Democrats Unveil Their Health care Bill

[netcrusher88]

By using enterprise systems in your analogy you're thinking both too small and the wrong way. Because enterprise systems have shareholders to answer to who don't really give a shit about the end result so long as it doesn't cost them money - or at least that's how enterprises act, and how they're supposed to.

There is another kind of system rarely seen outside of government - the kind that does not fail, and if it does you have much, much bigger problems (like global thermonuclear war or something). For that matter, odds are when you have much, much bigger problems than it failing, it's still chugging along at sufficient capacity to work. You do it by putting in redundancy and fallbacks at every possible level, and it's expensive. A cost:benefit analysis on this kind of thing typically only works if it's a hobby or a public good, and you typically see it in communications. The Internet falls under the "you've got bigger problems" category, and emergency communications (which can include the Internet as one potential transport) under the "...but it's still working so you can worry about them instead" category. Quality radio equipment and that sort of thing. Hell, even the kind of system you could reasonably have in an enterprise could be in the "you've got bigger problems" category - it's a question of how much redundancy you can afford.

Still, it's a bad analogy. The issue here is not one of technical failure.

Also, we can eliminate the horror stories that our current system is rife with, all we need to do is accept and be willing to vote as a people (and in government) that the free market has failed miserably at everything it's supposed to excel at except funneling wealth into a relatively very few pockets and that there is a perfectly good alternative that we can see works incredibly well with little more than a cursory glance around the world.

[Jessica]

Your current system is set up to favour the rich, white and male. It makes sense that rich white males don't want it. The government's job is to care not about the majority, but all it's people. Business has no drive to care about those it finds unfortunate, as going for the majority is the most likely way to make money. It's funny how, in a profit driven industry, the ones with the most income are the ones who are favoured.

The role of the government is to defend the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

[tzvibish]

By using enterprise systems in your analogy you're thinking both too small and the wrong way. Because enterprise systems have shareholders to answer to who don't really give a shit about the end result so long as it doesn't cost them money - or at least that's how enterprises act, and how they're supposed to.

There is another kind of system rarely seen outside of government - the kind that does not fail, and if it does you have much, much bigger problems (like global thermonuclear war or something). For that matter, odds are when you have much, much bigger problems than it failing, it's still chugging along at sufficient capacity to work. You do it by putting in redundancy and fallbacks at every possible level, and it's expensive. A cost:benefit analysis on this kind of thing typically only works if it's a hobby or a public good, and you typically see it in communications. The Internet falls under the "you've got bigger problems" category, and emergency communications (which can include the Internet as one potential transport) under the "...but it's still working so you can worry about them instead" category. Quality radio equipment and that sort of thing. Hell, even the kind of system you could reasonably have in an enterprise could be in the "you've got bigger problems" category - it's a question of how much redundancy you can afford.

Still, it's a bad analogy. The issue here is not one of technical failure.

Also, we can eliminate the horror stories that our current system is rife with, all we need to do is accept and be willing to vote as a people (and in government) that the free market has failed miserably at everything it's supposed to excel at except funneling wealth into a relatively very few pockets and that there is a perfectly good alternative that we can see works incredibly well with little more than a cursory glance around the world.

I agree with your categorization, but I still think those fallbacks and redundencies fall under the systems analysis description of that .001, in that the costs increase exponentially. You're right that in cases of thermonuclear war, the benefits go far and above the costs. The question behind healthcare becomes how much redundency and protections can the people afford in the form of government intervention and regulation, because ultimately the costs will be absorbed by the people in some way.

I do not agree that our system is one big failure. That's a huge blanket statement that completely ignores the ways in which the system works. The free market has created an environment where people want a service from insurance companies, and insurance companies are incentivized into providing the service. Both sides want to get the upper ground and save money, so government sets up regualtions and guidelines to make sure that happens fairly. That system has worked. A number of people are still getting screwed over, but it is not the norm. So, do you scrap the system and spend a trillion dollars in overhauls that may or may not work, or do you reform the current system by updating the regulation to further protect the consumer at a much much lower cost?

[Heisenberg]

The role of the government is to defend the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Really? That term refers to majorities using democracy to force minorities to accept a system they don't want. Like, say, a liberal majority forcing individuals who don't want insurance to buy it. Insurance companies insuring people who can afford it is not "tyranny of the majority," it's capitalism.

