Government, Tech And The Internet

h/t Claire: The MSM appears to be enjoying the police bashing angle of this news story by playing up the porn on police computers bit and labeling certain individuals activists for discovering it. I don't know that a former State Senator qualifies as an activist. Anyway, compare the first version's lede - now appearing in the MSM with the others below it getting less play.

What matters here is that this is a very small example of what could be a huge problem with allegedly confidential information being inadvertently shopped about by our government at the local, State and even Federal levels.

The law always struggles to keep up with technology. It appears government regulations and procedures are lagging somewhat behind, as well. And the ultimate victim could be you, or me. They don't need less overtime, they need more of it for some tech types who know how to wipe a hard drive. Geesh! I can't wait until we have National health care under the Dems, just imagine what you'll be able to dig up on people once the government gains control of that information.

EWING, N.J. - Activists say it took only $16 and a trip to a public auction to acquire township computers with porn and other non-work files on them , fodder for their claims that Ewing police are clocking too much overtime.

EWING TWP., N.J. -- A Mercer County businessman figured he was getting quite a bargain when he bought some computers from Ewing Township for spare parts to repair other machines.

However, the information he discovered on the computers' hard drives was pretty valuable to the township.

"It's kind of like the CIA putting their secrets at the curb. It shouldn't happen," said Dick LaRossa, a former New Jersey state senator.

Police in Ewing, N.J., were surprised recently to find several classified memos on the Internet after township critics lifted the sensitive data from a computer sold by authorities years ago, The (Trenton, N.J.) Times said Wednesday.

EWING -- Dozens of internal police memos, including strategies for a criminal sting operation and a reprimand for an officer's shoddy work, have been posted on the Internet after the information was ex tracted from township computers sold at a public auction several years ago.

Comments

[Not a CIA Agent]

What amazes me is that you think private enterprise will somehow magically do better?

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/040606-breach-insurance-company-insider-threat.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601682.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/25/ernst_young_mcnealy/

[jong]

MSM? Cherry Hill Courier Post?

All medical records are all going to be digital - with or without health care reform. And whatever private company has your health records is going to try to turn them into a "profit center" just as they did with your bank account information, credit info, email address, etc. A national health care system with stringent controls would probably be more secure than a hodge podge of private companies.

[seekeronos]

It might mean I get junk mail about better treatment paths for my sinus condition, than say, the usual swill I get such as "V1A/gRA-n0W-4-Big_P3n15" or fake rolexes made in Bangladesh.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see the gov't. imposing its will upon me with regard to whether some yet too be born child of mine has to be aborted due to some congenital disease because "I am a member of an overrepresented ethnicity (white) and that the child would be an undue burden on the State's Universocialist HillaryCare".

Government Socialism = monolithic control and leverage your life by your info in the "Great Central NSA Database in the Sky"

Free Enterprise with loose governmental oversight = market-regulated control of enterprises to safeguard your info.

[LOL]

So current warrantless domestic wiretapping is fine, by possible health care records is outrageous!

[jong]

Paranoid, delusional argument three seek.

I prefer facts.

Free enterprise health care = 50 million uninsured.

Pretty much all industrialized nations cover more of their population at lower cost than we do. If you're very rich, we've got a great system. If you're not, it can kill you.

[Not a CIA Agent]

"If you're very rich, we've got a great system. If you're not, it can kill you."

If you're very rich, we've got an OK system. Don't forget all the medical malpractice, insurance fraud, claims adjustors, and unbearable overhead.

What blows my mind is that a bunch of rich people can scream bloody murder over a tax increase that will cost them a few grand a year, but happily shell out hundreds of times that cost in overhead to private insurance corps racking in their business's insurance money hand over fist.

It's pure economics of scale. They can insure the 50 million people no one else will touch for a fraction of the cost that a regular insurance company would by insuring them all at once. You can insure even more, even more cheaply. Mega-slum-corps like Walmart win, because they don't have to cover their minimum wage employees. The impoverished win, because they get covered. Middle America wins by getting a baseline of care private insurers have to adequetely match, making shitty HMOs defunct but letting truly good insurers continue business. The only people who don't win are the shitty insurance companies.

[Purple Avenger]

When I scrap a drive I put it in my drill press and drill several 3/8" holes through the platters. If I lived in a more rural area where nobody would complain about the noise, I'd put some 9mm slugs into'em. That's faster than the drill press.

