,000 deaths each year”.

            Also according to the CDC, smoking cost “$96 billion in health care expenditures” annually from 2000-2004.

            That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about possible tiny decreases in the abilities of elite endurance athletes.

            > a1at is a protease inhibitor.

            How do you know the lung disease attributed to smoking isn’t instead caused by a1at deficiency?

            Again, the statements was (0:30): “and signed by a president who smokes”.

            That statement got a big laugh. Apparently the audience was composed of people who believed that smokers would tend to cost a socialized healthcare system more and that this is would be because they smoked. Is this actually a reasonable and evidence-based belief? As we have seen from the evidence, it isn’t.

            It also makes Barbara Bellar look like a pseudoscientist who goes along with whatever pseudoscientific trends happen to be politically popular at the time. Perhaps, therefore, she isn’t a good choice of subject for the Carpe Diem blog.

            > are you now going to try to claim that it is this that causes cancers and lower cardio and lung capability and not smoking?

            We don’t know what causes emphysema, COPD, bronchitis, lung cancer, heart disease, etc. and any other diseases smoking is politically-conveniently blamed for. Twin studies indicate these diseases are largely genetic. Dietary studies indicate any environmental causative factors could include dietary carbohydrates. If we had conclusive evidence that smoking causes these diseases, it might reasonably seem funny that a smoking president would sign a socialized medicine bill. However, we don’t have that evidence. Why was the audience laughing? Perhaps it was composed of people who were prone to believing whatever the government told them to believe.

          • “That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about possible tiny decreases in the abilities of elite endurance athletes.”

            and now you lie and try to change the debate.

            you yourself asked this question:

            “Is there any conclusive evidence that smoking negatively affects athletic performance?”

            in response to my comment that : “no, it’s great for you.

            that’s why all the top cardio athletes smoke a pack a day.”

            you then claim that this is not what we are talking about.

            when next you are referred to as a wind up artist and a disingenuous commenter, remember this, where you got nailed dead to rights lying before you make claims of “unsubstantiated slander”.

            it’s not slander if it’s true.

            “How do you know the lung disease attributed to smoking isn’t instead caused by a1at deficiency?”

            and how do you know it is?

            there is copious evidence on this, you are just devolving into more dishonest tinfoil hattery using bad constructions and demands that others prove a negative.

            how do you know that gravity is not caused by tiny elves?

            why these foolish parlor games amuse you is a mystery to me.

          • so, you yourself ask a question, then you claim it is not the question when faced with evidence?

            you are now jousting at straw men and being disingenuous.

            one can always make outlandish claims that violate occams razor and cannot be disproven.

            it’s not steroids that assist in more rapid muscle growth, it’s magic elves that live in the boxes steroids come in.

            that is some serious weak sauce you are serving.

  2. Well said. I wish I could laugh but the truth of the message is too seriously true.

    When something (Obamacare) sounds too good to be true it usually is. And that’s when many people get hurt.

    Obama will surely go down in history as the worst US president overseeing what I feel are policies designed to bring America to its knees.

  3. I’ve never been on this site, but would like to offer a bit of food for thought: Obamacare has 1- put 4 million people under the age of 26 on the (insurance) rolls, by joining their parents’ plans. 2- It has closed three-quarters of the donut hole so seniors don’t have to choose between their medicine and paying their rent. 3- It’s taken 35 million who couldn’t get insurance because of a preexisting condition; now they can. 4- AND now insurance companies– if you have expensive care — can’t literally pull the plug on you when you’re in a coma. These are good & necessary things for many who need such services, and they are all things the Tea Party is so determined to eliminate because of their brotherly “love for their fellow men & women”. Such hypocrisy is so blatant throughout the Religious & not so religious right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>