[Hawknc]

The role of the government is to defend the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Really? That term refers to majorities using democracy to force minorities to accept a system they don't want. Like, say, a liberal majority forcing individuals who don't want insurance to buy it. Insurance companies insuring people who can afford it is not "tyranny of the majority," it's capitalism.

I thought the public option was just that - an option. Who's forcing every American to ditch their private insurance policies?

[tzvibish]

The role of the government is to defend the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the role of government in a democracy is to ensure that the will of the representative majority is upheld as long as nobody's rights are being violated.

[Heisenberg]

I thought the public option was just that - an option. Who's forcing every American to ditch their private insurance policies?

It is. I was referring to the mandate forcing the uninsured to purchase a policy.

[Hawknc]

I'm not going to say I agree with forcing people to buy insurance, but as far as I can see, the rationale for that is that you won't just let a citizen walk into a hospital and be treated without cost. I will say I prefer the carrot approach, though - far better to provide tax incentives for being privately insured than to punish people for not doing so.

[Silknor]

I'm not going to say I agree with forcing people to buy insurance, but as far as I can see, the rationale for that is that you won't just let a citizen walk into a hospital and be treated without cost. I will say I prefer the carrot approach, though - far better to provide tax incentives for being privately insured than to punish people for not doing so.

That's not the rationale. The point of the individual mandate is to make the insurance pool less risky by inducing more healthy people to get coverage. Insurance doesn't work if only people likely to cost the insurer more than they pay sign up. But by making the individual mandate so low (maxing out at $750 per year in the Senate Finance bill for example), it probably won't get everyone to sign up anyway.

[Cynical Idealist]

Oh, shit, is that it? Guys, relax, it's okay, it's just .001 percent.

Wait, 40 million is .001 percent? We have.... 40 billion people in this country?

That...doesn't seem right, are you sure?

Ok, fine. Completely ignore the point and focus on an arbitrary number I gave that I admitted was not based on fact and that was based on theory of systems analysis.

The idea is still the same. You can't have a perfect system, and you do what you can to limit the inevitable downtime. Switching systems will just create different pitfalls and difefrent downtimes.

There's a huge difference between 13% (and change) and 0.001%. And 13% shouldn't be anywhere near the point where it requires too many resources to pay for improvement.

[tzvibish]

Oh, shit, is that it? Guys, relax, it's okay, it's just .001 percent.

Wait, 40 million is .001 percent? We have.... 40 billion people in this country?

That...doesn't seem right, are you sure?

Ok, fine. Completely ignore the point and focus on an arbitrary number I gave that I admitted was not based on fact and that was based on theory of systems analysis.

The idea is still the same. You can't have a perfect system, and you do what you can to limit the inevitable downtime. Switching systems will just create different pitfalls and difefrent downtimes.

There's a huge difference between 13% (and change) and 0.001%. And 13% shouldn't be anywhere near the point where it requires too many resources to pay for improvement.

And I've said that I'm all for improvement. It desperately needs improvement.

.001% is the failure rate of a perfect system (in analysis). Obviously, a non-perfect system with have higher failure rates. And obviously, the failure rate of a human-based system like health care will be significantly higher than a failure rate in an IT system, which only makes the mistakes its instructed to make. The point is not the specific number, but that failure is a ubiquitous fact of life is big systems. Horror stories of people getting screwed will always happen, and I'm not convinced of anything when I hear them. It's sad, but it's not enough reason to disown the system. Especially when numbers are thrown every which way and assumptions are made about everybody's reason not to be insured. I agree that there are serious flaws in the system and that there are ways that the system can and should be improved, but don't tell me that we need to scratch the whole idea of private insurance because of a small minority of people who aren't getting the coverage that they may or may not be able to pay for.

[nyeguy]

I agree that there are serious flaws in the system and that there are ways that the system can and should be improved, but don't tell me that we need to scratch the whole idea of private insurance because of a small minority of people who aren't getting the coverage that they may or may not be able to pay for.

Your entire argument rests on the crux that a "small minority" of people aren't getting coverage, and that small minority is not worth the improvement costs. Yet when it is pointed out to you that 40 million people is not a small minority, you look the other way and keep spouting this same argument.