[Buzzy]

Yep always trash my drives, probably much more than required but anything worth doing is worth over doing IMHO.

[Phoenix]

What if the porn on the computers was for police surveillance? I have some porn on my computer. I click on an innocuous link and some farm animals and sluts popped up. I'd click out and two more windows opened. I could not get out no matter what I did, so I finally had to shut the machine down. The same could have happend to the cops, or someone could have put the porn on there. Anyway, so what.

What's the best way to get rid of a couple of computers if you don't know how to get the hard drive out much less recognize the hard drive if you see it?

[Phoenix]

I do live in a place where I could use them as target practice. Would a shotgun or a 30.06 be better?

[seekeronos]

Physically degaussing the HDD (Hard Drive) by sticking the drive into a extremely powerful magnetic field) and then grinding it to dust would be the absolute best way of keeping unwanted hands from looking at your data. I work with the DoD in IT, so I get to play with those on occasion. Pretty expensive machinery (both degausser and the grinder), generally out of the reach of the average consumer.

Barring that, a few 30.06 rounds will make data recovery a bit of a challenge, but still possible by the most dedicated data pirate. Don't have to get a nice group either. :)

The shotgun rounds are problematic in that from about 20 yards or so, you might not get as much penetrating power through the aluminum or steel jacket housing the actual HDD platters. Any closer than that, and you expose yourself to potential injury from riccochetting shot, unless you are using 12 ga. slugs with a 3.5" magnum... could be fun to watch, if it doesn't knock you on your keister (my old goose gun, a Remington 1100 fires the 2-3/4" and up to the 3.5"ers, and when using 3.5" slugshot, she definitely has a more noticeable kick).

When I need to resell my computer or give it to someone else for some reason, I go through a multi-step process like this:

(1) Identify the computer system and to whom it is going.

____(1a) If going to friend or family, I repartition and reformat the drive, and install a current version of Ubuntu Linux over it. This "deletes" the data in that it becomes less accessible to the casual user; the old sectors defined by the FAT (File Allocation Table) or the NTFS are de-flagged and are then able to be overwritten. Herein is the trouble: while the old index (the FAT or the NTFS) that tells the OS where each part of your data file lived on the HDD is gone, the data is still there until you write over that particular sector; and with data in a file scattered all over the typical HDD, there is no guarantee that the bits and pieces of a "deleted" file can't be stitched together and something meaningful be derived from it. Again though, the typical Mom & Pop user won't be looking to download data recovery tools from the web, much less use industrial strength data recovery options.

As for Linux... I do this because I like to encourage other people to use Linux, and Ubuntu happens to be one of the most user-friendly distributions of Linux around... plus, I avoid thorny licensing violations as my copy of WinXP is a singer-user license).

____(1b) If they have their own licensed copy of Windows, then I repartion and reformat it entirely for with their copy for a single NTFS partion and a "boot disk" for a backup.

(2) If it is going to someone that I don't trust with potential access to my data (pretty much everyone outside of my family and close friends), I reformat, re-partition, and reload my WinXP on it; then I get load a program that writes gibberish data to the freshly reloaded drive(s). To do it to DoD standards, you will want to overwrite it with at least 35 passes.

Active@ Killdisk is one such utility: http://www.killdisk.com/features.htm

After the 35th pass, I then reformat and repartition the HDD and load either Ubuntu Linux, or the recipient's licensed copy of Windows.

(3) Physical Demolition of the HDD: If I am disposing of the machine outright, I could then do all the above (including the 35x pass of the Active@ Killdisk) and proceed to physically demolish the HDD (whacking it with a maul until the case splits open, then cracking or splitting the platters, and pour concentrated hydrochloric acid onto the remains of the platters). Finally, take the remaining bits of platters and discard the different fragments into different deep bodies of water, preferably sea water to further corrode and impair the difficulty of retreiving them for data analysis.

This is about the most effective way to be rid of those HDDs with classified or confidential information, short of degaussing and using a commercial or military grade HDD shredder.

Putting several 9mm slugs or .45 rounds into a HDD will certainly be faster, cheaper, and definitely more fun, but all that really does is put holes into the platters and makes it difficult to spin the platters in synch.

Folks at the NSA will probably have devices that can read the drives without mounting the platters to a spinning drive, which is why the NSA/DoD standard involves physically shredding the platters into dust.

