One of the many reasons health care in America is so expensive is that it is so good and delivers so much. Consider premature babies:

Nearly 13% of all babies in the U.S. are preemies, a 20% increase since 1990. A 2006 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that the 550,000 preemies born each year in the U.S. run up about $26 billion in annual costs, mostly related to care in NICUs. That represents about half of all the money hospitals spend on newborns. But the number, large as it is, may understate the bill. . . .

For hospitals struggling with cost overruns in other areas, NICUs can be havens of healthy revenue growth and profits. Children’s National sets the goal of 4% profit margins overall, but NICU profits can be double that. Last November the hospital unveiled a $75 million tower that features various specialty units to treat heart and brain problems of preemies. Its expansion plans include a second NICU that will open in 2009. It will have 54 beds, boosting Children’s total preemie capacity by 25%. All of the rooms will be private and will be equipped with Internet systems that allow neurologists to monitor brain function from their homes.

“One of the great benefits of the Internet is that it facilitates the free exchange of ideas, and through that exchange facilitates the search for Truth.”
-- attributed to Lazarus Long

Aren’t we all glad to see this free exchange of ideas here, as people with contrasting world-views engage in open, frank, civil, and respectful debate?

Come on, guys, keep it at least civil, if not actually polite!

(Of course, this is merely a request, not an order.)

You’um fulla shit. Always has been. Always will be…

Are you certain you ever got off that Isle ?

Bill,

Let me see if I can help you here. I was once stranded for 3 months on the Isle of Idiopia (emphasis on the “o")

hmmmm....intersting....yes, it’s a very complicated tounge...lot’s of unessasary verbiage and prone to long windedness while making no point but, it seems Ed is saying..

“Me get caught with mouth full of BS. Me lack character to admit mistake. Me talk and talk...hope to confuse other man so can slip away”

That’s pretty much the jist of it.

I dealt with the substance of your question three times. Now let’s make it a fourth time and see if you respond to it this time.

I basically just said you misinterpreted what I posted.

That was not good enough for you, so you went off to the races. Your last post was no exception either.

More “Bill is so sweet and innocent” and “Ed is just picking on me”.

Is that spin doctoring ? As a minimum, we seem to be going in circles here. I could just reply to your post by switching Bill and Ed.

I repeat. There is substance to what I replied. It just wasn’t the part you were interested in. I said you misinterpreted what I posted. Go back and read the original post in its entireity.

That will show you the genesis of slash parry and repost on the blogosphere. A good example of internet debate.

You seem to feel entitled to not give any benefit of the doubt to the other person. That is why I say, with total sincereity, we are not being friendly.

That plus a long history of clashes. (duh)

Could it be any more simple than that ? You misinterpreted what I said and then constructed a long elaborate series of arguments based on your own fertile imagination rather than truth and reality.

The best part of all of that, Ed is that everything you accuse me of engaging in you have made copiuos use of yourself.  But of course you don’t see it that way.  You’re just innocent little ol’ Ed and that rotten, disgusting jerk Bill just keeps picking on you for no good reason other than he’s a bully and gets off on tearing into righteous Ed. 

In reality, all that has ever happened is I have disagreed with statements you have made, expressed my own view on the matter, and questioned or challenged yours.  Then your move is to call me all kinds of awful things I presume, or at least hope, you would never actually say to anyone’s face, and make all kinds of assumptions about what kind of person I am or what my beliefs are, based on your own little perception you’ve constructed for yourself. 

I challenge any statement you make and I’m “calling you names” or “attacking” you or “being a bully” or “spin doctoring” or what the <expletive deleted> ever.  It’s a nice little technique to avoid dealing with the substance of my question, I guess.

Your double standard is a mile wide - there you are chiding me for “not granting the slightest benefit of the doubt in what the intent was,” yet not giving any of your own.  Well, I guess that’s understandable, given that I’m the world’s most miserable excuse for a human being and all.

Even on the occasions when I actually agree with some statement you’ve made, you use it as an opportunity to make some snarky dig.  I dunno.  I guess maybe I’ll just attribute it to the docs varying the level of your meds or something.  I mean, if you can make all kinds of baseless assumptions about who I am, what I believe, what I value and what kind of person I am, I suppose it’s ok for me to the same for you, right?  Oops, I forgot about that massive double standard.

All right, look.

The C-section reference was not to your post, but to Greta’s post. You indeed get confused on that one. So your reply was to a comment not even aimed at you or applicable to our little snit in any way.

My bad ? I could have specified that the C-section comment was a reply to Greta’s post but I thought you were paying attention, never a good assumption on a blog for any of us.

Why accuse you of spin doctoring ? Because that is what you are doing ?

This latest post no exception, just a hacked up screed stating “Bill is as innocent and pure as driven snow”. Yeah, I can support that one all right.

I have always found Bill to be of the utmost innocence. This man has “no agenda” and never has on this board. So why should I doubt him now.

Because he has a past history of always going for my elbow ?