[mmmcannibalism]

I agree that there are serious flaws in the system and that there are ways that the system can and should be improved, but don't tell me that we need to scratch the whole idea of private insurance because of a small minority of people who aren't getting the coverage that they may or may not be able to pay for.

Your entire argument rests on the crux that a "small minority" of people aren't getting coverage, and that small minority is not worth the improvement costs. Yet when it is pointed out to you that 40 million people is not a small minority, you look the other way and keep spouting this same argument.

40/300 million is one out of every seven and a half people

not even factoring in that not all 40 million are failures of the system(many are illegally here which is another issue, or choose not to get coverage) you are still risking 260 million people's coverage for 40 millions.

[The Great Hippo]

not even factoring in that not all 40 million are failures of the system(many are illegally here which is another issue, or choose not to get coverage) you are still risking 260 million people's coverage for 40 millions.

Also remember, a considerable number of those who are insured actually aren't insured as well as they think they are. Recall that cite I posted earlier? 75% of the medical bankruptcies they studied were filed by people with medical insurance.

The 40 million number may be very, very misleadingly low.

[Dangermouse]

I agree that there are serious flaws in the system and that there are ways that the system can and should be improved, but don't tell me that we need to scratch the whole idea of private insurance because of a small minority of people who aren't getting the coverage that they may or may not be able to pay for.

Your entire argument rests on the crux that a "small minority" of people aren't getting coverage, and that small minority is not worth the improvement costs. Yet when it is pointed out to you that 40 million people is not a small minority, you look the other way and keep spouting this same argument.

40/300 million is one out of every seven and a half people

not even factoring in that not all 40 million are failures of the system(many are illegally here which is another issue, or choose not to get coverage) you are still risking 260 million people's coverage for 40 millions.

Except that we already have universal coverage--it's just the worst possible universal coverage arrangement in the world!

The 260 million people with 'coverage' pay vastly inflated costs due to the fact that the uninsured don't engage in preventative (and inexpensive) medical plans, instead waiting until a disease is in its late stages. This treatment is funneled into ER's, which further inflates the price. Since no one short of the very wealthy can pay an ER bill for something minor like breaking an arm--say nothing of cancer treatments--this cost is shifted to those who pay for insurance (either through bankruptcy or hardship settlements with the hospital).

Lets not forget that those so-called 'failures of the system' are picking the tomatoes that go onto your Taco Bell. I should hope that you would possess the basic human decency to provide these people with baseline medical care--not to mention the fact that this would lower your healthcare bill, too.

[Heisenberg]

The 40 million number may be very, very misleadingly low.

It's likely misleadingly high. The 40 million number is the number of uninsured on any given day. The number of Americans who go without insurance for a year is likely much lower, closer to 20-30 million, but I can't find a study on that since 1998. As unemployment includes people between jobs, so does that number include people between insurers.

To look at a breakdown of the 40 million, I found this chart.



Granted, it's from a conservative source, but the numbers are at least reasonably close to where they should be. The Medicaid Undercount is the number of people, according to HHS, that reported to the census that they were uninsured even though they had Medicaid. I'm not sure why he separates the bottom two categories. Basically, the people this legislation is trying to help, or the people the system "failed," number around 15 million. Of course, to extrapolate "they couldn't afford this service" to "the system failed them" seems pretty dramatic.

Edit: If anyone can find an unbiased source, I'd welcome it. I thought some numbers would be better than none, in this case.

[Chen]

Yeah that 40ish million number is pretty misleading in multiple ways. As pointed out it doesn't include people who think they have no insurance but are covered. It also includes those are willingly not covered. What it doesn't include are those who are covered but are likely to get dropped if something serious comes up but the insurance companies can weasel out of paying out for them. People will use the number for or against their argument, and spin it the way they want, without considering the inaccuracy in it. Since it can be spun both ways just using the number of evidence doesn't really help anyone's position. All it does is obfuscate fact with a big number to shock people with.

[Maduyn]

Even if this bill covers only 15 million it's still worth it.

This also doesn't tell us how many of those people cant get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
Since this bill prevents people discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.
It could be a large number of the population that could lose their jobs and could no longer get coverage that this bill would prevent from adding to the number of uninsured

[Malice]

Also, there are the underinsured, and the people who think they're insured but won't be once they get too sick to be profitable.