For Phoenix: Barring physical destruction of the computer case and power supply (assuming you would like to simply upgun your hard drives)... most computers have a case where the side slides off, held in place by those tiny little screws or a small latch.

After taking off the access panel, look for a shiny metal box about the size of a small paperback novel (maybe a bit smaller, they are pretty standardized at about 4.5in. x 6in and about an inch and a half deep). This box will generally have a kind of broad cable and a power line plugging into the back. Remove those lines (label them if it helps you to remember, or especially so if you are removing multiple drives).

Most PCs bought and sold in places like CompUSA, Circuit City, BestBuy and even WalMart are single-HDD (one hard drive), so it should be relatively easy to find. Usually, the HDD(s) are in a metal "bay" near the CD-RW or DVD drives, and they may be secured into place with more of those annoying little screws, or retaining snap-clips.

[seekeronos]

For Dear Leader (Mr. Jong) :

"Pretty much all industrialized nations cover more of their population at lower cost than we do. If you're very rich, we've got a great system. If you're not, it can kill you."

Heh. You kidding, right? I'm hardly "rich" (in fact, I could be considered near lower half of "middle class" for my area based on average income for metro NYC) and I have a fantastic insurance program. And with premiums under $200 USD/month for a family, I'd be hard pressed to see how Universocialist HilaryCare could do it cheaper, better, and without mining all my personal data into the BBDB (Big Brother Database), much less mismanaging it on a collossal level like when nearly six million VA records were compromised last year by some schmendrick letting his government issued laptop get fingered.

Excessively Big Government in the past has lead to entrenched incompetence and lack of responsibility: After all, yer just another faceless name and number in the BBDB, another cog in the bureaucracy, right?

[danni]

geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.....no one here either! damn.....one could come here ANYTIME and there would be other insomniacs always around......guess why that is the answer to you all being so freaking smart! at least i have an excuse....sleep deprivation contributes to one being a bit of a ditz (understatement!!!!!!!!!!!) OK, time to STFU and try to sleep again....ohhhhhhhhhh poor me....heehee!

[Buzzy]

Sri Danni, I'm up but too much work to do tonight to play on the blogs. If you think a full moon brings out the loonies you wouldn't believe what a "blue moon" is like. Sheesh.

As for healthcare, I'll be interested in seeing Hillary's massive wealth redistribution scheme remembering that she worked on it for 8 years during Bill's administration and never got around to trotting it out. I'm betting its as big a money hole as social security and once again us stupid folks who work for a living will end up paying for all of it. I'll predict that anyone who raises taxes these days will end up with a short career. Well, one term of Hillary might be enough time for us to purge the RINOs from the party.

[Not a CIA Agent]

So, yeah. No one has addressed my question. Why do you think scary "big government" is going to handle your records worse than the immaculate big business, when both have a proven track record of hemoraging records for everyone to see?

[Fred Beloit]

If you want to know about Government health care, I suggest you speak with several Canadians. While some favor it, most will point out problems with long waits for non-emergency (being in pain isn't always considered an emergency) care, doctor visits, MRIs, etc. We get a lot of Canadians down here in FL during the "winter". (Having been born and raised in Chicago and having lived in the Northeast most of my life I wouldn't call the weather here between December and March winter.)

[danni]

goood morning all! gov't health care???? OMG....i must concur with freddy's point....it is in my opinion, not an acceptable solution!!! i have family from northbrook, illinois freddy..... gotta love chicago...cleaner, less crime than NYC! the weather does suck....that wind....ughhhhhhhhhh! although michigan avenue, the drake, the knickerbocker, rush street all make up for shitty weather...and i have not even begun on the wonderful restaurants.....i am blanking on the one famous for it's bouialliabase....damn!

sorry all....apologies for being off topic....again resume discussion.....

[danni]

Sri Danni, I'm up but too much work to do tonight to play on the blogs. If you think a full moon brings out the loonies you wouldn't believe what a "blue moon" is like. Sheesh.

Posted by: Buzzy | Friday, June 01, 2007 at 04:58 AM

too much working is not good for your health (speaking of healthcare!) HA! i won't get started on hillary....maybe later....God help us all if she gets into office! anyone have a sharp razor to use on wrists??? ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[seekeronos]

NACA (Not a CIA Agent) wrote:

"So, yeah. No one has addressed my question. Why do you think scary "big government" is going to handle your records worse than the immaculate big business, when both have a proven track record of hemoraging records for everyone to see?"