Let me state one more time, the third time, why you were incorrect in saying I attributed the 20% increase to scheduled childbirth in the hopes you will pay attention to it this time. I listed several possible reasons why the increase might happen but I never said I had proof of anything or could account for all the increase. I made comments. That is all. Why read so much into it ?

Next time don’t quote me out of context. You would have to include all the comments, not just the yuppie childbirth, by the way.

Don’t claim innocence either when you say, “I made the egregious mistake of basing my comments on what you actually wrote.” Your egregious mistake, aside from an inclination for sarcasm, was in over interpreting my comments, inserting your own opinions and attitude, not granting the slightest benefit of the doubt in what the intent was, pretty much taking the words out of my mouth and inserting your own words, and quoting out of context.

That is called spin doctoring.

Extended arguments over inane details also constitute spin doctoring. Creating confusion where none should exist.

And please - don’t mention my waving finger again.  It’s just… feh.

Yeah right, Bill. You are so full of yourself. Am I the only one to ever notice this side of your personality ? I guess so. Bill is perfect and oh so innocent.  I forgot.  Silly me.

Is that paranoia ? No, not at all, it’s actually pretty standard for the blogosphere. Lots and lots of attitude, not friendly at all, unless talking to a buddy. Debate consists of pummeling your opponent - verbal cage fighting essentially.

Ed, the discussion would be friendly if not for you constantly engaging in the behavior you continually accuse me of engaging in. 

How are my arguments getting “uglier”?  You made a statement.  I responded to that statement and disagreed with it.  You then made a statement that appeared to be completely at odds with your earlier statement and questioned where I got the reference to C-sections from.  I pointed out your earlier statement, which included a reference to C-sections. 

Your response is to wave your finger at me, telling me my arguments are getting uglier and uglier, that I’m just trying to create confusion, trying to take you down and engaging in spin doctoring.  The only thing spinning is my head from trying to decipher what is going on in this conversation and figure out where you get these ideas from.

As far as my “agenda,” I have none on this topic.  As far as “twisting” your words, if a direct quote, consisting of copying and pasting your words directly from your previous post, unaltered in any way, constitutes “twisting” your words, well then I guess I’m guilty as charged.  Your latest plea seems more than a touch paranoid.  I’m really not out to get you, Ed.  Really. 

And please - don’t mention your genitals again.  It’s just… feh.

Bill,

Your arguments are getting ugly and uglier.

No need to color you confused. Your preferred mode appears to be confusion, causing and creating confusion.

I offered up several reasons which might account for the 20% rise. I made no effort to distinguish whether they made any significant contribution to that 20% or not. I just listed a few probable reasons. That’s all I said. Don’t try to read any more into it than that.

Just because you want to take me down please don’t cross the line into blatant spin doctoring.

What percentage of premature childbirths are scheduled ? It depends on how you define premature.  Many factors, some more than others, make up that 20%.

You asked what proof I had. I replied I never stated in my post I had proof of anything.  That wasn’t good enough for you because you seem intent only on twisting my words to suit your own agenda. 

I think the yuppie scheduled childbirth is an interesting phenomenon. It would be if this were a friendly discussion.

This discussion with you is friendly only if you count an angry pitbull leaping for your genitals as a widdle doggie companion. 

“If you have no proof to back it up, it’s not a “factoid”...”

That would be your own Rogernoid talking.

I do have the info I provided that states that scheduled childbirth before full term is happening and can be problematic. That is the simple fact of the matter.

Ed sez:

“Nowhere did I state that the increase in preemies is caused specifically by scheduled childbirth.

...

It has nothing to do with C-section, although that has a few health risks too. (Where did that come from ?)”

Gee, Ed, sorry - I guess I somehow misunderstood when you said:

“Why the 20% increase?

“One factoid a lot of people probably don’t know is that more mothers are electing to have premature births so that they end the agony of pregnancy quickly and can conveniently “schedule” the birth.

This is the ultimate in yuppy childbirth, a C-Section on demand, in between hair and nail appointments.”

I guess I still need to take another semester of translating Ed-ese, but it sure looks to me that’s where I to the idea you were suggesting that the increase was from scheduled childbirths by C-section - and that’s where the reference to C-section came from.

I made the egregious mistake of basing my comments on what you actually wrote.

Just color me confused.

If you have no proof to back it up, it’s not a “factoid”...it’s an opinionoid...or an opinoid. Hmmm...maybe an Ednoid?

Ednoid: an opinion put forth as fact and, when challenged, redefined as fact but maybe not so much.

Bill,

Just where do you get the idea that a doctor can tell a woman when she can or can’t have a baby? The Constitution clearly states that a doctor is duty bound to do whatever their patient demands. And they must also provide at least 3 flavors of blowpops* to each patient when the job is done as well.

* title 8, clause III subparagraph 18.9 specicically states that green blow pops are not considered a valid choice because no one ever takes the green ons and this can lead to lollopop hording and an unequal distribution of suckers...or is it suckers don’t get an equal distribution...or...of (salty expression) it!

I say social justice for all!

There. That was much easier and took more less thunkin!

Post Your Comments: