Wow
 

You didn't read the posts from this morning, did you?
I would agree that this is certainly part of it. Exposed to what? Our military? A changed Iraq? A shrinking world for tyrants? A lifting of the feeling of powerlessness amongst subjugated peoples? All of them?

Wow
 

I know about the demonstrations today, and think they're great. I'm talking about something more fundamental. Seats in the Lebanese parliament are allocated according to the 1932 census, with results that overrepresent Christians and undercount Shi'a. Also, the President must be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister must be a Sunni, and the speaker of the legislature must be a Shi'a.

Our military. Iraq is changed, but not in a way that threatens Syria. It's true that fax machines and jet airplanes have shrunk the world for tyrants just like the rest of us, but I think Assad is too busy running his country to jet off to the Cote d'Azur for the weekend. "A lifting of the feeling of powerlessness amongst subjugated peoples?" Does Hallmark make a card for that now? That's part of Bush's "tone," right?

Wow
 

Do you think Assad has more fear of our military, or of the people of Lebanon? I suspect that his prime fear isn't a US invasion, but a popular Lebanese uprising. His hold right now in Syria proper is tenuous enough that he likely would rather not start such a process - who knows to where it might spread.

And yeah, I think Hallmark still sells some 4th of July cards.

Wow
 

I think Assad is most worried about avoiding a U.S. invasion of Syria, and generally with retaining power in Syria, and that the mood of the Lebanese people has little to do with that. This vision you have of "a popular Lebanese uprising" that threatens Assad's grip on his own people has very little to do with what ails Lebanon or Syria.

Credit Cards
 

Actually, what I contracted for was to have my health care costs covered. I don't have any bargaining power witht the providers, the insurer does. It ought to be the one negotiating and argeeing on an amount for the hospital stay. It should not be incumbent on me, on my own, to fight it out with the hospital.

Credit Cards
 

We are in complete agreement on that score. I think that where bankruptcy reform is really needed is a uniform exemption, and stricter rules about restricting discharge for credit that is obtained shortly prior to filing. I also think that asset protection trusts, either domestic or foreign, are abusive as well.

Wow
 

Wasn't it you who, just last week, was firml rminding some poster that certain things said between posters are not meant for general distribution?

Credit Cards
 

Of course you have bargaining power with the providers, and you should use it when you come in with a concussion and go to a different hospital if the one you are at won't give you the services at the price you want (i.e., the amount your insurer will reimburse). While I'm being sarcastic about the concussion thing to point out that this is one service it is difficult to bargain about, I'm serious about the bargaining. A lot of doctors I see lately have signs up saying that some insurers do not reimburse the full amout of the charges, and that the patient will be responsible for any amounts not reimbursed.

If you want everything covered, go with an HMO not and indemnity or whatever it's called.

Wow
 

Answer me this. Is it ever possible that something that happens in country 1 could effect country 2, without there being a direct, uninterrupted causal connection?

Wow
 

Yes, of course.

Credit Cards
 

You're mistaken as to what you contracted for. It's your *reasonable* health care costs. Nothing prevents you from paying more for additional services.

Credit Cards
 

Just adding that the word "reasonable" is specifically and explicitly defined in the contract.

Credit Cards
 

I'm sure it's on the front page in large print, too.

Wow
 

Well you seem to suggest that unless we can draw a straight, uninterrupted line between the events in Iraq and the events in Lebannon/Syria, it is laughable to suggest that one had any effect on the other.

And IMO, it is not just limited to the events in Iraq. It's also the President's general themes of freedom and democracy which he has repeated over and over again, and the events in Ukraine, Afganistan, Israel/Pali, Egypt (though I recognize these are very modest), and other places.

Wow
 

Actually, there is a good chance Assad would lose Syria if he loses Lebanon. Economically, Syria is dependent on it. Geopolitically, Syria would become completely surrounded by generally pro-American states.

Wow
 

I've already suggested that I think our invasion of Iraq has had an effect on Lebanon. It's just not the effect that you seem to be advocating. And it's not the January election there, it's our willingness to use force to remove a leader we don't like and the presence of our troops on Syria's eastern border.

I think it takes a naif to think that sporadic happy talk from Bush about the importance of freedom and democracy has had much of anything to do with developments in Afghanistan, Ukraine, or Israel & Palestine. Egypt I'll grant you, but I'm not convinced that it means anything -- I think Mubarak is betting that he can make a couple cosmetic changes and our attention will move on to something else. We'll see. An election in which the largest opposition party is not permitted to run is not much of an election.

Oh, and you forgot Bolivia.

Wow
 

Heh. Heh, heh. That's pretty thin, Club. What you say has been true for oh, about 49 days.

For that matter, al Qaeda was in Afghanistan as guests of the Afghan government -- so that doesn't say much.

S_A_M

What Bias?
 

Does the same skepticism apply to the finding that Club cited?

Quite a few.

But I wouldn't trade an American teenager's life for an Iraqi school, so I don't see the driving need to be "even-handed" on that coverage.

Non-technical article on health care for Wanker, bilmore and Burger
 

Non-technical article on health care for Wanker, bilmore and Burger
 

I wonder if there might be a valid legal argument that, when you're carried into an E-room for E-care, and you truly can't drive to the "approved" facility, the charges, no matter how high (as long as they are the facility's usual charges) are per se "reasonable" and thus fully payable by your insurer.