Well, NACA... perhaps you are right about both sides of the coin leaking records. But having all those eggs in One Great Governmental Basket(case) is far more threatening, IMHO... than having some info here and there between several different companies. The trouble would then be with the enforcement of HIPAA, which is a federal set of regulations guiding how and how not personally identifiable medical information is shared between both governemntal agencies, insurance companies, and providers.

Putting all the eggs in the Federal Basket(case) both increass my taxes as well as puts an ungodly amount of corrupting power into the hands a even fewer individuals...

Sen. Obama hints that on his presidency, taxes would go up to support the ObamaCare package at some estimated $50-65 BILLION dollars above our current budget, ANNUALLY. It gets worse when a realistic assessment of what truly universocialist healthcare would cost taxpayers, as the Silky Pony Plan would run anywhere from $90B to $120B per year.

And I'm sure even the Silky Pony Plan is greatly understating that expense.

Link: http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/barack_obamas_big_tax_hiking_adventure

S0, let us trot out the annual cost of the GWOT as being almost $500B, spread out over 4 years., or somewhat about than $120B per year. Even if we were to call off the war and bring everyone home, there would still be a huge deficit, as we hear complaints about how expesnive the war is.

Even if we do end the war, bring everyone home, and set up Universocialist HillaryCare (or some variant thereof) ... we will still need to spend money to protect ourselves against all the terrorists that will come here in droves to exact Allah's revenge for defiling the Holy Islamic homelands.

Unless of course, the Chief Executive grows a set, withdraws us from the Non-nuclear Proliferation Treat, START II, SALT II and all those other limiting treaties, and allows us to arm ourselves to the teeth with nukes, militarize space, build a "Star Wars" missile shield, and amp up our defense budget to 25~40% of GDP to ensure that none of the new family of nuclear powered rogue states can wipe us out without knowing for certain that the entire M.E. will be turned into a glass parking lot in turn.

Would I trade off having a forward deployable base in the M.E. for a policy that would allow us to arbitrarily select an Arab or Persian or other city for nuclear revenge should we be attacked on our own soil by dirtbag terrorist? I'm game.

Plus, rebuilding our nuclear arsenal would run parallel to a crash course of rapidly building as many S-STAR micro-reactors and regular full-size nuke power plants and keep us off the Arabian oil nipple as much as possible.

Because if we put our minds and spirits to it, we can simply out produce and outgun any other nation on this earth in terms of nuclear armaments, including the Russkies. And you can't convince me that Putin's thinking of drawing out the old Cold War game plan for Russia, if he hasn't already done so.

[Phoenix]

LOL,

I don't know if you were addressing me about Firefox and pop-ups. I have Firefox but like Safari better, and I have a MAC so get very few pop-ups. If it was in reference to the porn site I opened, that was a link I clicked on a blog. Totally misleading! (And yeah, I looked. ew.) The problem was trying to get rid of it. I guess those were pop-ups now that I think of it, but they were all from the same site. At any rate, I don't have much of a problem with spam or pop-ups.

Seek,

I swear, I hope you are a teacher. Ask and ye shall receive. :) You are so thorough... I love it. I have one real old MAC and one Power Mac to dump, and I'll try to pull the hard drives from them. I don't want them....Or I'll just bury them in the trash and let the trash truck mush 'em.

[jong]

By any metric, we spend more money than any other country on health care but still leave 50 miilion uninsured.

From Scientific American:

Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Germany, Britain, Australia and Canada all provide better care for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the non-profit group which studies health care issues said in a statement.

Per capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand $2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.

[Phoenix]

ha. Seek........... speaking of parallel structure analogies..... Healthcare and killin'. :)

You do have a point about the value of a base in the ME. It's a must. And we should still pull out of some of those treaties. How ridiculous to be fettered by treaties that aren't current to the geopolitics of the 21st century. And anything to get off the need for oil is good.

The health care issue is much too complex. No one is honest enough about what really should be done, and until someone looks at the situation for the complexity that it is, all we're doing is going down a rabbit hole of denial. There definitely should be preventative care for children - all of them. The government should not be in charge of anyone's medical records because you know insurance will somehow get that information. It will be used against a person.