[The Great Hippo]

Also, there are the underinsured, and the people who think they're insured but won't be once they get too sick to be profitable.

Yeah, that's more or less what I meant when I said that the number might be misleadingly low - that there are large swathes of the population who may be included as 'insured', but don't actually qualify except under the most charitable definitions of 'insured'. The fact that there's a sizable number of medical bankruptcies filed by people who thought they had adequate coverage... That's a little scary, as it hints the problem is far, far deeper than it looks.

[Thriftweed]

Your current system is set up to favour the rich, white and male.

Those properties aren't comparable. In the US a rich black woman is on par with a rich white man, at least when compared to any poor (or even middle class) person. There may be a certain amount of discrimination against the non-white or non-male, but it is nothing compared to the difference in rights and opportunities available to the rich as compared to everybody else.

[netcrusher88]

In the specific context of health insurance you do have a point, but not much of one. If you'd read through this thread you'd see that pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition (and a reason to deny or terminate coverage - not that they could afford it on unpaid maternity leave anyway) along with any number of other things not only unique to women but common among women, and the end result is that women pay up to 84% more for health insurance except in the 11 states that have outlawed gender indexing.

I don't know of a similar number for racial minorities but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there is one.

[Aetius]

In the specific context of health insurance you do have a point, but not much of one. If you'd read through this thread you'd see that pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition (and a reason to deny or terminate coverage - not that they could afford it on unpaid maternity leave anyway) along with any number of other things not only unique to women but common among women, and the end result is that women pay up to 84% more for health insurance except in the 11 states that have outlawed gender indexing.

I don't know of a similar number for racial minorities but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there is one.

I believe we had this discussion earlier in the thread, but those are reflections of differing circumstances in the healthcare needs of women vs men, not indication of a system set up to deprive women of insurance just because.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

That's disputed. Either way, though, the statement that "[our] current system is set up to favour the rich, white and male" is still valid.

[Aetius]

That's disputed. Either way, though, the statement that "[our] current system is set up to favour the rich, white and male" is still valid.

It's set up to favor the rich, no doubt about that, but what evidence is there of the other two? White men don't get cheaper care or preferential access to care (in a way that isn't a function of their financial resources). It's just a sloppy equivalence because white male correlates to a higher degree with rich.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

It's just a sloppy equivalence because white male correlates to a higher degree with rich.

OK. So if those correlate, and you're favoring the rich, then you're also favoring white men. You don't have to be favoring them because they're white men for the system to work in their favor.

If I wanted to pull this chain apart further, I could say that the system favors those who receive the best care. And, of course, that correlates strongly with wealth, which in turn correlates with race and gender. There's no need to break the chain at any of those points; those are all groups privileged under the current system.

[Aetius]

It's just a sloppy equivalence because white male correlates to a higher degree with rich.

OK. So if those correlate, and you're favoring the rich, then you're also favoring white men. You don't have to be favoring them because they're white men for the system to work in their favor.

If I wanted to pull this chain apart further, I could say that the system favors those who receive the best care. And, of course, that correlates strongly with wealth, which in turn correlates with race and gender. There's no need to break the chain at any of those points; those are all groups privileged under the current system.

Being a successful film director correlates highly with wealth, but there's really no reason to say that the US healthcare system "favors the rich, and film directors." It's redundant at best, and at worst implies that film directors are privileged for a reason beyond their wealth.

Breaking the chain at the groups that are favored because they are in that group is a perfect place to break the chain. It's the one spot that contains all the relevant information with nothing superfluous tacked on. I don't see why you wouldn't break it there. "The healthcare system in the US favors the rich, with all that implies," suffices perfectly.

[Thriftweed]

In the specific context of health insurance you do have a point, but not much of one. If you'd read through this thread you'd see that pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition (and a reason to deny or terminate coverage - not that they could afford it on unpaid maternity leave anyway) along with any number of other things not only unique to women but common among women, and the end result is that women pay up to 84% more for health insurance except in the 11 states that have outlawed gender indexing.

I don't know of a similar number for racial minorities but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there is one.