What Bias?
 

Sure. Just not sure how to measure it. ("Count all the dogs that don't bark tonight.")

Would you trade an American teenager's life for ten thousand Iraqi lives?

I would. And, given Saddam's record, I think that's what we did.

What Bias?
 

I might. I wish the question had been posed that way beforehand.

But do you think Saddam was poised to kill 15 million (and counting) Iraqis?

Non-technical article on health care for Wanker, bilmore and Burger
 

That may be in standard contracts. Hell if I know. And some indemnity policies don't have "approved" facilities -- you go where you go, and they pay what they pay, and you have to make up the difference. I'm not sure that even "participating" facilities in PPOs necessarily won't charge you more than what the insurer/plan deems reasonable and reimburses, but I could be wrong on that.

In any event, even for non-emergency care, if you read the actual articles, most of the facilities contacted weren't able/willing to provide cost estimates even after the fact, and prices negotiated with particular insurers/administrators are even more unlikely to be disclosed.

If one of the effects of HSAs etc. is to make prices for healthcare more transparent, I wonder whether prices for the insured will go up b/c the hospitals have a hard time justifying charging so much more to uninsured people (who, the hospitals note, often never pay b/c they go into bankruptcy, which brings us back to the bankruptcy issue . . .).

Wow
 

It's all of these things. Removing the leader without instituting the vote would not have been as effective. "Happy talk" without military action would not have been as effective.

And I think it takes someone so blinded by partisanship that he can't see the light right in front of him. Please tell me, why didn't we see all of these things under prior adiminstrations? Or, much like the fall of communism, is this some sort of cosmic coincidence bearing no relationship to stated goals of policy?

Non-technical article on health care for Wanker, bilmore and Burger
 

Based solely on my limited experience with two PPOs, they do send me a wonderful explanation of benefits telling me what the outrageous charge was, what the negotiated (and far more reasonable) charge was, what I don't have to pay/they saved me, and what I do have to pay (deductible and/or copay). So, I conclude that with any PPO, a participating provider charges only what's reasonable and reimburses, at least net.

It also has taught me if you go outside the PPO, they stick it up your ass real hard, because they give you the high rate, regardless of whether they would otherwise negotiate with someone else.

What Bias?
 

But he gassed his own people!

Attn Spanky and others
 

This is a beautiful phrase. So helpful. Makes his post non-preachy and non-irritating. Non-inflammatory.

I think I got some non-covered tests from my in-network PPO doctor, who was careful to tell me that they might not be covered, but she's quite meticulous. I unfortunately do not have the bill with me right now, or I would check. I think that while a copay applies to certain services, for other services I have to satisfy a deductible before the plan pays part of the costs.

What Bias?
 

If you looked to his future reign absent us, and extrapolate what he'd done so far, yeah, I think that would be a reasonable assumption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/ma.../13HEALTH.html

Interesting article on trying to increase/measure quality in healthcare.

Wow
 

But the military action was not deployed in the support of democracy, in the sense that what prompted us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was a variety of other facts relating mostly to military threats against us. On the day that we invade a country that doesn't pose a threat to us simply to help a local movement for democracy, I'll buy that there's been a major shift in the orientation of our foreign policy. If we put real teeth behind our happy talk, you would see some results.

In Afghanistan, we may no progress with the Taliban because our policy there was subordinated to our policy re Pakistan, which was more concerned with things like nuclear war with India. It took 9/11 to re-order those priorities.

In Ukraine, you had a repressive post-Soviet regime over which we had little influence.

In Israel and Palestine, you had tremendous movement towards peace leading up the end of Clinton's second terms. Things then fell apart. A lot of people have written a lot of words about why that happened. You might choose to believe that Arafat was responsible, and that Arafat's death was necessary to see the current progress, and there's something to it. But it's not like Bush's speeches killed Arafat.

Meanwhile, during the Clinton years it's not like our foreign policy ignored these sorts of issues. Most conservatives thought that Clinton spent too much time worrying about nation building, not too little. Recall our involvement in Haiti and the former Yugoslavia, and our role in the bail-outs of Mexico and Thailand.

What Bias?
 

In a country of 22 million, that would be quite the accomplishment.

What Bias?
 

(Sigh.) Not just next year.

What Bias?
 

If there are only 22 million people, even with a pretty high birthrate, and even given 10 years or so, that's a significant proportion of the population.

What Bias?
 

If you extrapolate only from the period of time when we (a) weren't (a) supporting him, or (b) militarily containing him, you get a much lower death toll. E.g., his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds occurred in the late 1980s, not long after Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to give support to Iraq in its war with Iran, which we were more concerned about at the time.

What Bias?
 

But he gassed his own people!

What Bias?
 

Oh. Right. Sorry. Rescinded.

What Bias?
 

They told me there would be no math.

What Bias?
 

Wish I'd known that before I bothered to respond to your point about extrapolation.

What Bias?
 

Just means I'm not going to debate the math of the extrapolation. I think that, over fifteen years, given the age range of Iraqis and their birthrate, they could hit fifteen million dead from Saddam, and I'm not going to start a dialogue here about all the variables that might affect that. If someone wants to sit back satisfied and think "Bilmore could defend, at best, 12.9 million", great, have fun.

What Bias?
 

Introduce a little math and you do get addled, don't you.