If judges would throw out frivolous lawsuits, that would help. They do, but they'd need to all do it with a vengeance. And people should be held accountable for their own health. Fat? Pay more. Alcoholic? Pay more. Smoke? Pay more. Druggie? Pay more. Why should we pay because a person eats too many Twinkies or engages in risky behavior at his choice? I know that sounds like controlling human behavior via insurance companies or the government, but if I have to pay for someone else's ignorance, ....well, that's ridiculous. If they can't bring themselves to fine a fatty, then give a credit to people who live a healthy lifestyle.

It doesn't make sense to me that people pay big money for alcohol, cigarettes, food, entertainment (that might give them AIDS) and for the rest of us to pay big money to keep those self-destructive types from suffering their choices.

And sad to say - old people who are dying slowly costing the system thousands a day just to stay alive? That's a tough one, but is there a time to say enough?

I don't have the answers and everything I come up with sounds way too draconian - and stupidly realistic in a sad way. But damn..... me paying for someone who is self-destructive? I hate the very thought.

How about a lottery for each state that goes into public funds for poor people to buy insurance? Just keep it private.

[seekeronos]

For me, the risk vs. behaviour thing makes a bit of sense. It is already done in life insurance markets.

I wouldn't even object to government monitoring the costs of private healthcare, or fixing the costs somewhat, on the principle that doctors were shielded somewhat against frivolous claims, and the pharmacorps can ease up on the pinch they give all the way around the medical industry.

Positive motivation works wonders though: rather than fine a fat guy, cut the healthy-looking kid a break.

There would have to be sensible guidelines, as you know the gyms would be dying to have people line up to be tested in order to meet gov't health standards so that they can get their "fitness certifications" issued so as to save 10% on thier annual premiums, although since companies pay the bulk of insurance costs, it might trickle down to the workers anyway, as some sort of "youthful body fascism" takes root in the corporate where only 25-y.o. kids with the bodies of fitness models get hired. after all, who wants to pay some 40-y.o.'s medical bills when he starts to break down like a six-year old American car?

Woe to the somewhat chubby Germanic guys who enjoy a beer and a steak every once in a while, eh?

As for the Dear Leader's cost analysis, what he isn't telling you is that Germany and Britian have some of the most outrageously high taxes in the world, and they healthcare ain't that great. Just ask a native German or Brit to smile wide, and see how funky those choppers are!

[jong]

They pay half or less than we do per capita - that works out to a savings of $3000 or more a year per person. That means if we had the same system here it would be CHEAPER and we'd get BETTER health care.

German, British, Canadian, French health care systems by pretty much any measure are better than ours. Ask one of our 50 million uninsured how satisfied they are with their health care provider.

[templar knight]

Erika, if they pay half or less per capita than us, then why are their taxes so high, as compared to ours? And why are their economies so stagnant, in comparison to ours, and why is France looking to change? I doubt your statistics, I doubt your reasoning(our health care would be better and cheaper), and I doubt your concern.

[jong]

Read a little Templar - the info's free. There's no reason to be uninformed.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

Exhibit 1 shows per capita health expenditures for 2003 in U.S. dollars purchasing power parity. Health spending per capita in the United States is much higher than in other countries – at least 24% higher than in the next highest spending countries, and over 90% higher than in many other countries that we would consider global competitors.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/903

U.S. citizens spent $5,267 per capita for health care in 2002—53 percent more than any other country.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa59.cfm?CFID=157104581&CFTOKEN=49477944

Colleen Grogan, Professor of Health Policy and Politics at the University of Chicago, says the primary reason for the high cost of American health care is that most medical services, materials, technologies and drugs are more expensive than in other industrialized countries.

"For example, Canada," says Professor Grogan. "You would think we would be perhaps closest to the prices in Canada. We are three times higher. The fees that are paid, the actual prices for procedures and what we pay to providers, are three times as high as in Canada."

[Phoenix]

Let the market handle it.... with two conditions:

1. Oversight from the government about price inflation based on protections for doctors, hospitals, and big pharma from frivolous lawsuits. That sounds like a lot, but fining judges for allowing frivolous lawsuits could work.

A perfect example is that fewer doctors are going into OB/GYN because they get sued the most. We don't produce the flu vaccine here because of lawsuits. Ridiculous. Same with R & D of drugs. We have the best in the world, but when a drug like Vioxx kills three people, the drug company gets a class action suit that almost puts them under. Of course there is incompetence and that should be dealt with, but huge lawsuits - we end up paying for them. There has to be a way to temper that.