I read enough of this thread to be aware of that, so you don't need to be so condescending. As I am sure has been mentioned before, any discrimination against women is indirect. The health insurance companies don't like paying for anything expensive, and pregnancy just happens to be on of those expensive things. I'm sure they'd also deny coverage/charge ridiculous rates to any man with Prostatitis or Orchitis. Saying that they are targeting women is disingenuous; they are mistreating everyone, ripping them off to the greatest degree that they can, and women, through random chance, are receiving slightly worse treatment.

Also, this disparity has much less impact on the rich. Anyone with enough money to reasonably be considered 'rich' will almost certainly already have medical insurance before any condition develops, and any difference that may exist between the rates charged to rich men and rich women will be such a small percentage of their total income as to be almost totally irrelevant, especially when considering the difference between the percentage of income payed by rich people as compared to anyone else.

Basically, I'm saying that claiming "[the] current system is set up to favour the rich, white and male" is like accusing someone of "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking". It may be true, but that last bit isn't really the main problem.

That's disputed. Either way, though, the statement that "[our] current system is set up to favour the rich, white and male" is still valid.

Really? What possible motivation would they have to say "Oh, and lets screw things up for women, just because"? The only plausible explanation I've heard is greed, which only targets women indirectly and by chance. (Not to say that's not bad, of course.)

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

The only plausible explanation I've heard is greed, which only targets women indirectly and by chance. (Not to say that's not bad, of course.)

This is exactly what I've been saying for my last several posts. Are you sure you're reading this thread?

Edit: Also, you've linked to tvtropes. You horrible person!

[Thriftweed]

This is exactly what I've been saying for my last several posts.

You seemed to be saying that favoring the rich is also related to favoring white men, without address the prior point. Aetius said the system wasn't "set up to deprive women of insurance just because", and you replied "That's disputed". I was just wondering what possible argument could exist that they are randomly targeting women for any reason other than greed.

Are you sure you're reading this thread?

Pretty sure. This is the one about high automobile insurance rates, right?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Aetius said the system wasn't "set up to deprive women of insurance just because", and you replied "That's disputed". I was just wondering what possible argument could exist that they are randomly targeting women for any reason other than greed.

Oh, the dispute... One of the objections raised is that there is a far greater discrepancy between men's and women's insurance premiums than between their actual coverage costs. I think there were some numbers somewhere... At this moment, I consider myself far too lazy to find them.

Pretty sure. This is the one about high automobile insurance rates, right?

[Prefanity]

Thriftweed, are you certain you want to connect conditions involving the prostate and testes with pregnancy? I don't think the former two are things most men and women expect to cause at some point in their lifetimes, whereas pregnancies sort of are. Also, it's not "through random chance" that women are being charged more for insurance, it's because the medical needs of women are quite a bit different than the needs of men. In short, women are charged more for being women. I agree that we can't quite divorce our terms "rich", "white" and "male" from each other, but rich women still pay more for insurance than rich men.

[Thriftweed]

Oh, the dispute... One of the objections raised is that there is a far greater discrepancy between men's and women's insurance premiums than between their actual coverage costs. I think there were some numbers somewhere... At this moment, I consider myself far too lazy to find them.

If that's the case (and I'll check the bits of the thread I skimmed over shortly) then I'll join in with the collective 'WTF?'. That sounds like they're going out of their way to be evil, but given what else they do I wouldn't be that surprised. Either way, I'm glad I live in a country where we don't have to deal with that sort of thing. (When it comes to health care, that is. The aforementioned auto-insurance companies are still pretty evil.)

Thriftweed, are you certain you want to connect conditions involving the prostate and testes with pregnancy? I don't think the former two are things most men and women expect to cause at some point in their lifetimes, whereas pregnancies sort of are.

I was pointing out that focusing on a condition that only affects one gender will obviously bring up cases were that gender is at a disadvantage, and that insurance companies reject anyone they think will cost them money, not just women. Also, some of those things are more common than you may think:

Prostatitis is an inflammation of the prostate gland, in men. A prostatitis diagnosis is assigned at 8% of all urologist and 1% of all primary care physician visits in the United States.

Given how many times a person visits a primary care physician in their lifetime, that seems to have a non-negligible chance of happening.

Also, it's not "through random chance" that women are being charged more for insurance, it's because the medical needs of women are quite a bit different than the needs of men. In short, women are charged more for being women.

