Follow this link to the reality check article posted on the White House blog.  The intial paragraph of the blog best explains its purpose.

In today’s Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer takes great pains to paint a bleak picture of health care reform as “monstrous,” “overregulated,” and rife with “arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.”  The columnist’s argument may be cogent and well-written, but it is wholly inaccurate.

This reality check was written by the new Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on November 27, 2009 at 05:14 PM EST. The article has many links to background information including a link to Krauthammer’s article.

The thing that I liked about this item is that it cites specific sections of the House of Representatives health care reform bill to demonstrate that the bill contains items that its critics say it lacks.

Prior to this posting, I was able to look into the bill to counter claims of things people said were in the bill but were actually not in the bill.  I hadn’t figured out a way to sift through the massive bill to find things in it that critics claimed were missing.

I have not checked the sections quoted in the article yet.  I have created this blog posting to record the location of the article for future reference.  As I see some of the claims made again that I have seen before, I will be able to look them up and demonstrate that the claim is false.

I just participated in a telephone conference call town hall meeting with Mike Capuano.

This lead me to do a little research on the web where I found this story from WBUR.

Follow this link to hear the audio of a radio report on what he did to establish an ethics body to investigate the ethical behavior of members of the House of Representatives. (I must admit his calling members of the Enterprise Institute “academics” was almost more than I could stomach.)

Follow this link to Mike Capuano’s campaign web site.

Having read the book How We Decide, by Jonah Lehrer, I know that I am trying to find reasons to justify my gut reaction that I like Representative Capuano as a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy.  I like to think that at least if I had found stuff not to like, I would have been able to change my mind. So far, the story just gets better as far as I am concerned.

Also I realize, having read Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, by Nicholas Taleb, that I am tending to look for confirmation of my preconceived notion when it might be more powerful to search for a counter argument. I’ll depend on my readers to present me with counter-arguments.

Watch this video of the pardon bestowed on Courage by President Obama.

The following videos show two debates among the Democratic candidates to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The Democratic Senate Debate – Oct. 26, 2009
Michael Capuano, Martha Coakley, Alan Khazei and Stephen Pagliuca

The Democratic Senate Debate – Nov. 23, 2009
Michael Capuano, Martha Coakley, Alan Khazei and Stephen Pagliuca

Follow this link to be able to view the first debate and also see more information about the candidates.

The info on the candidates includes Scott Brown (R) and Jack E. Robinson (R)

Follow this link to an article by Reuters about fraud in the health care system.

I post this as a way to balance yesterday’s post decrying the misuse of the Dartmouth study on variations in health care costs.

I don’t want people to think that I am naive enough to say that there is no fraud.  What frustrated me about the Dartmouth report was the implication that all variation was due to fraud.  No doubt some of the variation is due to fraud.  The Reuters article mentions estimates of fraud:

The FBI estimates that fraud accounts for 3 percent to 10 percent of U.S. healthcare expenditure per year, and Gillies said it could easily cost about $200 billion annually.

The variations in the Dartmouth report are far larger than 3 to 10 percent.  Of course, fraud may be centered in specific areas of the country and account for far larger fraction of the costs in that particular location than is the national average.

There may be a particularly concentrated amount of fraud going on in south Florida.  According to the article:

Florida has long been known for its unsavory association with cocaine cartels, political shenanigans and swampland real estate deals.

Gillies says the state is also now “ground zero for healthcare fraud” since so many elderly Americans have retired to end their days in its famous sunshine.

Also remember that the estimate of fraud is for the entire health care system.  It is not limited to the government insured part, Medicare and Medicaid.

The following video is of the NBC Nightly News report of the Dartmouth study of the variation of medicare costs by location.

Here is the email that I sent to NBC Nightly News at Nightly@NBC.com.

Brian Williams and Lester Holt,

Your report on the Dartmouth Medicare Health Care Cost Study was very naive. Below is the email I sent to Dartmouth cecs.atlas@dartmouth.edu about the serious flaws in their study. I wish your chief science correspondent understood statistical studies enough to have realized the questions that should have been asked before swallowing this crock hook, line, and sinker.

In the future, Robert Bazell needs to recognize his own limitations so that he can ask for help in formulating crucial questions to ask before reporting so gullibly these kinds of stories.

/Steven Greenberg

Steven Greenberg wrote:

Your health care cost study appears to me to be seriously flawed.

In the press release there is no indication that the variations you measured from location to location were adjusted for the age of the population, the poverty rate, urban versus suburban or rural, or a host of other things that might explain the discrepancy.