2. Have a state lottery that pays for medical insurance for kids who are in school or gives a break to parents who pay their own insurance. Maybe more kids will go to college. Motivation works wonders, but so does a loss of benefits if one is not willing to do what is necessary to keep them. And risk-behaviors .... pay more. Giving a break to the healthy is fine but I can see the abuse and lying now. Who needs insurance companies acting as gestapo. Tough call. But leave it up to the state to raise the money to help out.

We have the best medical care in the world. The reason it's so expensive is that lawyers love to sue. There should be a penalty for that to make people think twice about looking to make money through the court system. Obviously, in no way do I say 'no' lawsuits. Just pull back the paranoia by reasonable justice. We'd all win.

As far as the lottery goes, I never play. If I thought the money would go to health insurance for the poor in my state, I'd play once or twice a week. I think a lot of people would go for it. Let people do the right thing on their own and most will. Tell me I have to do it and I'll balk. We are the market.

[jong]

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/60_percent_of_health_spending_is_already_publicly_financed_enough_to_cover_everyone.php

Americans already pay for national health insurance — they just don’t get it. In this 2002 Health Affairs paper, David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler point out that the standard accounting miscategorizes two major public health expenditures as private: the tax credit for private health insurance and the cost of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.

When these costs are accounted for, it becomes evident that Americans already pay the world’s highest health care taxes. In fact, the amount of public health spending in the U.S. is greater than the combined public and private spending of nations which provide universal comprehensive health insurance. A single-payer system could provide such coverage to all Americans with no need for additional health dollars.

[jong]

"We have the best medical care in the world. The reason it's so expensive is that lawyers love to sue."

That's wrong:

Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

[jong]

"but when a drug like Vioxx kills three people," Uh, you low-balled that a bit.

It appears that the number of deaths caused by Vioxx will be revised upwards to between 89,000 to 139,000 (the data is for the United States alone). Andrew Jack of the Financial Times who interviewed Dr. David Graham, an expert at the FDA, is reporting that the data is likely to be published in the medical journal The Lancet.

In the initial estimates provided by the FDA, 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths between 1999 and 2003 were attributed to Vioxx. Dr. Graham has provided these estimates in subsequent statements and since then most analysts have put worldwide deaths to be somewhere in the range of 150,000 to 200,000.

[Phoenix]

jong,

It's called 'hyperbole'. Get it?

Are you capable of original thought? I think not. Go waste someone else's bandwidth.

[jong]

Yeah, you wouldn't want to get bogged down with facts in a discussion about health-care when hyperbolic statements are SO much more appropriate.

[jong]

And no, it's not hyperbole. Try meiosis.

[seekeronos]

I wonder if Jong, like nowingkker, is a paid operative of the Socialist Worker's Party or some other fringe left group.

[jong]

What's the deal Seek, run out of talking points?

Here's a story from Michael Moore's new file on our health care system - even Fox News likes it.

Women gets in an accident and is taken by ambulance to a hospital. Her insurance company denies payment for the ambulance ride because it wasn't PRE-APPROVED.

[Phoenix]

jong,

Can you tell me what the definition of this health care system constitutes?

Who gets it? Are drugs included? Is there a tier system? Who qualifies for what tier? Does this eliminate the need for employers to provide health-coverage benefits? Will the poor have the exact same care as a wealthy individual? Will this be the surcease of Medicare. Will the plan pay for lifetime care for the mentally retarded who need to be institutionalized? Will the plan pay all expenses - 100%? If not, who will pay for the poor who cannot make up the difference or will they be denied the MRI or organ transplant? Will the plan pay for an elderly person to stay on life support? Will the plan pay for a Teri Schiavo? Will it pay for a severely disabled paraplegic to have home care for his lifetime? Who will make these difficult decisions about who gets full benefits and who doesn't? Will everyone have to be pre-approved at a government office before getting extraordinary care? Will the plan pay for ambulance transportation without pre-approval?

That's just a few questions I'd like see you answer. Facts only, please.

[jong]

Everyone, yes, no, no tier, yet, yes - wealthy can opt for additional coverage, no, yes, yes, all expenses covered, up to the family, yes, yes, I do since you appointed me Health Care Czar, no - doctors decide, not bureaucrats. No pre-approval for ambulance rides required.

A few questions for you: Do you think ambulance rides should be pre-approved? Why do Americans pay twice what other industrialized nations do for their health care? Why, even though Americans put more money per capita into their health care system, we still have 50 million uninsured?