Women's health care cost's more. Insurance companies don't like paying for things, so they pass this cost on to the women. Their line of reasoning is "group A has higher costs/risks, so let's charge them more", not "group A is female, so let's charge them more". Saying "women are charged more for being women" implies intentional sexism, where it is not obvious (or even likely) that intentional sexism exists.

I agree that we can't quite divorce our terms "rich", "white" and "male" from each other, but rich women still pay more for insurance than rich men.

I was saying the difference in the premiums payed (as a percentage of salary) between 'rich' and 'poor' is much more significant than the difference between 'male' and 'female', and as such the system favors rich people to a much more than it favors men.

[Bubbles McCoy]

What was said about the discrepancy being unfair was based out somewhat misrepresented statistics. The most extreme discrepancy found was 84% more, but if they're only measuring lowest cost male to highest cost female in the age 25 bracket at one insurance company (not a particularly useful number). The National Women's Law Center study where the 84% number was taken gave a 6-45% average increase for women among the various health plans they surveyed, a difference that fits squarely within the 30% average increase in a woman's lifetime fees figure that Decker gave. The average rate actually dips once women enter their fifties, at age 55 women pay 22% less to 8% more compared to men.

[Le1bn1z]

Not even going to bother citing this one. It's all over the Interwebs.

I'm still upset that they're going to ban pre-existing conditions from being valid reason to deny coverage. This doesn't make sense to me.

Insurance is a gambling industry. They calculate their premiums based on how much they think they'll have to pay for your care. They hope you don't get sick, because then they profit. If you are already sick, why would they want to cover you at the same rate as someone who might get sick later? They would just charge you premiums to pay for your treatments in full, and you wouldn't gain anything. Does forcing pre-existing condition coverage mean that the bill will force insurance companies to lose money of these people?

The problem isn't just "preexisting conditions" per se, its retroactive revocation of coverage due to preexisting conditions, especially not relevant to the coverage. For example: You have a heart attack. But it turns out you had acne when you were 16. Currently, your insurance company can take your money, and then dump you.

Many of you who THINK you are covered really are not. When you run into trouble, your insurer will leave you. This particular clause is about consumer rights.

Then again, as a Canadian, I don't really care. In fact, I hope it fails.

It's hard enough to compete with American companies in the American market (our biggest export target, which dominates our economic activity.) Every advantage you give us helps. For example, Ontario's done well for itself in technology and manufacturing because more efficient healthcare means substantially lower labour costs. Since your government is forced to raise taxes or continue into its endless death spiral of fiscal incompetence to cover your unnessesarily expensive healthcare system, our government can keep our taxes lower, keep our debt in check (prior to your economy going belly up and market evaporating, we were running on a decade of balanced budgets) and put more money into schools, universities, infastructure and research.

It's amazing. Not only do you have to pay for private coverage, but American healthcare TAXES are the highest in the developed world, to provide just about the least coverage! LOL!!! Talk about the worst of both worlds.

So, please, America, vote for higher taxes, a weaker economy and worse health (and more competitive advantages for us), and back the Republicans to kill public healthcare! Canada's counting on you!

[Random832]

Oh, the dispute... One of the objections raised is that there is a far greater discrepancy between men's and women's insurance premiums than between their actual coverage costs. I think there were some numbers somewhere... At this moment, I consider myself far too lazy to find them.

Actual coverage costs were not, in fact, among the numbers provided.

[apeman5291]

It's just a sloppy equivalence because white male correlates to a higher degree with rich.

OK. So if those correlate, and you're favoring the rich, then you're also favoring white men. You don't have to be favoring them because they're white men for the system to work in their favor.

Semantics:

Spoiler:

The original phrasing was:

Your current system is set up to favour the rich, white and male.

(emphasis mine)
Certainly, due to correlation, the system ends up favoring the rich, white, and male. There's really no arguing that. However, the phrasing in question speaks of the intent of the system, in that it was set up to favor particular groups. Being set up a certain way and ending up a certain way because of it are two different things.

[BlackSails]

So what do you all think of the amendment that will require payments for Christian science prayer therapy and magical healing touch and for people who shoot invisible magical healing fire at people? I wish it were just an amendment to try to muck with the bill and destroy it, but that is sadly not the case.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2196