For instance in comparing Miami to Ft. Lauderdale, you did not account for the density of population in Miami compared to Ft. Lauderdale. You didn’t indicate the average age of the populations in the two cities. You did not account for the fact that the Cuban American population make-up between the two cities might be vastly different. You did not account for the fact that Miami may be the medical hub and therefore attracts the hard cases. Perhaps Miami has a higher concentration of sophisticated diagnostic tools and thus attracts patients who need them. In other words, if you know you are getting to an age where you will need intensive medical care, you might decide to live in Miami rather than in Ft. Lauderdale.

In your publicity, why talk about the assumed causes of the disparities until you have done some analysis as to which ones might be the actual causes? Your discussion of the possible causes is highly unbalanced as you didn’t mention the obvious possibilities that I mention above.

It is unfair of you to take advantage of the abysmal lack of sophistication in the media for being able to understand the meaning of statistical studies. You should know that reporters and editors are not able to judge any stories that involve numbers. Did any of these reporters even raise any issues like the ones I have raised in this email?

/Steven Greenberg

Follow this link to the story on the Financial Times web site. If the Financial Times link gives you trouble, follow this link to a briefer account on Reuters.

This is the type of anti-competitive practice that our Department of Justice should not allow.  Microsoft should not be allowed to pay money to interfere with the relation between two other companies.  Until the Bush years, I thought this behavior was illegal.  I don’t think the law changed.  I think the policeman on the beat decided to go out and have some doughnuts instead of enforcing the law.

If our DOJ is too whimpy, surely the European Union will put the kibosh on this deal.  They can certainly slap a huge fine on Microsoft if the EU’s past history is any indication.

This is another example of an attempt by  Microsoft to interfere in the world of computers to the detriment of all computer users.  It may be time to break up Microsoft into little pieces before they completely destroy the future of computing.

Dear Steven,

Last night, we reached another historic milestone in the fight for real health care reform. The Senate passed the first procedural hurdle in moving the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act forward with a successful 60-39 vote to proceed on the bill.

We needed 60 votes to move forward, and that’s exactly what we got. So does this mean the fight is over?

Not even close.

Republicans are going to use every trick in the book to beat this bill — delays, poison-pill amendments, and distortions about the bill — whatever it takes. And there will be plenty of more times we need to fight for every last vote.

You and thousands of others have made a real difference by adding your names to our list of supporters of the bill. Will you take the next step and tell your friends to join you?

Forward this message to your friends and tell them to take action at:

http://www.chrisdodd.com/SupportHealthCareReform

Thank you so much for your support. We made history last night, but there is still much to do. I’ll keep you updated as we make progress on this bill.

Sincerely,
Chris

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Chris Dodd
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009
Subject: Big News

Dear Friend, Big news from the Senate: last night, Harry Reid released the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. This begins perhaps the most important phase in the health care fight, where the full Senate will debate what stays in this bill, what goes, and what gets added. I am proud to have had a hand in creating this bill, and I strongly support its passage. It includes a strong public option that will make the insurance market more competitive and more fair to consumers. The bill has effective reforms that will help cover nearly all Americans. Here are a few of the many good reasons to support this bill: The bill creates an "opt-out" public option that will bring prices down and make insurance companies compete for your business. It ends discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions, so insurance companies can no longer deny them coverage. It expands Medicaid for low-income Americans, strengthens Medicare, and reduces the prescription drug benefit "donut hole" for seniors. It improves health care quality, promotes preventative care, and lowers prices. It will cover 31 million Americans who are currently without insurance. This bill will reduce the federal deficit by $127 billion over the next 10 years, and $650 billion in the 10 years after that. I’m going to do everything I can to make sure this bill passes the Senate without any changes that make it weaker or less effective. And I will fight to make sure that the public option stays in. The first thing I need in this fight? Your support. I need as many people as possible to state their public support for the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. The more people we have supporting strong reform, the easier it will be to pass. It’s that simple. Click here to add your name to our list of supporters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. Today — the day the bill hits the Senate floor — may be the the most important day in the fight for health care reform. With quick action, we can show that this bill has the overwhelming support of the American people. We couldn’t have gotten this far without your help. Thanks for everything you’ve done, and let’s keep it up! Sincerely, Chris   If you feel you have received this message in error, we apologize. You can unsubscribe at any time. Privacy Policy Paid for by Friends of Chris Dodd Contributions to Friends of Chris Dodd are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Corporate contributions are prohibited by law. All content © 2009 Friends of Chris Dodd P.O. Box 270701, West Hartford, CT 06127

MoveOn.Org has the following video to emphasize the cost of delay by Congress.

If you have some spare dollars, you follow this link can contribute to putting this ad on the air.