Finally, national health care will save us money AND give us better health care. What, exactly do you have against that?

[Phoenix]

I don't believe a person lying on an interstate amid bodies and car pieces should have to dig out a banged-up cell phone to call their insurance company for permission to get in the ambulance. Why should there be a need, then, for the wealthy to have to opt for additional coverage if it's 100% coverage for all? And then why would doctors need to decide anything if we're all the same?

We pay twice as much because we are charged twice as much because we have too few doctors due to lawsuits and too many fat people taking up insurance money so the insurance companies, who are in it for the bucks, charge more. It's vicious, I tell you. Let's get rid of insurance companies and the millions employed by them whose only job is to deny claims. Tax the fat, too. And the stupid. That would pay for it all! We'd have to get all the doctors to agree to lower their fees. And we'd have to tell hospitals that they are in it for altruism, not capitalism. I think we've got it.

We have almost 50 million uninsured because they are too poor to pay for it. When we put the insurance companies out of business, we'll add another 50 million to the poor and destitute. Serves them right for denying all those claims.

I don't have a thing against saving money and getting better care. Even better - the thought of putting insurance companies out of business. Yay! What a great country! I'm going to get some luscious orbs implanted because my self-esteem sucks. How cool to think I won't be flat-busted or busted flat to get the walls of my tender ego back up.

John Edwards would be out of a job if we stop the tort action. Very cool. We need to get a handle on that lawyer stuff.
I'm beginning to like this: Fewer lawyers, fewer fatties, and fewer claims adjusters. It's all good.

[seekeronos]

The legal maneuvering of the pharmaco-medical industry and the squeeze it puts on the doctors (malpractice insurance), and the general greed of the insurance industry against businesses (medical insurance) and employees alike (premiums/co-pays) does make for a not-so tidy mess.

However, having a "single-pay, single point" government health care plan is by several degrees worse, since it is yet another stepping stone toward tolitarianism and government control. "Power corrupts..."

I take anything Michael Moore says out of the gaping, hamburger-stuffed maw of his (I'd hate to see his health care premiums under Pheonix's idea...!!) with not just a grain of salt, but about a long ton of it; the "pre-approval" of an ambulance ride does seem to be a bit ludicrous. Add to that that ambulance companies usually charge upwards of $3,000 - $5,000 USD for the honour of carting you to the nearest hospital after an accident, and it is not surprising that insurance companies might not want to pay out on that.

If that $5,000 is justifiable, then I'd bet the largest part of that is the malpractice insurance.

Phoenix says that the medical industry should do things for altruism and not capitalism. "Human nature" suggests that this will never happen, unless we opt for a Canadian or British style Universocialist Medicine plan, that puts all of the spending power (and therefore, choosing power) into the hands of Big Fed, which seldom has shown itself to be trustworthy with much of anything.

Do I want Big Fed's caring, watchful hands on my medical well being? Not really.

Do I want my doctors tied up and limited to a set group of treatments and procedures, if it happens I could make a choice of my doctors and procedures under an array of medical plans available to me through my company? Nope. My medical coverage happens to be quite good, even if it might be a tad expensive.

If some horrible thing happens to me and I become a vegetable, will my family be forced to watch Big Fed pull my plug because "it is not in the Interests of the State™ to keep alive someone in a persistant vegetative state"? Maybe some lefties wouldn't mind reducing their tax burden and the population of a few surplus European-Americans... but I for one would much rather have my family maintain the first right to whether I live or die, and not Big Fed.

At the risk of yet another Godwin's violation, the Germans ca. 1933 had this same argument going on. In fact, in several states, we here in the good ol' US of A might have even beat our beloved cousins in the land of sausages and Volkswagens to the punch:

Forced sterilizations for the congenitally ill/mentally handicapped, forced abortions for persons not of ideal racial balance, and euthanasia for certain peoples and senior citizens not of a particular socio-economic class were ideas being batted around the high society of the US in the mid-1920s up to WW2... In fact, in the run-up to the NSDAP take-over of Germany in 1933, Hitler tried to sell his (much more radical) ideas to his fellow Germans for the state sanctioned culling of the population based upon the piecemeal of euthanasia/involuntary abortion/involuntary sterilization legislations passed by various states here in the USA.

I'd say let the many states develop a low-income tiered medical insurance with the following criteria:

(1) The various states would select and partially subsidize insurance carriers that would compete for contracts to cover various procedures not ordinarily available to indigent persons (or lower-income workers/smaller businesses without a cushion for effective coverage) with a significant tax-write off as a part of their compensation.

(2)A means-tested qualification similar to the formulas used for other social service/welfare, with a view toward encouraging able-bodied persons to seek employment, that is, without the "welfare penalty" that acts as a buffer to leeches who want to milk the system for multiple generations.

(3) A "fallback plan" or co-insurance for workers whose companies and small businesses which are significantly challenged to provide extensive coverage. New York State already has this in a very limited form. This would be flexible enough to meet the shortfalls and gaps in coverage in a commercial plan, and would require a contract of some sort to be executed that would provide a "minimal safety net". In practical terms, if Company A's insurance provider does not provide for a particular test that is necessary to ascertain the certain condition one of its workers may have, then it would fall back to the state's backed carrier, who would resolve the payment issue with the primary carrier.

(4) Outside of the context of either private or state-subsidized contracts, ambulances would be subject to accept a flat-rate payment, with a standard (affordable) co-pay to the rider equivalent to the typical co-pay expected at the time of an ER visit (ranging from $30 to $60 USD typically) by most insurance carriers.

(5) The only part that Big Fed would have in this is to establish minimum standards for state-backed programs, with audits and penalties assessed to either the subsidized carriers or the state governments themselves, depending upon where the failure of standards is detected. Minimal federal intervention, but serving as a watchdog, and not "primary caregiver".

(6) Certain procedures (mostly cosmetic and elective "nip-tuck" surgery, beyond reconstructive surgery related to severe trauma like an auto accident) is luxury medicine, and thus would not be met by this idea.

(7) Terry Schiavo cases: Set standards which are reasonable within the belief systems of most citizens, but also which do not keep someone plugged in when they are clearly not going to recover. This is a terrible thing to ponder about, but a decision of this nature should be left to the family first. Beyond a discernible length of time and particular medical care, the family would have to shoulder the cost of keeping a vegetative family member plugged in after a certain point.

My personal definition for this would be the point at which the person could not live without the machinery required after brain death for after three months of showing no possible hope of recovery. After that, the plug remains in as long as the family can pay for it. In this way, the family retains rights of determination. This of course, would have to be monitored so as not to permit too much abuse.

I feel that this would not constitute murder, inasmuch as without the life support system, such an individual would have already been dead; nor do I particularly advocate my definition as the final definition for such a program as this... this point is fraught with much emotion for anyone that has a close relative who is faced with this worst case scenario.

(8) Abortions would only be provided under this plan in extreme cases of jeopardy to the mother's life, or for early-term (first trimester) pregancies brought on by cases of rape or incest; otherwise, it shall not be a venue for "birth control". For that sort of thing, there is always "Planned Parenthood" (what a horrid euphemism that is)... that is, until Roe v. Wade gets overturned or mitigated in part.

(8a) On the other side of this: proven forms of contraceptive implants (not IUDs) which secrete certain progesterones which supress the ovulation cycle, or render the uterine wall ineffective for zygote implantation shall be made available, especially for lower-income couples whose financial prospects may limit them significantly from child-rearing.

This also is subject to much contention. I hold that the implantation of a zygote is the bar between a new life and not, in that a significant number of fertilized eggs (zygotes) get flushed out in menses instead of implanting into the uterine wall. I can accept first-trimester abortions in the case of rape and incest only because of the traumatic nature of the union that brought forth the pregnancy, and only because the first trimester is the most likely time that an embryo might receive trauma or die for some other reason, where it might pass out of the woman's body with minimal or perhaps even no noticeable effects. Mid- and late- term abortions begin to come too close to being murder in its own right, because the baby is ever closer to being viable (some babies have been delivered as early as 25 weeks - approx. 5 months - and have grown into healthy children). With the state of pre-term neonatal care as advanced as it is today, it is unthinkable to me to needless slaughter a young life that could have otherwise been brought to term; to suggest that at 5 months of term, that a newly delivered "premie" infant is only a "blob of flesh" that he might have been considered as otherwise in his mother's womb, is a monstrous thought begat in the same dank corners of the tragic human psyche as that which would construct ovens to burn humans as involuntary sacrifices to the Fatherland.

[Phoenix]

Nice job, Seek. Really thoughtful and thorough, as usual.

8a is excellent. I wonder if those can be implanted by blow dart at the southern border?